Okay.
Can we recollect on Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta during our meditation, for example when pain appears?
You can, but it's not vipassana.
In Thai they call it vipassanuk, because nuk means thinking.
Recollecting on impermanent suffering and non-self, you actually do see some instances of this in the Tipitaka where the Buddha has you recollect of something as being impermanent.
I think, I don't want to say absolutely not, but the general, I think we have to interpret that carefully because the observation that we get from meditation is that when people do that, they don't have actual experiences of impermanent suffering and non-self.
The truth of anicca, dukkha and anatta is that you see them in every moment.
Everything is impermanent suffering and non-self.
They don't really exist as entities.
They are the realization that comes as a result of seeing things as they are.
And if you notice, they're all really the absence of something.
It's destroying the illusion of permanent stability, satisfaction and controllability.
So when you see, for example, you watch the stomach rising, at the moment of seeing rising, you're seeing impermanent suffering and not-self.
You're seeing something that is inherently impermanent suffering and not-self.
And so the wisdom that we're looking for is as a result of breaking away from our delusions, our ideas that these things are permanent, that these things are satisfying, that these things are controllable.
So you'll see...
You'll see something very simple, that the rising and falling is going of its own accord, that it's changing, that it's unsatisfying, that it's uncontrollable.
You'll see these things and it will jar with your expectations, it will jar with your intentions, your desires to make it stable, your desires to make it satisfying, your desires to make it controllable.
it's that jarring that that is the the awakening that occurs the change in the mind the realization seeing things that you never saw before it has to come by itself and it really should come from intensive meditation practice where you dedicate yourself to to seeing things
from moment to moment as impermanent suffering and non-self.
Basically, vipassana is the result of the meditation.
It's not the practice that we do.
So everyone's always complaining about vipassana meditation, saying, where did the Buddha teach vipassana meditation?
You can't practice vipassana.
And they're right.
We don't call it vipassana meditation because we want people to practice vipassana, and we want people to practice insight.
We call it vipassana meditation, insight meditation, because that's what we hope people to get from it.
Vipassana meditation is actually the practice of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.
So if you look at the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, the Satipatthana Sutta, you won't see the Buddha telling you to contemplate on impermanent suffering and non-self.
You'll see him telling you to contemplate on things as they are, which is very common.
You hear the Buddha talk about yathabhuttanya anadasana, knowing and seeing things as they are.
And that is impermanent suffering and non-self.
That once you can see things clearly as they are, you will see impermanent suffering and non-self.
You'll see that you can't control things.
You'll see that things don't go according to your wishes.
You'll see that clinging to them causes you suffering and so on and so on.
And you'll slowly, slowly give up and let go of the things that you cling to.
And that is as a result of seeing them clearly as they are.
Seeing that they're not what you expected them to be.
They're not permanent, they're not satisfying, they're not controllable.
Vipassana is the result, not the practice.
Just as with Samatha meditation, you don't practice tranquility.
You practice some meditation technique in order to bring about tranquility.
These are the two different kinds of meditation.
People say, how can you split them up easily?
One leads to one thing, one leads to another.
Certain meditations don't lead to insight.
Certain meditations...
don't directly lead to tranquility in a worldly sense.
They might only lead to the cessation experience of realizing Nibbāna, which is of course the greatest tranquility of all.
So that's the separation.
Does that make sense?
Does that answer your question?
I wouldn't worry too much about vipassana.
Worry more about satipatthana.
That's the practice.