Recording of discussion with Sujin Boriharnwanaket (2018)
https://www.dhammastudygroup.org/audio/2018-09-tw/2018-09-10-am.mp3 from about 49 minutes
Ajarn Sujin: So, akasa in between groups, see? So, when the experiencing of Rupa is there, as vipassana nana it’s there, as many groups.
sarah: It’s clear there has to be the space in between and it can be known, but it depends on the understanding of the groups of Rupa, otherwise it can’t be known.
Sukinder: From what Ajahn [sujin] said and Sarah said, it seems like there is understanding of different dharmas and groups, groups as in many many dhammas, each one is understood and hence the akasa can also be the object of understanding?
Sujin: Because at this moment when one experiences an object, it seems like there is only one object, but actually many groups of rupa.
Sukinder: Right, so we understand that there are many groups of rupa,
A. Sujin: when panna is there.
Sukinder: when panna is developed…But because of understanding different
A. Sujin: When it’s there, and panna, which experiences, there’s no doubt about the group and the kalapas…
Sukinder: So when we understand that there is a group,it means there are many kalapas, and in between there must be space, is that the kind of understanding?
A. Sujin [yes], At that moment, it has to experience space as well. It has to experience space as well.
Yes, because space is made with kalapas.
Sarah: So actually understanding groups is understanding space because they have to be separated.
Sukinder: That’s true inference, right? That seems to be true inference. But my question was, is the space the object of the citta?
A. Sujin: at the moment of touching it appears as they are.
Sukinder: including space?
A. Sujin: yes, because when you talk about many kalapas
Sukinder: but when you talk about kalapas we are not talking about individual rupas for example, hardness.
A. Sujin: how many kalapas at this moment of touching…
And when it’s there [there are] groups, different ones [and] akasa is in-between.
Sukinder: Still it seems like we’re…
A. Sujin: Because when it’s clear understanding like Vipassana, it’s not like the world we used to think about or we live. It’s a different world, the world of fully understanding, stage by stage, of what is heard.
Sarah:Right now, if we talk about understanding groups of rupa it is just thinking and wondering and how is it possible. But when it is the sammasana nana it is the direct understanding of groups, it’s not like now just thinking about the idea of kalapas and the same with akasa.
Sukinder: So it’s not like Satipatthana, but much higher?
A. Sujin: It is Satipatthana. It has to be Satipatthana all the way, even Lokuttara -citta
Sukinder: But if it is Satipatthana, we know that the object is a characteristic of Nama or Rupa. So the kalapa is…
A. sujin: Not the word, but the characteristic, which is as sharp to the directly discern the true nature of just that which appears as different kalapas.
Sukinder: But kalapa is not one rupa. So when we talk about satipatthana, it is knowing one characteristic of rupa.
A. Sujin: Nimitta.
Sukinder: One, oh yes, nimitta, many, many, but the same rupa we are talking about. So, but kalapa is not one rupa, one kind of rupa.
A. Sujin: What do you mean? When we talk about kalapa, we are talking about many rupas that arise together.
Yes, it depends on what kind appears. The kalapa of hardness is experienced, or the kalapa of what is experienced.
Sukinder: When we say the kalapa of hardness, we are talking about hardness as characteristic and kalapa that this hardness must arise with.
A. Sujin: yeah, many groups of hardness, right? at moment of touching.
Sukinder: many kalapas therefore.
A. Sujin: and what’s there in between kalapa: Space, so that is experienced when the many kalapas are experienced.
Nina van Gorkom: It’s hard to know because you think only by thinking, but it’s not thinking then, its direct. No, because it’s clear understanding. But we cannot imagine it now at all.
sarah: But the understanding begins to develop like when we first heard about visible object. we didn’t appreciate that it had to arise with other rupas and is conditioned by them, but now that seems obvious because there’s been the hearing and considering and getting used to the truth about that reality that the visible object is conditioned by those other rupes with hardness here for example. So the understanding develops.
Nina: Yes, like you[A. sujin] expressed many times that each visual object is really different because of the other elements that arise together with it make it so different. So that is a way of understanding better.
Sarah: And it shows how conditioned it is and how anatta it is because no one could decide what visible object is seen now. And each one is different and arises and falls away.