I vow to taste the truth of the Tathagata's words. Good evening, everybody. First I'm going to take the roll, okay? So we are studying just a very... I think that I'll review a little bit. It's good to review a little bit anyway. But especially for the visitors, so you can get an idea of what we're talking about. Maybe. We are studying... This class is the study... We're doing a close reading of some texts

[01:01]

from the collection of Buddhist texts called the Majjhima Nikaya. And these texts are older, from the oldest strata of Buddhist teaching. And between the time that these texts were written and the time that the Zen school developed, there was a lot of water under the bridge and a lot of changes in the understanding of Buddhist teaching. But not really. Changes, yes, changes in emphasis, but the bedrock of the truths were really here in these early teachings. Although when we read them and study them, we have to think about them a little bit and understand them in a little bit more broad way because they can sound a little bit narrow. So we struggle with that as we read them. Struggling with trying to... Assuming... It's like our assumption is,

[02:02]

well, these texts really are important and really are true. And this doesn't sound right. So how can we understand it so that we really see what's being said for us in our time and through the lens of our own tradition. So we struggle like that sometimes with these old texts. So we're reading a text. The name of it is The Simile of the Snake. And it starts out with, as many of these old sutras do, one of the Buddha's disciples who has a very wrong-headed idea about what the Buddha taught. He thinks in good faith that he really heard this from the Buddha, that he understood something. But he seems to be dead wrong. And in the beginning, he says what it is that he understands and then other people come and argue with him. And he insists that, no, no, no, I'm convinced that this is what the Buddha taught. And so they all go to the Buddha and they say, he says that you taught this

[03:03]

and is that right? And the Buddhist says, absolutely wrong. And what it is that he is saying that he heard the Buddha teach, you see, he misunderstood because the Buddha, as we all, everybody knows, that the Buddha tried asceticism. He tried starving himself and living a very, very, very austere life. And he concluded that that was not workable. So he said, it's not about austerities, it's not about how many hours can you sit and how little can you eat and how pure can you be, it's not about that. And this fellow heard one time the Buddha saying that and so he said, well, the Buddha must be saying then that the world of the senses is completely okay and we can just enjoy and indulge ourselves in the sensual world, there's no problem. He said that the opposite of that, asceticism doesn't work, so he must mean that there's no special way

[04:04]

that we need to work with the sensual world. That must be what he taught. And when they said no, no, no, he insisted on that. And then, like I say, the Buddha finally heard about it and the rest of this sutra now is basically setting this poor fellow straight. However, there's a kind of funny twist to it because what happens is the Buddha says not only that Arita, who's this fellow who has this incorrect view, he says to Arita, it's not only that you have to hold the sensual world carefully, but also, and I think now he's thinking maybe of these other people who are complaining about Arita, but you also have to hold the teachings of Buddhism in the same way, carefully, without the same way that you have to hold the sensual world. It could be dangerous, the sensual world could be dangerous if held in the wrong way. Same with the teachings of the Buddha. Not only that, but even meditation practice

[05:05]

and the insights that come from meditation practice themselves have to be held properly and carefully, otherwise they become poisonous. So in other words, the Buddha was teaching everybody not only this one person whose views were cockeyed, but also people who held other views that were cockeyed, but more subtly cockeyed, because this guy was obviously off, but the other ones were not so obviously off, but they were off too. So the Buddha now is talking about how to hold things, and that's why he uses the simile of a snake, because this is an example. If there's a snake, and you somehow need a snake, as it says in the simile, why would you need a snake? It doesn't explain, but suppose you did need a snake, and there was a snake around, and if you unskillfully grabbed a hold of that snake, the snake would coil all around you, and eventually it would bite you and poison you, because you didn't know how to hold it. On the other hand, if you had...

[06:07]

Oh, hi! If you had a fork stick, and you knew how to use it, and you knew how to hold the snake's head down so that it wouldn't be able to bite you, then the snake could coil all around you and everything, and it wouldn't be harmful, if you knew what you were doing. And so that's what he wants to say, how we need to relate to the sensual world, as well as the world of the teachings themselves, as well as the world of meditative states, how to hold them so that they don't become poisonous. And then he gives another simile, although the sutra is not named after this simile, but he gives another one of a raft, this very famous one, where he says, if you have a raft, and you're on the shore, and you want to get to the other shore, maybe you make a raft, and you cross over to the other shore on the raft, but when you get to the other shore, you decide that you're now going to pick up the raft and carry it with you wherever you go.

[07:08]

Would that make any sense to do that? And of course, they all say, no, that wouldn't make any sense at all to do that. When you're there, why should you burden yourself with this heavy raft that's going to give you sore shoulders and so on? Better to just get rid of the raft once you arrive. And the Buddha said, yes, that's how you have to hold these things that I'm telling you, these teachings, you have to hold them like a raft for the purpose that they're designed for, not to be carried around for their own sake. So now, in the part that we're up to now, of course, the question is, okay, that's all fine, but how do we hold these things? How do we relate to the sensual world? I mean, one extreme is to get rid of them. That's asceticism. Let's get rid of the sensual world. Let's cut it out. Well, the Buddha clearly taught that that is not going to work. This monk, Arita, was propounding the opposite extreme, which is, there's no problem with the sensual world at all.

[08:11]

We can indulge ourselves in it. There's no work that we have to do with it, which is the other extreme. And the Buddha said, no, that's clearly wrong. So, in relation to the sensual world and views and meditative states, how do we hold them? That's the middle way between those two extremes. And the rest of the sutra, which gets a little bit technical, is an analysis of the way that we automatically hold things improperly and how we could hold them properly. And so that's where we're at now. And I think we started with, let's see, my mark says that we ended up at about page 230 with the analysis of all that. Just to back up a little bit, so now the Buddha is analyzing

[09:15]

the kind of viewpoints that we have automatically that cause us to hold things in a way that we're going to get bit. So now we have to look at, what are those viewpoints? And just backing up, we covered this last time, and I'll just back up a little bit because we'll go on from here. There are six underlying standpoints, he says, for the views that we have that cause us to hold things in a dangerous way. Basically, in regard to the five skandhas, the five constituents of the personality, form, physical feelings or sensations, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness, with regard to these things, we make the mistaken conclusion that this is mine, this is me. Body is me, feelings are me,

[10:20]

thoughts are me and so on. We say it's me. And we say that the essence of me is somehow permanent, somehow ongoing. This is really a mistake. It's not like that, he's saying. On the other hand, in this sutra, like all these sutras, they're very repetitive and you can feel the ancientness of them in the literary style because this whole sutra is written in one paragraph and then the next paragraph exactly repeats the previous paragraph except in the reverse. This is what you don't... These are the wrong views and conversely, if you would understand that forms, feelings, mental formations, perceptions and consciousness are not me, not mine, then you would be correct and you would be holding things properly. And if you were to hold things in that way, your mind would not be agitated. If you did not see everything as me and mine and conversely understood

[11:22]

that these things, although they existed, were not me and they were not mine, then you would have a mind that is not agitated. And the word agitated here means that you would not have a mind that was characterized fundamentally by craving and fear. These are two opposite things. Craving is, you know, I want to hold on. This is me, so I want to hold on to it. And fear is the opposite. This threatens me, so I'm afraid of it and I want to get away from it. And if you reflect on your own mind, honestly, with some depth of reflection, really think about this and actually observe your mind to some degree, you will most likely find that there is a lot more fear and craving than you ever thought going on on a regular basis in your mind.

[12:22]

Now, those words sound lurid, I suppose. Fear, like, you know, how often are you terrified? Well, maybe not so often. But how often do you feel, is there actually a little bit of, hmm, you know, I'm not so happy about that or I don't like that or I want to... And craving the same way, how often do you really want to hold on to something in a way that causes you unpleasantness? So I think this, you'll find by experience that there is a lot of fear and craving in the mind. And he says that comes from viewing experience as mine. In other words, identifying, projecting onto experience that that's there something extra, something that grasps and holds. So that's where... So then this part on page 230 that starts with a little parenthetical word, agitation. When this was said, a certain bhikkhu asked the Blessed One, Venerable Sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent externally? Can there be craving

[13:25]

about what is non-existent externally? And there can be, says the Buddha. Here, someone thinks like this, oh darn it, I had it and now I don't have it anymore. I lost it. My house burned down. I had that house before and now I don't have it anymore. Or I could get that job but I didn't get it. Then, when a person thinks like that, which you might think, well, everybody thinks like that, right? That's true. But when people think like that, then there is sorrow, grief, lamentation, weeping, beating his breast and becoming distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent externally because the house isn't yours and the job isn't yours anyway. But you think so and because of that you have grief. A venerable sir,

[14:27]

can there be no agitation about what is non-existent externally? And this is the reverse. Yes, there can be. The mind can be at rest. Here, someone does not think, alas, I had it, alas, I have it no longer, alas, I hope I get it, alas, I didn't get it. Then, knowing that these things are not so and that one doesn't think that way, then there is not sorrow, grief, lamentation, no weeping and beating the breast and becoming distraught. That is how there can be no agitation about what is non-existent externally. Then, we go to, what about, can there be agitation? In this case, this would be fear about what is non-existent internally. There can be fear about what is non-existent internally, says the Buddha. Here, someone can have the view, this is self, this is the world, after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, I shall endure as long as eternity. Someone thinks that.

[15:28]

They are wrong. Then, that person who thinks that hears the Buddha teaching the Dharma for the elimination of all standpoints because the fundamental point that the Buddha is teaching here is not holding on to any views about things, but just experiencing experience as experience. Enjoying our life as our life without making a point of view out of it or saying it is me. When these people who think this is me and I am going to be here forever hear the Buddha talking about the elimination of all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences and underlying tendencies for the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishing of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for nirvana. When they hear that, they think, Oh no, I shall be annihilated, I shall perish, I shall be no more.

[16:30]

Then they sorrow, they grieve, they beat their breasts, etc. The same formula is repeated because they are wrong. They are not understanding what the Buddha is teaching. So now they are upset. The idea here is that it is an astonishing thing really. What the Buddha is saying here is that the norm of ordinary human life is that people are constantly tearing their hair out in misery over that which does not exist and is not a problem. That is what is being said here. Both in terms of their own inner feelings and what they want externally, people are constantly upset really for no reason other than their own mistaken views. That is what this amounts to. And then the reverse. Can there be no agitation? Yes, this person does not believe that I am this kind of a self and he will be here for eternity. And therefore when they hear about the Buddha's teaching about nirvana and the elimination of views, etc., etc., etc.,

[17:32]

they do not get upset. In fact, quite the opposite. They think, Oh, that is good news. I really like that idea because that is freedom. I am not upset about that. So, my little marginal note. Sometimes I have brilliant flashes of insight about all this and then I forget about it later on, maybe even five minutes later. But occasionally I write it down in the margin as if someone else wrote it and I forget what it said. But I will read it to you. It says, Dharma is the middle way Things are as they are. That is what this amounts to. There is no such thing as I have it and there is no such thing as I don't have it. There is no self-projection. There is a profound letting things be without holding on or without rejecting. And this is true of the sensual world. This is true of the world of views and thoughts and religious concepts.

[18:34]

And true in relation to states of mind and meditative states. Letting things be, letting them come and go without holding on or rejecting, that is the middle path between craving, I got to have more, another glass of wine, I got to have more movies, or whatever. On the one hand, asceticism on the other hand, I'll never go to another movie, I'm never looking at a glass of wine. In between those is holding things, just enjoying what comes and letting it go without grasping or pushing away. So then the analysis goes on. You may well acquire that possession that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as long as eternity. But do you see any such possession? No, there is nothing like that. Good, Bhikkhus, because I don't see any either, he says.

[19:36]

Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, but do you see any way that you could believe in a doctrine of self that wouldn't give you sorrow and pain? We don't see any way, Buddha. And Buddha says, well, good, because I agree with that. I don't see any way either that you could project self onto the world and not have that cause you pain. Bhikkhus, you may well take as a support that view that would not arouse sorrow, etc. Do you see any view like that? No, we don't see any. Good, because I don't see any view like that either. So there's no possession external to oneself, there's no self that you could project onto your own thoughts and feelings or the world, and there's no viewpoint that you could have that would not inevitably and eventually lead to suffering. Then, being a self, would there be that

[20:40]

which belongs to a self? Yes, there would. For there being what belongs to a self, would there be myself? Yes. Since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint of view is namely, this is self, this is the world, after death I shall be permanent, and so on, wouldn't it not be utterly and completely foolish? Yes, it would really be foolish. Why would it be foolish? Because, number 26 says, What do you think? Is material form permanent or impermanent? It's impermanent. Now, what is impermanent? Suffering or happiness? It's suffering. Why is it suffering? It's suffering because we don't want to let it go. If something good happens to us, we want to hold on to it. We don't accept the good that happens to us with the feeling of, this is a flashing thing, it's gone in a minute.

[21:43]

We think, this is great, so I want to have it always. And it's never going to be that way. So what's impermanent has in it, because of our own view, failure to recognize what is impermanent as impermanent, there's suffering. So impermanence, not understood, always leads to suffering. And the whole world is impermanent. I'm impermanent, you're impermanent, this room is impermanent, the sky is impermanent, the clouds, everything is impermanent. Therefore, if we don't accept it as impermanent, and let it come and go, we will suffer by trying to hold on to it, or say it's me, or say it's you, or something. So that's what's being said here. Impermanence is suffering. And then, so is feeling, suffering, perception, all the constituents of personality are just as well as the external world. They're all impermanent.

[22:44]

Therefore, they're not me or mine. Therefore, we need to understand them as impermanent. And if we don't, we're going to suffer. Yes? Why doesn't it say that when it says that material form, impermanent or impermanent or impermanent, is what is impermanent, suffering or happiness? Suffering. Why doesn't it say suffering for the misguided? Because it makes it sound like it's always suffering, instead of that it just depends on you. Yeah. Well, it's implied. I think it's a convention. That's why I'm saying that. I think it's pretty clearly implied. If you follow the teachings, what the Buddha is saying, in this sutra and in many other sutras, he's not saying, this is not a message of despair. He's not saying everything is impermanent, impermanence is suffering, so the only choice is to suffer. Otherwise, we're being stupid.

[23:46]

He doesn't say that. He says there is a way out of suffering. And later on, he says, with some exasperation, I think, anyway, I feel like there's that in the sutra, with some exasperation, he says, people are complaining about all these things that I'm saying. He said, but none of it matters. The only thing I'm trying to say is that I'm concerned about suffering and there is a way to end suffering. So how can you end suffering if things really are impermanent? How are you going to end suffering? The only way to end suffering is to understand things are impermanent. And accept that totally and deeply and then you escape from suffering. You see? So, given all that, he has to mean that misunderstanding of impermanence is suffering. But he doesn't say it that way. The convention is that he just says impermanence is suffering. And in a sense, by that logic, truly understanding impermanence is going beyond impermanence in a way. It's a matter of language. But that's the linguistic convention of these texts. Does that make sense?

[24:47]

Yeah. You'll see in a minute where he gets... It's one of my favorite parts where he says, look... Yeah, on page... I'm skipping ahead here, but on page 1140... I mean 140. Not 140. No, no, no. Excuse me. 234. It's... 140 is another system of numbering. This book is page 234. You see where it says number 37? This is the part I'm talking about where he says, So saying bhikkhus, meaning, now I said all this stuff I told you. That's what I say all the time. And I proclaim that all the time. And I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins. Thus, the recluse Gautama is one who's Buddha, is one who leads astray. He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being. And it's easy to see how people would think that the Buddha taught that because he's constantly talking about

[25:49]

there's no self. Don't project yourself onto things. It sounds like he's saying you don't exist or something. Which is absurd, but they think that he says that. And he says, That's what they tell me. That's what they always say that I'm saying, but I am not saying that. I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented when they say that that's my view. And then he says, Because before, and now, and in the future, all I'm trying to teach is suffering and the end of suffering. That's all that this is about. And I'm only talking all this stuff about the self and all this other stuff because I know that that's what we do and it's causing suffering. So because of that, I have to tell you about all this stuff. Don't project me onto everything because you'll lose every time that way. Don't do that. Just enjoy what comes and let it go when it goes. Don't make it into me. Don't take it personally. Don't take everything so personally.

[26:49]

Because when you do that, you suffer. And I know that. And all I'm trying to do is alleviate suffering. So all of this analysis, because I think the idea here is that the extent to which we project self onto our inner life and the world around us and grab a hold of everything in a worried and craving way, the extent to which we do that is tremendous. And we don't even realize. Most of it is actually unconscious. And we don't even realize that we're doing it. So convinced are we in our ordinary everyday view of reality, that we don't even see how much we're doing that. And so that's why the Buddha really harps on this over and over and over again. And he says, you know, you have to realize this not only intellectually, but also through the agency of deep meditation practice

[27:51]

and through daily going over and over and over and seeing how many ways you don't believe it. And how, when you don't believe it, you suffer. You have to see that over and over and over again. And you know, this is the, like they say in the Zen text, this study is the bread and butter of the monks, the patrol monks, the everyday practice of the patrol monks to see how that's, look at that, there I am again, you know, projecting, getting personal about this and this and this and this. And there's the suffering that's coming as a result of that. And, you know, on more and more refined levels until finally you really let go of that. And then you're free. And you can not feel attacked when someone looks at you cross-eyed and not get upset when you lose something that you believe is yours and so on. You can have some equanimity once you see this point. So that's why he really has to hammer at it over and over again. So we'll go a little bit more

[28:52]

and then I'll stop and see what questions or dialogue there is. So let's see, maybe we can jump ahead a little bit here. Yeah, so 26 and 27, going back to 232. 26 and 27 are all about how internally and externally all this stuff is not me, not mine. When you realize that, he says in number 28 at the bottom of page 232, when you realize all that, you will become disenchanted with material form. Disenchanted with feeling, perception, and so on. All the elements of constituent's personality you will become disenchanted with. And again, we're always in trouble here with these English words, which sometimes give a funny connotation. I would translate this not as disenchanted by. I would translate this

[29:52]

as not caught by. That's what it means, I think. In other words, when you see the real nature of your experience, that it's not something you can hold on to, that you, rather than, you know, rather than I am this separate being, I mean, this is basically how it is, right? I'm this separate person, and if I don't watch myself, the rest of the world is after me, and they're going to get me. So I better make sure that they don't. Even my own body is out to get me, right? Because look what's happening. It's getting older, it's unreliable compared to what it was, you know, etc., etc. So I'm even my own worst enemy. So seeing it like that, we're doomed, right? So we have to see it not like that, but rather experience that arises and passes away, each moment changing. When we understand that, we will not get caught by our thoughts,

[30:52]

we will not get caught by our perceptions, we will not get caught by our impulses and by our consciousness. We'll be able to be free within it. So I would say, instead of disenchanted, disenchanted sounds a little bit like we're going to become sourpusses or something, you know. And then the next one is even worse. Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. And through dispassion, the mind is liberated. And I wouldn't translate that as... Actually, it's exactly the right word, because passion means suffering. We think of passion as something positive, but there's actual... It's become... It's become, taken on that meaning over the centuries, but the actual word passion means like in the passion of Christ, it's the suffering. So by becoming, not getting caught anymore by things, we get to a place where we are no longer beset by things, cause suffering in us, in our relationship to things. So it's actually,

[31:56]

it means like the removal of painfulness in relation to our experience. Once we understand the nature of our experience, don't mistake it for me, are able to let it come and go, then we don't get caught by our experience. And because we're not caught by our experience, therefore our experience does not become more material for suffering, for our own mental anguish and turmoil. And then we're free. And that's what this is all about, being free. And then, the next part, we're going to make short work of this. The next part is about the person who does that work and does become free, which is called an arhat. And this, it just describes how the arhat has cut off all these little hooks that make you get caught by your experience. The arhat has done that work. The arhat abandons ignorance,

[32:57]

which means, technically, belief in being separate, I'm separate. If you don't believe in separation, and you understand that you're non-separate from the whole world, then you've been done away with ignorance. Abandoned the round of rebirths, which means has abandoned all habitual, self-destructive habits. Let go of all that. We all have our little routines that we repeat. You ever notice that? Repeated routines that you constantly do that are obviously dumb and unsuccessful ways of being and speaking and living. And yet, somehow, you're compelled to do them. And, of course, the worst is when you don't even notice which happens. People live whole lives going round and round like a cat chasing its tail and they don't notice. They say, why is everybody against me? But actually,

[33:58]

they're just chasing themselves around in circles. They've also abandoned craving these great arhats. They don't grasp anything anymore. If somebody says, I'm taking away your robe, they say, oh, you're my guest. I'll get another one, probably. So they don't have craving. Even in the next one about feathers, without going into complicated technical details, it really means even in the act of perception, and the act of perception, which is every day and we take it for granted, is a complicated event, as any neurologist will tell you. Scientists study these things and they still don't understand all the complicated things that happen in the simple act of, I see Kevin, there he is. Seems like a simple thing, but actually it's very complicated. And right in the middle of that, there's hooks in there right away. And so these arhats get right down in there, even at the very level of perception,

[35:00]

and they unhook those hooks. They're free even there. And so then, it says very nicely, they say, when then, on the top of page 234, they become untraceable, or silent. Later on it says silent. I think it's this sutra that says they become silent. So there's a wonderful poem of Dogan's where he talks about the water birds. I can't remember the poem exactly, but the gist of it is the water birds, like a duck, you know, or the same is true of birds in the air, they fly and they know exactly where they're going. And they get there very nicely, but there's no path and they leave no traces. There's no road signs up there, you know, this way to Capistrano. They just go there.

[36:01]

How do they know how to go there? They go there and they don't leave a trace. And the birds in the water, when they float across the water, they go where they're going and they go there very nicely and they leave no trace behind them. After they're gone, everything is pure. And these arhats are like that. No traces. There's no messes around the arhats. They bring joy to the people who come in contact with them. They don't cause suffering for themselves or others. And people just feel good around them because they don't make trouble. They are very gentle and harmless, traceless. So then comes the passage that I read you before. Then the Buddha says, now this is what I'm trying to tell you about the nature of experience. And yet, this is like one of these moments I feel in the sutra where the Buddha gets a little bit like, he's like letting his hair down a little bit. He's saying, so I go, you know, you could hear him say, so now I go around teaching all this. I mean, think of this.

[37:02]

I've been doing this for years and years and years. And look what they accuse me of. They're accusing me of saying this and this and this. And I don't say that. I mean, who would say that? You know, I don't say anything like that. I'm just trying to end suffering. Why do they always have to get down on my case so bad? Oh, well. That's just the way it is, I guess. So, but then he talks about his feelings in relation to that. This is interesting. Now, on number 38 on page 234, Bhikkhus, both formally and now, what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. That's the only point. You know, it doesn't matter. I mean, the Buddha was a smart person, you know, and saw deeply. And he knew that there's these ways that we have of looking at things and these habits. And he knew that if we continue to look at things

[38:04]

in that way and have those habits, we'll suffer. And he wants to remove the suffering. But basically, it doesn't matter what we believe or what we, you know, say or do or anything. The most important point is, is the thing that we say or do or believe going to cause suffering or not? So it's not a question of what's true or what's the doctrine or anything like that. The question is, what leads to suffering and what doesn't? And so, in a sense, with that as a goal and that as a fundamental point, there can be a lot of flexibility. There has to be skill. In fact, in Mahayana Buddhism, there's a whole concept called skill, where you sometimes have to say the opposite of something that's true in order to skillfully help someone, oneself or someone else, to come to the place of letting go of suffering. So it's no good to hold on and say, this is true. Holding on to views is just like holding on to sensuality or holding on to anything else. Anyway, if others abuse, revile, scold and harass the Buddha for that, the Buddha, me,

[39:09]

he says, doesn't feel any annoyance, bitterness or dejection in the heart. In other words, I'm teaching about suffering and if people want to complain about that, fine, they can complain. It doesn't really bother me. Implying that, well, if they revile me for teaching what I'm not really saying, that's a little annoying. I have to admit that's a little annoying. But if they complain about me for what I'm really teaching, I don't really mind. And on the other hand, if they honor me and respect me and revere me and venerate me for that, for what I'm really teaching, I also, conversely, I don't feel any delight, joy or relation in the heart. In other words, I don't get carried away with praise. What I think is, when that happens, either way, whether they revile me or praise me for what I'm really teaching, either way, I think to myself,

[40:09]

they perform such services as these for the sake of what had earlier come to be fully understood, which is a very cockeyed thing. What is he talking about? What he means is, this is interesting, if somebody praises me or runs me down, the Buddha says, I know that what they're doing is they're not running down me because there is no me. That's what I've just been saying. If I project me onto this and let myself suffer because somebody's complaining about me, then I'm not listening to my own teachings. I know that when they're complaining, they're complaining about their experience of the arising of my constituents of personality as it strikes their constituents of personality, which I understand to be what it is. So why would I get upset about that? Do you understand? So he's saying, I don't get swell-headed

[41:12]

when they praise me because I know all they're doing is understanding their own minds as a result of what arose out of this body and mind, but it's not any me in there. And conversely, if they yell at me, it's the same thing. Therefore, he says to the bhikkhus, you should be the same way. Don't you go around starting a war with somebody who complains about you or putting them down or getting agitated about that and starting rumors about them. Don't let that bother you because it's just stuff arising. Don't get excited. And also, don't get swell-headed if somebody goes around thinking that you're so pure and so holy. Don't take that personally because if you take that personally, then you'll right away suffer. And what we're trying to do here is not suffer, end suffering. So then, it sort of goes on.

[42:14]

I'm going to finish this up. It's saying, repeating, all these things are not yours. Abandon them all. And by abandonment, abandon form, feelings, perceptions, impulses in the mind and consciousness. Abandon all this. But by abandonment, again, this is again, Rain, just like your point before, why does he say abandon all this? What he means by this is not jump off a bridge or bury yourself somewhere or go in a cave. What he means by that is abandon your attachment to it. Abandon your holding to it. Let these things be there, but don't hold on to them. So then he says, if people carried off a bunch of branches from the grove that were sitting in here, would you think that they're carrying you off and burning you with these branches? No, you would say they're carrying off branches. Well, it's the same thing with the constituents of your mind and body. These things are not you. So you're concerned if people cart off branches

[43:18]

and mess up the nice grove here, and you might try to prevent that. But you don't think that the grove is you. In the same way, there's nothing that's you, any more or less than the grove is, the trees in the grove. So then he just ends up saying, anyway, folks, this is what I'm saying, and this is a good teaching. Believe me, this really will work. And if you follow what I'm saying, you will eventually, I'm guaranteeing you that you will eventually become free. If you devote yourself to this and really reflect on it and really put it into practice in your life, you're going to become free. And not only that, but even if you can't, this is a little twist at the end here, which is a little bit out of left field, but at the end he says, and even if you can't put this into practice and really do this, implying, I have to admit,

[44:19]

it's a little bit hard, even if you can't do that, if you really believe it and really have faith in it, basically he's saying, someday you'll be able to do it. I know you will, even if you can't do it now. And the way that they say that traditionally is it means you will be reborn in heaven from which you will have an excellent opportunity to do this work. If you can't do it now, you can do it later, so don't worry. You'll definitely be able to do it if you listen and reflect on this and believe it. So that's the end of the Simile to Snake Sutra and what do we think about it? Anybody have anything to say about it or see any problems here or issues that bear closer scrutiny or what? Can I ask one more question? Sure. That analogy with the burning of the grass,

[45:21]

sticks and branches. I knew you'd get into that. I knew that. So if you're not identified with it, it doesn't cause suffering. But what about the compassion aspect when you're identified with everything? Maybe not in a personal way. Yes. See, this is a trick point and a very interesting point. So follow me on this one, right? If you're identified with everything, truly, then you're not identified with anything. Because the whole essence of identity, as we understand identity, is I'm this and I'm not that. That's what identity is. I mean, classically, identity is A equals A. It does not equal non-A. That's identity. So if there's nothing that you're not identified with, you're identified with everything, then really there's no clinging, there's no suffering.

[46:22]

Now, you can also project me. You can say, I'm identified with everything, and I... So that tree is me. And you can project self-clinging onto the tree, in which case you're not identified with everything. You're identified with the tree, but you're not identified with the person who wants to hurt the tree. And this is the challenge for environmentalists. This is what we've been talking about, and I'm sure that you and others have been reflecting on these last days. That's the challenge. It really doesn't make any difference. It's really, from the standpoint of Buddhadharma, it's no more or less selfish to say, that tree is me, than it is to say, this body is me. Either way, the result is suffering and unsuccessful living. So, yeah, I mean, the challenge for political activists and environmentalists of all... activists of all sorts is to truly work on this insight

[47:22]

of identity with all things. And then in the end, the true heart of compassion that comes out of that kind of feeling understands the complexity of these kind of situations and can, I think... I believe, it's my faith anyway, that eventually, although it may be in individual instances, it may appear slower, in the long run, it's much more sound as a strategy for creating good out of bad. That's my faith, anyway. Yes? So, I'm still a little confused. Like, if you're identified with all things and there's suffering around you, wouldn't you... you know, wouldn't... you'd still suffer just because... I mean, it seems like you'd still feel pain. Yes. You know, as much as, like, there was suffering around you. Well, this is a great point. And again, it's... it's again a little bit like Rain's point.

[48:23]

When it says suffering and the elimination of suffering, it doesn't mean the elimination of all... not negative, but... of all, you know, sadness, pain, etc., etc. Suffering means very specifically the anguish that comes from misperceiving reality and trying to hold on to it when it can't be held on to. That special kind of anguish which leads to frustration, anger, fear, craving, and these kind of horrifying mental states that we... most of us have some connection with from time to time. That kind of suffering is eliminated. But... to feel loss and pain and compassion... Compassion is a form of suffering, right? Compassion means that you suffer with others. So when someone else is suffering,

[49:24]

you feel badly. But that kind of suffering is categorically different from the suffering that comes from clinging and the anger that comes out of that. So... there is... and it really is so different that although to us it doesn't seem so different. You know, what's the difference between these two things? They seem almost the same. But actually, from the standpoint of the teaching, there's a big difference between them. Because... Akin Roshi uses the distinction, uses the word anguish to describe the suffering that the Buddha is recommending that we end and that can be ended. Anguish. So it's possible to feel... one feels sorrow over loss and all sorts of things. But that's not anguish. In the sorrow is mixed in... mixed in with the sorrow is a kind of equanimity. And a kind of acceptance in a way that this is what is.

[50:25]

And the source of the anguish is the non-acceptance that this is what is. Did you ever have that feeling? I used to have it when I was young, you know, like... I can't believe this happened. How could this have happened? It didn't happen. Surely, it didn't happen. That sort of feeling is that sinking feeling inside. Do you know what I mean? You know that feeling? It's horrible. There's no equanimity in that feeling. It's a kind of like... It's almost like you're trying to leap out of your life, which is impossible. You can't leap out of your skin. You can't do that. And yet that's the feeling. This is so unacceptable, so impossible that I wish that I wasn't here, you know, seeing this. But you are. So that's the kind of feeling. Instead of that, there's the true engagement and confrontation with what is there. This is there. This is suffering. This is difficult. This is sad. But I'm here with it. This is life. This is me.

[51:27]

This is now. This is what is happening. And I move into it. And I work with it. That's a whole different thing from this kind of anguish. So that's the difference. Now, I have to admit that in these texts, these old texts, there is more of a sense of detachment and really cooling out and not feeling so much, even the suffering of others. But our way is a little different. As I said in the very beginning, today and last week, in the Mahayana path is a much warmer and much more engaged interpretation of all these same things. A Mahayanist would interpret this in the way that I'm interpreting it. And it's a little bit of an interpretation of this text. The text would not lead you to think that, perhaps. It might lead you to think that what's being aimed for

[52:28]

is a real dispassion, not suffering, being removed, not feeling the pain of others, and so on. It might sound like that from the standpoint of this text. But first of all, I don't believe, even though the text might read that way, I don't believe it was ever meant that way. I just don't believe myself that the Buddha ever taught dispassion and detachment. I don't really believe that. And the people that I know nowadays who follow this path, and for whom these are the primary texts, people that I know well, don't teach it that way, don't understand it that way either. So I don't think it's just me projecting my Mahayanistic prejudices onto the text. I actually think, and I do believe, that that was the intention from the beginning. But the language can sound that way. So that's important. I think we certainly, our value is certainly to preserve human feeling. You know, clear and true human feeling and connection

[53:29]

we certainly want to preserve. But we want it to be undistorted by our confusion and projection. Really to feel someone's suffering. And you know, people know that. I mean, there's a way of looking at someone's suffering and projecting our views onto it. And getting all upset about it. And then, you know, rushing up to the person and helping them out. You know, with all of that. And if you've ever been a person in need of such help, you recognize that that's not that helpful to me. When somebody rushes up to me with all this stuff about how they're going to help me and how pitiful I am and so on and so on. I'm not so sure I'm helped by that. But if someone with an undistorted view just is there and really seems to feel my feeling as it is

[54:29]

without projecting all their own wishes and desires and needs onto that. But they just feel my feeling. I feel good about that. Even if they don't do anything. Even if they're just there. You know? And so, this is an important difference. We're trying to develop and cultivate that kind of feeling for others. That we really can listen to them. We really can appreciate what they are going through. Not what we think they're going through or what we imagine we would be going through if we were in their shoes. But what they're really going through. And one never knows unless one really listens and really opens oneself. And you can't do that if you're confused about who you are and what reality is. You can't do that because you are going to habitually project your own fears and desires and so on onto the other person. So thank you for these questions. These are good questions to clarify what's going on here. I just wanted to clarify what you said because you said that

[55:29]

when we feel compassion maybe we feel suffering. But I think you just clarified it by saying that when you feel compassion and you project it on like when you're in a situation with someone and they're in pain and you're trying to be compassionate and you're doing all these things and not just sitting with them then when you're projecting that that's a suffering that's what suffering is for you. When you're just sitting with them and really truly being compassionate I don't see that as suffering. I don't see that as suffering at all. No, even though you might feel their pain. Even in feeling someone else's pain that's not my suffering. That's just me saying, oh, they're in pain. Yeah, there's equanimity. The Japanese have a wonderful expression or literature around this special exquisiteness of this kind of a feeling which is not happiness or joy or relation. It is in a way a suffering a painful feeling

[56:31]

but it's also mixed in with sadness and beauty. The Japanese aesthetic is often involved with this kind of a feeling. The feeling of beauty is all wrapped up with the feeling of impermanence, of loss. The Japanese aesthetic has to do with the nature of beauty having to do with loss and impermanence because of the extent to which Buddhism has pervaded Japanese culture. This is probably the essential point about all the Japanese aesthetic things that we like so much the tea ceremony and the flower arranging all that, all comes from that feeling of sadness. It's kind of sadness. Pure Japanese aesthetic is not enthusiastically colorful. It's very simple and just a little bit. So, something that's just off balance and about to disappear that's what's most beautiful. That's what's most beautiful. Not fancy, not decorated up

[57:32]

just very simple and almost gone. That's the height of beauty in the Japanese mind. And it's a sad thing and beautiful all at the same time. And that's the feeling I think that one feels with suffering. Because suffering is when there's suffering and maybe I'm going too far here but when there's suffering when you see suffering you see a very powerful moment of existence in its truest form. So there's something sad about it and also beautiful to see something passing away is fundamentally sad and also very beautiful. One appreciates this quite a bit. It's deep. It's a very deep feeling. So there's depth to it. So the suffering that we feel through compassion

[58:33]

for ourselves as well as others you can't say it's negative and you can't say it's positive. It doesn't fit. This is enlightenment. It doesn't fit ordinary categories of it's good, it's bad I like it, I don't like it. It's somewhere outside the territory of those kinds of emotions and impulses. Yes. Well, we could go on to the next sutra. Why not? Let's do that. Let's just start it for a few minutes. We'll have some more stuff for you next week. But we'll start, this will be our next where is it? Here. This will be our next text. The Mahakamavibhanga Sutta. Mahakamavibhanga Sutta. Which you got last week. This is the, as it says here, the greater exposition of action

[59:34]

or karma. So, it's actually with all these pages here, if you read it, you see that it's like all these other sutras, extremely repetitive. And in a certain way, not that much is said in this sutra. But, the Buddha is making one point that about karma. Karma means action. All the acts that we do in a lifetime, acts of body, speech and mind, even thoughts, things we do with our body, things we say, are all volitional acts. We decide, you know, either fairly deliberately or unconsciously,

[60:37]

to do what we do, think what we think, say what we say, and there are results of that conduct. Things happen inside of us and in the world around us as a result of our activity. So, we are powerful beings. We have a lot of responsibility and a lot of control, the potential to work with our acts of body, speech and mind, and they are effective. So this sutra is about the nature of the effect that comes from acts of body, speech and mind. And like the simile of the snake sutra, it also begins with somebody who's confused about the Buddha's teaching. That's often how it happens. Somebody says, the Buddha said such and so, and somebody else says, that doesn't sound right to me, and then they debate about it, and then they finally go to the Buddha, and the Buddha says, no, it's wrong

[61:39]

or it's right, sometimes he says it's right. And usually it's wrong, though, because that gives the Buddha a chance to say what's really true. And, you know, these two sutras, I mean, I chose them with this kind of beginning because it just goes to show you that even the Buddha, you know, a great teacher like the Buddha, was commonly misunderstood. And here, by people, think of this, the Buddha was commonly misunderstood by people who were fully committed to studying his teaching and understanding it. These weren't people who casually read about it in Time magazine or something. These were people who were devoting themselves to understanding it, and they misunderstood. So it just goes to show you that it's not that easy to really understand one's life. One has to put a lot of effort into it, and that you can expect that most of the time you won't understand. And then you've got to keep seeking clarification and going a little deeper and understanding more. That's how you understand more, is by recognizing,

[62:41]

oh, I see that I don't understand this. That's insight, right? And in fact, one of the things about this sutra is that, I think it's this sutra where, no, it's another one. Anyway, there's another sutra I was reading today, which we're going to read later on in the class, where it goes through all these stages, and you get to the point where you say, now I see that I don't get this. And then that's the prelude to, now I get it. See? So this is how we realistically, folks, this is really how we work with our practice. Instead of like, now I'm practicing, now I'm enlightened, it's more like, now I'm really mixed up, now I see I'm mixed up. See? That's it. That's mostly it. That's mostly it. I mean, it doesn't sound too exciting. But it's really the truth. That's mostly it. Now I'm mixed up, but I really don't know it. And now I see I'm really

[63:43]

mixed up. And now I see how I'm mixed up. And now I see the extent of how I'm mixed up. Now I have a little more acceptance about that. And now I'm not mixed up about that, but I'm mixed up about something else. Now I'm, see I'm mixed up like that forever. So that's what happened here. They were mixed up too. Okay, that's what I heard. On one occasion, the Blessed One was living at Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrel Sanctuary. The Bamboo Grove was also one of His favorite places often mentioned. Now, on that occasion, the Venerable Samidhi was living in the Forest Hut. And then the wanderer, Pottaliputta, was wandering and walking up and down, getting exercise. He went to Samidhi and exchanged

[64:43]

greetings and they had a little pleasant conversation. And after the amenities, he got down to business and he had a question for him. He said, Friend Samidhi, says Pottaliputta, I heard this from the Buddha's own lips and I want to check it out with you. I heard the Buddha say that bodily action is vain, verbal action is vain, and only mental action is real. Now, vain here means without result. In other words, there's no karma. Actions of body and speech do not have consequences, but mental actions do. That's what I heard the Buddha say. And I also heard him say that there is a meditative state, an attainment, a way of living in which one does not feel anything at all. Which means the results of karma come

[65:47]

on the level of sensation, feeling. So that means there's an attainment in which one will not feel any results of karma. That's what I heard the Buddha say. What do you think of that? Must be that Pottaliputta himself had doubts about this, otherwise he's not going to this other guy to check it out, so he's wondering. Sanidhi says, oh, no, no, no, do not say that, please. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. The Buddha would never speak like this. Bodily action is vain, verbal action is vain, only mental action is real. He would never say that. That's incorrect. But there is that attainment on entering which one does not feel anything at all. So the second part he validates, but the first part he says no. Then Pottaliputta says, how long since you went forth, friend Sanidhi? Going forth means since you began

[66:49]

to follow the Buddha as an ordained person. How long? Three years. There now, what shall we say to the elder bhikkhus when a young bhikkhu thinks the teacher is to be defended thus? Friend Sanidhi, having done an intentional action by way of body, speech or mind, what does one feel? And Sanidhi says, having done an intentional action by way of body, speech or mind, one feels suffering. Then, so they're having this dialogue and they're not agreeing. They don't see eye to eye here. Because Pottaliputta is not satisfied with this idea that every intentional action of body, speech or mind is suffering. So, he leaves and he goes to Ananda. Ananda is the Buddha's right hand man. Ananda is hanging around the Buddha all the time and pretty much has memorized

[67:49]

this sounds unbelievable, but this is what the tradition says. Ananda has memorized every speech the Buddha ever gave for 45 years. So if you want to know what the Buddha said, check it out with Ananda because he will remember what the Buddha said. So they go to Ananda and they ask Ananda about this. And Ananda says, we better go to the Buddha and check this out. There's something here that bears looking into. This is important. You see how serious these people were about the view of reality. You know what I mean? They were totally serious about this. It was very important to understand things properly because the consequences of misunderstanding reality were dire. So, compare that to us. We don't give a thought to reality one way or the other. We're too busy watching television. Who has time for reality? We never give it a thought.

[68:51]

People live and die their whole lives. They never even imagine what reality is. They don't get to think about it at all. These guys are thinking about it all the time and really worried about it. They're worried about it. What if I get it wrong? It's consequential. And sometimes they did get it wrong. They said, okay, this is important. We better go to the Buddha. So, they went. All three of them, I think. And Ananda, who remembers everything, reports the entire conversation to the Buddha, so he gets the whole thing word for word from Ananda. Again, the Buddha gets a little exasperated here. He says, you know, Ananda, I never even saw this guy before. He says he heard this from me. I never saw him. What lecture of mine did he ever go to? I never saw this guy. He probably was there, but the Buddha didn't notice him or something.

[69:51]

I can't believe this guy is saying this. The Buddha says he was never even there. And plus, this guy was never there. He never heard what I said. And then this other guy listens to his question, doesn't even understand the question. Gives him a half-hearted answer. This whole thing is a mess, the Buddha says. Um, when this was said, the Venerable Udayan, they're surrounded by, you know, bhikkhus all the time. This other guy was there too, apparently. He says, Venerable Sir, perhaps the Venerable Smriti speaks thus, referring to the principle whatever is felt is suffering. So Smriti is wrong. They're both wrong. Smriti is wrong when he says every intentional action of body, speech and mind, one feels suffering. This is not correct. And Udayan is trying to offer an explanation for, see because these guys heard the

[70:56]

Buddha's teaching and they just misunderstood it. So, maybe that's what he misunderstood. You did say whatever is felt is suffering, didn't you? Maybe that's what he was referring to. But then the Buddha said, but this guy doesn't either know what's going on either. Everybody's mixed up here. Smriti's mixed up, Pataliputra's mixed up, and now Udayan comes in and he's straightening us all out and he doesn't know what he's talking about either. He's interfering. I knew that this misguided man, Udayan, would unduly interfere right now. From the start, the wanderer, I knew that. He's getting exasperated. I knew this would happen. As soon as this guy walked in the door, I knew he was going to do this. Now, from the beginning, let's think about this, he says. Let's think about this. In the beginning, Pataliputra asked about the three kinds of feeling. There's three kinds of feeling. This is the technical

[71:56]

Buddhist lingo. Feeling means basic, it doesn't mean what we mean by the word feeling. It doesn't mean emotion. It means basic reaction to something. There's only three possibilities for a basic reaction. The three possibilities are you like it, you don't like it, you don't care. Anything that comes in view, even before you make a complicated emotional analysis of it, and it hits all your past experiences and so on, you have a gut reaction. It's either positive, negative or neutral. So, there's those three feelings and Pataliputra was really asking about those three kinds of feelings. This misguided man, Samidhi, would have answered the wanderer Pataliputra rightly if when asked thus he would have explained, Friend Pataliputra, having done an intentional action by way of body, speech or mind,

[72:59]

and if the action of body, speech or mind is a positive action, it will lead to pleasant results, positive results. That's what he should have told him. And if he did an intentional action by way of body, speech or mind that is a negative action, he would feel a painful result from that negative action. That's what he should have told him. Having done an intentional reaction with body, speech or mind, which has a neutral result, he will feel a neutral result. That's the right view. It's not that body and speech don't have any results but mind does. No, no, no. Body, speech and mind have results. It's not that all the results, like the other guy said, are always suffering. No, no, no. They're not always suffering. They're positive if the action is positive, negative if the action is negative, neutral if the action is neutral. That's what he should have told him. That's what I've been saying for 35 years.

[73:59]

Your people just are not listening to me. What's the matter with you? He didn't say that properly. He's very polite. He would never say that. But I think his patience is being slightly tried here. Because in the next line he says, Who are these foolish, thoughtless wanderers of other sects that they could understand the Buddha's great exposition of action? Great exposition of action doesn't mean great like it's great. It means great like it's long and it's thorough. You should listen Ananda to the Buddha, to me, the Buddha, as he explains the great exposition of action. And then Ananda says, Yes, Buddha, please do explain that because this would be a great time for it and I'm all ears and I'll be sure to remember it and tell everybody. And then the Buddha is going to

[75:00]

launch into the great exposition of action. So, that's where we leave off tonight and next time. I feel sorry for you people who are in the other hostel. You're probably sitting on the edge of your seats waiting to hear what is the great exposition of action. So, I would encourage any of you who are local to come back next week and you're welcome to come here because it is very exciting. I can hardly wait myself to hear it. And I just read it this afternoon and forgot it. Alright, so that's where we'll go. We ought to be able to go through this short sutra and then do another one next time. And remember for everybody who's continuing with the class that we will be here next Tuesday, but it's the Tuesday after that that we will not meet. So, if there's no further business we will adjourn. Thank you very much. Everybody was very sweet and nicely behaved. I appreciate that.

[76:02]

And for the people in the other hostel thank you for coming. I hope that you're having a good time and that your week continues as I'm sure it will as a pleasant one with pleasant karma and pleasant result karma. May our intention intention may may our

[76:21]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ