62. The Four Foundations of Mindfulness
By Luang Pu Thate Desaraṅsī
September 25, 1988
The Four Foundations of Mindfulness that were taught — concerning the body, feelings, mind, and mental phenomena — there are four. You contemplate the body for a period, contemplate feelings for a period, contemplate the mind for a period, and mental phenomena for a period. But they don't tell you to contemplate all of them. According to the texts, they say you can use all four, but when you practice, you should focus on one of them first and get it right.
For example, contemplate the body — externally and internally. Contemplating externally means the bodies of others; internally means our own body. Establish mindfulness and contemplate this body as just a body, until you see it as something ordinary, as nature. As you keep contemplating, gradually you will come to understand. At first, the arms, legs, hands, feet — they seem like separate parts. Then you contemplate deeply inside. At that point, you don't know whether it's our body or someone else's. You don't know if it's flesh or skin or what. It just appears as a certain thing, a phenomenon of the world, existing that way. That is what is meant by "body" — just "body." Contemplate earnestly, wholeheartedly. Not just a superficial contemplation that you do and then forget. Our heedlessness: contemplating without sincerity, just touching and feeling around, then it fades away. That is called "heedlessness."
"Heedlessness" is very profound — the heedlessness of those who practice meditation. If you focus your mind steadily on a single thing, just the body, until you see it as described above, that is called being "heedful." If your contemplation drifts here and there, with other moods intruding, it's still not right. That is called "heedlessness." We focus steadily on one thing, contemplate that one thing, until we see "body" as just "body" — the object of contemplation is not ours, not theirs. Only then is it getting correct.
As long as you still see the body as yours, grasp it as self, as "I," as "me," as "us," as "them" — you've been grasping it for a long time. It's hard to let go, to unify it into a single state, into the true nature of things. What exists is merely... it's not a person, not a human being, not anything at all. So the Buddha says it is not self, not a being, not "us" or "them." It is just a thing in itself.
Take how we see external things: look really earnestly, don't think of anything else. Look at what you see, contemplate it steadily and sincerely. When no other moods intrude, that thing you are contemplating steadily — you don't know what is what. If you say that's lacking wisdom, that's true. But the person who sees it as not-self, not a being, not "us" or "them" — that is "higher wisdom." Seeing it as self, as a being — that's called wisdom too, but that kind of wisdom anyone can use, everyone uses it. The refined, higher wisdom is the one that relinquishes, until it's no longer a being, a self, an "us" or "them." That is rare. People rarely see that wisdom. The Buddha teaches us to contemplate that point, and people call that "stupid." It's our own stupidity as ordinary humans.
Seeing all things as not-self, not a being, not "us" or "them" — the Buddha does not call that stupid. But all human beings call it stupid. They look at things as separate parts, as proportions. They use science, apply it to these very matters. So the mind doesn't become concentrated; it doesn't unify into one. It sees parts, sees many things. They arrange them into stories, into various categories. That is called their wisdom.
The Buddha's wisdom, on the other hand, takes it until it sees not-self, not a being, not "us" or "them," steady and unified. The Buddha's wisdom and the wisdom of ordinary people are different things, different matters. But to attain the Buddha's wisdom is very, very difficult. People rarely see it, so they consider that kind of thing as bad. If we believe the Buddha's teaching, whether it's good or bad doesn't matter. To be that way is to be in line with the Buddha's teaching. As the teaching goes: Yathā paccayaṃ... The robe we wear is not a being, not a self, not "us" or "them." It is merely an element, reduced to an element. Worldly people see colors and patterns, see beauty, see things that are pleasing and entertaining — that is their wisdom.
But the Buddha's wisdom, which sees it as merely an element — if we don't call it an element, we don't know what to call it. Merely an element. That element truly exists that way. An element is what exists. However it is, it exists that way. That is called an element. To contemplate until you see it as an element — that is the Buddha's wisdom. For us ordinary people in the world, it's hard to abandon conventions and designations. And even if we abandon conventions, we struggle to find conventions again. If we abandon conventions, then we don't understand anything at all — we get completely confused, don't know what is what, having never seen or known it. So we struggle to find conventions again. The mind can't pull away, so it doesn't reach concentration, doesn't reach steadiness.
When we meditate, don't practice superficially. Don't do it as a game, like what was just said. Doing something just for the sake of doing it — it doesn't reach Dhamma. Dhamma is what is real. Dhamma is what is true. Practice until you see it as real and true — that is called practicing until you reach the real, true Dhamma. If you do everything as a game, it's useless. That's why our Buddhist religion gradually deteriorates. People do everything as just a playful matter. In the beginning, they did it properly. For example, paying homage to the Buddha and chanting — they did it with intention, recollecting the virtues of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, truly respecting them. Listening to a Dhamma talk, they listened carefully to the meanings and principles, to the subtle points of Dhamma. That's the beginning.
Later, they just listen for the sake of listening. They listen along with others, not knowing what they understand. When something fun and entertaining comes up, then they like it. Like the Vessantara Jataka sermon — they give lively, humorous sermons, chanting and playing with their voices. It's fun, so they like it. But it's not correct Dhamma; it doesn't reach Dhamma. They only take the shallow, superficial stuff. The refined, subtle things they don't take. Don't do things as play. You can't turn everything into a game like that.
It's the same with ordaining as a monk or novice. In the past, people ordained properly. They would say, "I wish to ordain and renounce for the sake of freedom from suffering. Please give me the robe." They would ask for the robe three times, back and forth, before the robe was given. They made such a strong determination. People in the old days — even Somdet Maha Samana Chao said, "These days, ordination doesn't reach that level. It doesn't attain the path, fruition, or Nibbāna. It's just ordaining for the sake of ordaining." So they removed that practice; they didn't use it. Then people didn't understand, so they just ordained casually as a tradition. When the season came, when school break came, they'd ordain in a festive mood all around. Ordaining novices with great fanfare and noise — oh! Whatever monastery ordained many, they gained fame. They'd ordain in groups, forcing each other. One person forces four or five; one person forces nine or ten. They force them as a group, like soldiers. Even then, they can't control them.
Ordain for fifteen days, then disrobe. It's just for play. It's not genuine or sincere. As for ordaining for the sake of merit and wholesomeness — they don't get any merit. On the contrary, it becomes even more demeritorious. They take the kāsāvapaṭṭa robe (the yellow robe) to wear — something raw and good — and wrap it around a stump. That's not good practice at all. They don't even know the five precepts or the eight precepts. Worse, they ordain as a game. This is how it becomes a game — insincere and unreal. When we come to ordain in the religion and practice like this, practitioners must take it seriously and sincerely if they are to see anything. But even at that level, it still doesn't reach what is real. Well, enough.