"What's important is understanding the aggregates (khandha), the Noble Truths (sacca), and Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda).
Therefore, in the five aggregates we have: form (rūpa), feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), mental formations (saṅkhāra), and consciousness (viññāṇa).
In terms of sense bases (āyatana), there are 12: six internal and six external bases. This needs to be understood and studied.
In terms of elements (dhātu), there are 18.
In terms of Noble Truths, there are 4.
In terms of Dependent Origination, there are 12 links. It's beneficial to understand all of these.
Even if one doesn't understand everything, deeply comprehending just one physical and one mental phenomenon is enough to realize emptiness (suññatā). No matter how much you understand theoretically, the practice involves observing either a physical or mental phenomenon. When observing physical form, the mental aspect is included; when observing the mental, the physical is included. Isn't this how it's taught? Don't we need to understand both physical and mental phenomena? Think about this. Let's discuss this practically.
When looking with ordinary eyes at a spittoon, don't we say we see a spittoon? If asked whether the spittoon is physical or mental, how would you answer? You'd say physical. Both physical and mental phenomena are suitable objects for vipassanā, remember.
But when looking with the eye of wisdom, do you see a spittoon or do you see just color/form? You don't actually see a spittoon. So what is the actual object of seeing - a spittoon or just visual form? Why don't you see a spittoon?
What you actually experience - is it a spittoon or just visual form? Ah, visual form is suitable for vipassanā practice. Is the spittoon not found because it exists or because it doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist, is it really physical?
If a spittoon were physical, why can't we find it? What proves that there's no spittoon? The visual form (rūpakkhandha) proves it. Isn't this worth studying?
Don't we conceive of it as a spittoon? Don't we assume it exists? Is it seeing or hearing? Is this something others need to tell us, or is it our direct experience? Is it a spittoon or sound that we hear? It's sound.
Though we conceive of it as a spittoon, what we're actually hearing - is it a spittoon or just sound? When we touch it with wisdom-hand, do we find a spittoon or just hardness? Hardness is earth element (pathavī).
At the moment of knowing hardness, do we still find a spittoon? Why don't we find the spittoon? Because it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, is 'spittoon' really physical? No, it's not physical - isn't this worth examining? It's just a concept (nāmapaññatti). Isn't this worth studying?
Similarly, we don't find a spittoon - we only find the characteristic of hardness. When we know hardness, do we find a spittoon? Keep examining this repeatedly. Why can't we find it? Would someone who truly believes in its non-existence still cling to it?"
"Let's study again. With ordinary eyes, look at the five fingers of your hand - thumb, index finger, middle finger, ring finger, and little finger. Isn't this worth studying?
When looking with the eye of wisdom, do you see a thumb or just color/form? Do you see an index finger or just color/form? Do you see a middle finger or just color/form? Do you see a ring finger or just color/form? Do you see a little finger or just color/form? See how form (rūpakkhandha) is included in the five aggregates? Isn't this worth studying?
Though we conceive of it as a thumb, don't we assume it exists? When we touch it, do we find a thumb or just hardness?
When we think it's an index finger and touch it, do we find a finger or just hardness?
When we think it's a middle finger and touch it, do we find a finger or just hardness?
When we think it's a ring finger and touch it, do we find a finger or just hardness?
When we think it's a little finger and touch it, do we find a finger or just hardness?
This hardness-nature, hardness-element, hardness-ultimate reality - isn't it called an element because it carries its own characteristic? Isn't it called ultimate reality because it's irreducible?
Now we only find hardness. We don't find thumb, index finger, middle finger, ring finger, or little finger. We only find the characteristic of hardness.
When we experience hardness, do we find a thumb? An index finger? A middle finger? A ring finger? A little finger? We only find the characteristic of hardness.
If we can't find fingers, can we find hands and feet? If we can't find hands and feet, can we find a body? If we can't find a body, can we find a person?
We don't find a person either. From head to toe, where we think there's a person, when we examine with Buddha-given wisdom-hand, don't we find hardness and softness?
Hardness is earth element, softness is earth element. Is the knowing of hardness and softness a self or body-consciousness? Isn't this mental phenomena? Isn't hardness and softness physical phenomena? So we have both mental and physical phenomena. Isn't this worth considering?
Now, do we still find the person we conceived of? Do we find a person or just mind-and-matter? A deva or just mind-and-matter? A brahma or just mind-and-matter? We only find mind-and-matter.
If we don't find humans, devas, or brahmas, is there any basis left for clinging to beings or individuals? The reality we find is the characteristic of hardness, the element of hardness, the ultimate hardness. Doesn't this hardness characteristic change and cease? Doesn't it cease once known?
The phenomena we find are impermanent (anicca). Is impermanence happiness or suffering? Should we call suffering happiness, or is it dukkha? Does this suffering have an owner? Does it follow beings' wishes? Does it conform to preferences? Isn't it taught as non-self (anatta)? This is impermanence, suffering, and non-self.
Are these three characteristics happiness or suffering? This is known through development. So any being who has aggregates experiences impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Isn't this worth studying?"
"When we see anicca, dukkha, anatta, do we still see mind-and-matter (nāma-rūpa)? When we see mind-and-matter, do we see anicca, dukkha, anatta?
We only see mind-and-matter. Do we still see persons and beings? Do we still see cities and countries? We only see mind-and-matter. Isn't this taught as knowledge by comprehension (ñātapariññā)?
Distinguish between mind-matter and person, mind-matter and deva, mind-matter and brahma, mind-matter and cities/countries - this is ñātapariññā.
In other words, it's distinguishing between concepts (paññatti) and ultimate reality (paramattha). Mind-matter is ultimate reality, 'person' is concept. Mind-matter is ultimate reality, 'deva' is concept. Mind-matter is ultimate reality, 'brahma' is concept. Mind-matter is ultimate reality, 'cities and countries' are concepts. Humans, devas, brahmas, beings are non-existent concepts.
Isn't it taught that there are no humans, no devas, no brahmas? Mind-matter is ultimate reality.
On this mind-matter, through conventional designation, don't we designate various types of humans, devas, brahmas, animals, petas, asuras? Don't we name them so?
No matter how we designate or name them, does mind-matter become a person? A deva? Does it become what we think it is? This is ñātapariññā. Do you hear how it distinguishes between concept and ultimate reality?
Continuing the practice, doesn't it show anicca, dukkha, anatta? When we see anicca, dukkha, anatta, do we still see mind-matter? This is knowledge by investigation (tīraṇapariññā). When we group anicca, dukkha, anatta together, isn't it taught as arising and passing away? Which Noble Truth is this? Is it happiness or suffering?
We live with suffering daily. Would someone who truly understands suffering still want this kind of aggregate again?
We don't cling to the present aggregates, would we still long for future aggregates? Isn't this worth studying? When we understand this, doesn't it eliminate? When there's understanding, doesn't the wrong attention of ignorance (avijjā) cease?
When we understand it as suffering, does the ignorance of wrongly perceiving human happiness, deva happiness, brahma happiness still exist? When ignorance is gone, isn't the root eliminated?
When the root is eliminated, do craving (taṇhā) and clinging (upādāna) still come? The branches wither, don't they? Isn't it taught that when the root is eliminated, the branches wither?
Doesn't the cycle of defilements (kilesavaṭṭa) cease? Earlier, when knowing the aggregates and mind-matter, that's ñātapariññā. The āsavas of wrong view and ignorance cease. When the Noble Truth of Suffering is comprehended, does craving still come? Does clinging still come? Don't the āsavas of sensual desire and becoming cease?
Don't all four āsavas end? Doesn't the Noble Truth of Origin die? Don't future aggregates end? Isn't this taught as cessation (nirodha)? So in practicing the Dhamma, the essential point is to end defilements."
We only see mind-and-matter. Do we still see persons and beings? Do we still see cities and countries? We only see mind-and-matter. Isn't this taught as knowledge by comprehension (ñātapariññā)?
Distinguish between mind-matter and person, mind-matter and deva, mind-matter and brahma, mind-matter and cities/countries - this is ñātapariññā.
In other words, it's distinguishing between concepts (paññatti) and ultimate reality (paramattha). Mind-matter is ultimate reality, 'person' is concept. Mind-matter is ultimate reality, 'deva' is concept. Mind-matter is ultimate reality, 'brahma' is concept. Mind-matter is ultimate reality, 'cities and countries' are concepts. Humans, devas, brahmas, beings are non-existent concepts.
Isn't it taught that there are no humans, no devas, no brahmas? Mind-matter is ultimate reality.
On this mind-matter, through conventional designation, don't we designate various types of humans, devas, brahmas, animals, petas, asuras? Don't we name them so?
No matter how we designate or name them, does mind-matter become a person? A deva? Does it become what we think it is? This is ñātapariññā. Do you hear how it distinguishes between concept and ultimate reality?
Continuing the practice, doesn't it show anicca, dukkha, anatta? When we see anicca, dukkha, anatta, do we still see mind-matter? This is knowledge by investigation (tīraṇapariññā). When we group anicca, dukkha, anatta together, isn't it taught as arising and passing away? Which Noble Truth is this? Is it happiness or suffering?
We live with suffering daily. Would someone who truly understands suffering still want this kind of aggregate again?
We don't cling to the present aggregates, would we still long for future aggregates? Isn't this worth studying? When we understand this, doesn't it eliminate? When there's understanding, doesn't the wrong attention of ignorance (avijjā) cease?
When we understand it as suffering, does the ignorance of wrongly perceiving human happiness, deva happiness, brahma happiness still exist? When ignorance is gone, isn't the root eliminated?
When the root is eliminated, do craving (taṇhā) and clinging (upādāna) still come? The branches wither, don't they? Isn't it taught that when the root is eliminated, the branches wither?
Doesn't the cycle of defilements (kilesavaṭṭa) cease? Earlier, when knowing the aggregates and mind-matter, that's ñātapariññā. The āsavas of wrong view and ignorance cease. When the Noble Truth of Suffering is comprehended, does craving still come? Does clinging still come? Don't the āsavas of sensual desire and becoming cease?
Don't all four āsavas end? Doesn't the Noble Truth of Origin die? Don't future aggregates end? Isn't this taught as cessation (nirodha)? So in practicing the Dhamma, the essential point is to end defilements."
