Q & A , Vipassana Meditation

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
1. Please explain the difference between Conventional and Ultimate Truth.

Sacca means truth which is defined as constant concordance of the term which names a thing or with that thing’s intrinsic nature.
Conventional Truth (Sammuti-Sacca) or Conventional Realities are true by common usage and their function is to make communication easier. They are based on concepts. Examples are I, self, man , trees, devas, cars. These are terms used in everyday speech. Some types of concepts are time concepts, space, directions, group, numbers, symbols and sound concepts.
However, according to Ultimate Truth (Paramattha-Sacca) such terms are reckoned as hallucination (vippallasa). Why? Because of this distortion of perception our understanding of reality is obscured. Therefore, we regard the impermanent as permanent, unsatisfactoriness as satisfactoriness and non-self as self. So long as such erroneous views remain in us, we can never hope to escape from Samsara. Our aim in vipassana meditation practice is to dispel such views therefore we have to go beyond these conventional realities and focus our attention on ultimate realities as our meditation objects. Only then can we discern the true nature of these realities…that is ‘seeing things as they really are’ (yathabhutanam) .
When these conventional realities are examined with insight- wisdom, we find that they do not actually exists in the way they are conceived, ie. To be real, substantial, permanent and independent etc.
Conventional realities only exists as mere concepts or conceptual constructs (pannatti) created by the mind and superimposed upon truly existing phenomena (ultimate realities).
People usually understand only the various kinds of shapes or forms and concept of continuity but they do not directly discern the physical and mental phenomena which are the real essence of these concepts. Without insight-wisdom, they cannot discern the incessant arising and passing away of these physical and mental phenomena so they consider these concepts as the essence of beings or things.
The same goes for the mistaken notion of the ego (atta) of beings.
For instance, ‘I’ is a combination of Mind and Matter (Nama-Rupa) or the 5 Aggregates (Khandhas) – material form, feelings, mental formations, perception and consciousness. Analysed further, the material form (rupa) comprises 32 parts of the body. So where does the ‘I’ dwell? Can you point to any one of the 32 parts and say that, that is ‘I’? When these parts are further analysed, they are all composed of the basic elements (dhatu) of earth, water, wind, fire…etc. (8 kinds)
Mind (the mental part of ‘I’) has no form. It is also a mere form of energy which is continuously changing. It is capable of cognizing objects, thus it is also classified as an element ie. Element of consciousness (vinnana-dhatu).
So there is no ‘I’ in the ultimate sense, no being, no individual. Having analysed in this way we may agree with this explanation but we still cannot get rid of this notion of a self or ‘I’ as it has long been deeply embedded in our minds throughout beginningless Samsara due to ignorance (moha) or delusion which is also an ultimate truth. By mistaking conventional truth to be ultimate truth we only prolong our ignorance and suffering in the round of rebirths.
If one meditates on concepts one will never truly understand reality because of the presence of delusion. At times in our practice we are not very sure or clear about the object of our meditation. We get carried away by this delusion and we find we cannot even describe the object of our notings during interviews. Most beginners experience this sort of deluded mental state so they are unable to report if the object noted is a physical or mental object when questioned by the meditation teacher.

2. Why then do we use concepts to mentally label the object of meditation? Would not this process of labeling interrupt or hinder the awareness of the object? If it does then why do we do so.

In the beginning of the practice we have no choice but to resort to using concepts as concentration is very weak and the mind will wander away easily. We need to arouse effort to prevent this by repeatedly directing (vitakka) the mind to an object for example, rising- falling; lifting dropping etc. Then when the mind ‘hits the target’, we mentally label the realities that arise there, like tightness, heaviness, warmth. In this way we keep the mind on the object (vicara), so when the next reality arises it is discerned on the spot. By being fully alert we can be continuously mindful of realities and by being continuously mindful for a sustained period of time, concentration deepens.
As mindfulness and concentration gets stronger we can drop the mental labeling and just be aware of the realities directly. The characteristics of the realities will thus be discerned clearly and insight knowledge will unfold.

3. The meditator has to use concepts to describe/report his experiences to the meditation teacher so he has to conceptualise his experience so to speak. Would not this process affect the accuracy of his report and cause some serious misunderstanding between them?

Yes, of course it does; that is why it is said that to teach someone to meditate successfully is a very difficult task and it is of course impossible to transmit theoretically, one’s insight knowledge to the student. One actually teaches oneself and the teacher’s role is limited to only giving instructions and guidance by encouraging, prompting, admonishing etc.
Language being conceptual in nature can never adequately convey the ultimate truth
experienced but nevertheless we still employ it as it is the only means of communication. Up to a certain point in the practice, provided the teacher is an experienced meditator himself and has taught students from a diversity of culture, there is no problem as having thoroughly gone through all the meditative experiences it is not difficult for a sharp teacher to understand the report no matter how badly phrased but this is true only for the mundane ultimate realities. The supramundane reality – Nibbana, is beyond description as it defies all mundane conventions. It can only be perceived by oneself. It is due to this fact, that the meditation teacher never confirms a student as having attained sainthood or realized any of the stages of Enlightenment. The possibility of making a mistake is too heavy a risk as it could have serious implications especially for the student’s progress in future and for the Sasana.

4. We close our eyes when we meditate but we can still see all kinds of things. How does this occur?
There are 2 kinds of ‘seeing’; one is seeing with our physical eyes (through the eye- door) and the other is seeing with the mind (through the mind-door). When we close our eyes the first type of seeing is not possible but we can still see mental images which we call visions (nimitta). This is very common amongst beginner meditators as they are not very skillful yet at focusing the mind on the primary meditation object. Some may experience mental hearing at this stage too which can be explained in a similar way. Many people are inclined to think that these visions mean something so they get distracted especially with visons that are very pleasant or attractive. Some will “see” a monastery, forest, palace, mountains, faces etc. Whatever it is, these visions are not to be taken seriously as they are not significant in our practice of vipassana. Why not? Because these visions or mental sounds are only mental projections and not real objects or physical phenomena. They are similar to dreams we have during sleep. They appear due to perception based on concepts. Being conceptual in nature, the discernment of the three universal characteristics in them is not possible so they are not suitable objects for vipassana meditation.
So what should we do when we have such visions or mental sounds? We should not pay any attention to them. But if the vision/sound reappears again and again, as soon as it appears, immediately note as “seeing, seeing” or “hearing, hearing” to maintain our mindfulness of their occurrence otherwise we will get ‘carried away’ by them. Usually, the meditator who sees visions for the first time, will become very interested in it so he will try to ‘look closer’ and even wish for the visions to stay or ‘play’ with them. He is no longer mindful when this happens so the defilements will have the upper hand and more visions will appear as the mind can be very creative. They will become clearer, more seductive and they can even change according to his wishes although he may not be aware of it as he is no longer mindful of his mental state. Some meditators may even think that these visions are due to an external cause like a deity or spirit or they think this is the way to become a psychic. Such wrong views can be very dangerous if the meditator continues his practice without reporting about it to a skillful teacher. He can become deluded, experience hallucinations and may even go crazy temporarily as the delusions becomes stronger. This has nothing to do with possession by evil spirits as commonly believed.
Not all vipassana meditators experience visions in their practice. Infact the less visions one has, the better it is, as there will be less distractions for the meditator. It is important to remember that visions can arise in any kind of concentration exercise or meditation practice so it is not a certain sign of progress in vipassana meditation. In some types of Samatha Meditation, visualization technique is taught whereby effort is made to purposely create a mental vision of an object which is then used as the meditation object.