Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, my understanding is that the ten asubha are conceptual objects.
Is that a correct understanding?
Another technical one, yes.
The ten asubha are conceptual objects.
How do I back that up?
The asubha don't really exist.
The parts of the body are concepts.
Both the name is a concept and the object is a concept.
So there are two types of concepts.
There is the name and there is the object.
When we say rising, falling, the rising motion is ultimate reality.
The word rising is a concept.
So we use the word rising as a concept to bring our minds closer to the ultimate reality.
Focus on it.
When someone says kesa, which means hair, they're using a concept to focus on another concept.
They're using the conceptual name, which every name is a conception, to focus on an object that is also conceptual.
So this is the nature of all Samatha meditations.
They don't have the power to bring about insight.
And why don't they?
Because hair is not impermanent.
Intellectually, you can say it's impermanent because it's going to turn gray and so on.
But that's not impermanent in an ultimate sense.
It's actually stable.
If you wake up in the morning, your hair hasn't fallen off, then you say that it's stable.
It's actually, these are the problems, the things that are standing in the way from us, seeing ultimate reality.
When you wake up in the morning, you look very much like you did the day before.
So you make the mistake of thinking that you're the same person.
Close your eyes, open them again, yep, the hair is still there.
So when you say kesa, kesa, kesa, you won't see impermanence.
In fact, you'll see permanence.
You'll see stability.
The more you focus on the hair, the more stable your mind will become.
Which, you know, it sounds great, but it also sounds suspiciously unlike what we're supposed to see in meditation, right?
In meditation we're supposed to see what?
Impermanence, suffering and non-self.
When you focus on the hair, do you see that?
No.
You see stability, satisfaction,
And controllability, you've controlled your mind, great, wonderful.
So it's not insight meditation and it can't bring about true wisdom and understanding.
If you do it repeatedly, it can bring about the understanding that it's futile, which is good, and that helps you come closer.
I mean, it's not futile.
It's a good exercise for the mind, anyway, that will help you to see reality in the same way.
Because then if you then focus on the feeling of the hair, for example, or the...
the feelings of other parts of the body, the sitting posture or the rising and falling of the abdomen, using the same technique of the mantra to focus on an ultimate reality, then you will see impermanent suffering and non-self.
Here's a good example for how noting is actually such a wonderful thing.
People say noting is horrible.
Why?
Because you feel like you're forcing and it makes you feel awkward and it feels like you're just adding something.
It's clumsy and so on and so on and all these excuses.
But have them note and ask them if they feel the same.
Same technique, different object.
Why is it all of a sudden permanent, satisfying and controllable?
Why is it suddenly agreeable?
Why do people want to say buddho, buddho, but they don't want to say rising and falling?
My teacher gives a good talk on this.
This is not exactly an answer to your question, but I was just listening a couple of nights ago to his talk.
He said, why is it that people don't want to say rising and falling?
They're really happy to say Buddha, Buddha, but they don't have the same faith in saying rising and falling.
And he said it's because rising and falling is not a name of the Buddha.
People want to say Buddha, Buddha, because it's the name of our, it's really cool, it's the name of the Buddha.
And it's very mystical, the idea of the one who knows.
And then he goes on a long talk about how actually, what is it that the Buddha knew?
And what did the Buddha say about this?
And he tells the story of Vakkali who sat around looking at the Buddha all day.
And what did the Buddha say to him?
He said, why are you wasting your time looking at this rotten, filthy, stinky corpse of a body of mine?
Why don't you go off and do something useful?
And he said, apehi, get out of here.
And Vakali got very upset, and so he started to see impermanence and became enlightened as a result.
So, just to point out that it's the objects that are different, not the technique is exactly the same.
And that shows how certain objects or concepts, especially the parts of the body, can be used as a basis for insight, but will not directly lead to insight.
Anybody?
No.