"When we say 'meditation sitting,' let's examine: is it a person sitting or is it just sitting? What enables us to sit now - is it a person or supporting air element? Standing - is it a person or supporting air element? Walking and moving - is it a person or moving air element?
Isn't the air element material form (rūpa)? Isn't the knowing of air element mental form (nāma)? These are the two elements - nāma and rūpa. When meditating, do we find people or nāma-rūpa? Do we find men and women or nāma-rūpa?
We only find nāma-rūpa, isn't this what's taught as ñāta pariññā (knowledge of the known)? What we think are humans, devas, and brahmas - what we find is just nāma and rūpa. Shouldn't we take what we actually find as truth?
Let's sit in our mind and wisdom. When we sit, doesn't our bottom touch the floor? When there's contact, shouldn't we be mindful? Isn't this taught as 'contact-knowing-mindfulness'?
When being mindful, do we find floor or hardness? Do we find buttocks or body-sensitivity? Because of sensitivity, doesn't the knowing mind arise? Does this knowing mind know 'floor' or know 'hardness'?
That consciousness (viññāṇa) which knows hardness, body-consciousness - can we point to where it exists before the contact of two material elements? It only arises when two material elements meet.
Can knowing hardness occur with consciousness alone? Don't feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), and volition (cetanā) accompany it?
Is the feeling of hardness human feeling, deva feeling, or brahma feeling? Is the perception of hardness human, deva, or brahma perception? Is the volition that drives feeling and perception self or non-self?
When feeling, perception, and volition combine, don't they complete the four mental aggregates? Only when these four are complete does contact-consciousness arise. Are these human, deva, brahma, or just four mental aggregates?
Is body-sensitivity human, deva, or brahma? Is hardness (earth element) human, deva, or brahma? When we analyze the aggregates, don't we find material aggregate?
Four mental aggregates plus material aggregate make (Five aggregates, Venerable Sir). What we think are humans, devas, brahmas - what we find are five aggregates. Shouldn't we take what we find as truth?
Upon these five aggregates, don't people designate various kinds of humans, devas, brahmas, animals, petas, and hell beings?
These are just designations and names. Whether designated or not, there are just five aggregates. Didn't the Buddha call Ānanda 'brother,' Rāhula 'son,' and disciples 'dear children'?
Did the Buddha reject these conventional designations? What did he reject? Isn't it worth examining? Don't we think 'person'? But what we find - is it a person or nāma-rūpa? We only find nāma-rūpa.
Isn't it clear that we find nāma-rūpa? Is it because a person exists or doesn't exist that we don't find one? Shouldn't we say this is what's rejected? Strive to reach this understanding..."
