And I think Ross passed out some copies of the Mettā Sutta, which maybe we can read together. The Mettā Sutta itself is part of the Pali Canon, some of the early texts of Buddhism. It comes from the large collection of And I had a really hard time finding it. I decided I would look for where it was, actually, in the Pali Canon. It took me a lot of this week. I kind of led here and there, and then finally found a copy. And it's just a very short sutta in the middle of a lot of others. This is what should be accomplished by the one who is wise, who seeks the good and has obtained peace.

[01:57]

Let one be strenuous, upright and sincere, without pride, easily contented and joyous. Let one not be submerged by the things of the world. Let one not take upon oneself the burden of riches. Let one's senses be controlled. be wise but not puffed up, and let one not desire great possessions even for one's family. Let one do nothing that is mean or that the wise would reprove. May all beings be happy, may they be joyous and live in safety. All living beings, whether weak or strong, in high or middle or low realms of existence, that none by anger or hatred wish harm to another.

[03:04]

Even as a mother at the risk of her own life watches over and protects her only child, so with a boundless mind should one cherish all living things, subduing love over the entire world, above, below, and all around without limit, so that one cultivate an infinite goodwill toward the whole world, Most of you who sit here in the morning, particularly on Monday morning, I was particularly thinking about it, spurred to think about it even more, because recently I was coordinator for a retreat.

[04:44]

together to explore the idea of engaged Buddhism. And the idea of loving-kindness came up again and again as we were were people were saying well what is how do we do this meta meditation and he was you shape your practice according to your own life.

[06:17]

Anyway, there were lots of things that happened during that week. One of the things that happened during that week was the coup in the Soviet Union. I think just on the last day of the and reinstated. But for the first few days, it was, people were, many of us there and here and elsewhere around the world were quite stunned and wondered how to think about it. And when you thought about it, there were a number of people at the retreat who had spent time in the Soviet Union, had friends there. In fact, Joanna Macy, who was there, her difficult to reach him by any kind of communication. If she finally did, that was okay. But we, again, we try to practice, extend this idea of loving kindness to all sides in that

[07:28]

And so that was one sort of concrete effort that we made. At the same time, from my own position as an organizer, as the week went on, as these things will have it, there was criticism, there were things that people didn't like about the structure, things they wanted changed, and I began to feel pulled in a lot of different directions, wondering how to go, how to respond, and how to keep my own in our collective center. And I kept coming back to two things. I kept coming back to trying to practice Metta, and I also was very taken, I don't know if so many of you were here when Kathy Fisher lectured here a few, probably about three weeks ago, three, four weeks ago.

[08:47]

She started out by reading a poem which goes as follows. The inner tangle and the outer tangle, this generation is entangled in a tangle. So I ask of Gautama this question, who succeeds in disentangling this tangle? it a few times and I was struck by it and I couldn't, I couldn't place it, I couldn't even place its time, whether it was something that was contemporary or something that was ancient. I mean the language of translation was such that I couldn't place it with this idea of this generation is entangled and entangled. or our generation, or the generations around us, anyway. And of course, it turns out that this was written about 1,500 years ago in India.

[09:56]

And so the problems were much the same. And I felt that, well, just in terms of inner tangle and outer tangle, inner tangle was my own my own struggle with how to meet people's needs, how to meet my own needs, how to respond to criticism, how to stay flexible as best I could in the context of this retreat. And then in the large sense, the outer tangle was just on. So these inner and outer tangles constantly exist. And so as Kathy mentioned, this poem, actually, this is the question that begins a fact book called the Visuddhimagga, which is a central Theravada or

[11:09]

if you will, Hinayana meditation manual from the 5th century AD, by our reckoning, written by Buddha Gosa. It's a meditation manual, and you can also think of it as a Buddhist psychotherapeutic textbook. to respond to various... it suggests meditations and techniques for responding to various states of mind that are pretty similar to the kinds of things that we experience. It doesn't seem that human nature has made any great alterations or changes in the last several thousand years. I mean, there are probably places that have some different psychological mechanisms, but anger, and desire, and dislike, those seem pretty fundamental and unchanging.

[12:17]

So, that poem is the question that begins the Vasudhi Vaga, and there's a four-line answer, which is extremely... It doesn't really seem to answer it in a way that might be so useful to us. So the rest of the book, I should read you the answer, perhaps, and then I could stop talking and you can all leave. When a wise man, established well in virtue, develops consciousness and understanding, then as a bhikkhu, ardent and sagacious, he succeeds in disentangling this tangle. Okay? The rest of the book is actually an explication of those four lines.

[13:24]

It tells, it suggests what, well, What does it mean? What do those words mean, and how do you do it? And it just happens that the Vasudhimagga is also the central text that I could find for speaking about metta. Now, we practice, our practice here is a Zen practice, and In Zen, you wouldn't necessarily think that you would need a 900-page book to answer a fundamental question like that. In Zen, the answer would be more absolute and direct. It would be just drop your mind and body, or just take the sword of your understanding and cut through the knot of that tangle. It's a very direct technique.

[14:28]

But what Suzuki Roshi said about the practice that he brought here and the practice that he was encouraging is that we have a Hinayana practice with a Mahayana mind. The more I thought about that this week, the more really appropriate that seems to me. In zazen, which is our fundamental practice, as we sit, particularly as we sit for a long time, over a period of months and years, or over a period of seshin, we can identify in ourselves a desire to be kind. You can feel you and there's a warm feeling that extends first from ourselves to to the people who are sitting around us and perhaps to our families and I often feel when I come out of session that the go off to our

[15:44]

bow to the waiter or waitress, you know, you want to conduct yourself in this very kind, really direct way. And then, of course and unfortunately, it wears off and we return to our older habits, the layers of our habits. But you can for this warm, inclusive mind, which is the Mahayana mind, and it comes also as we sit a lot, our legs hurt, our minds are filled with our own pain, and gradually you realize that you share that with all the people that you are sitting with, So, there's a kind of identification of your suffering, one's suffering and desires with other people.

[16:54]

So that's our Bodhisattva mind, or the rising of this Bodhisattva ideal to help people. Now, the Hinayana aspect, or the Theravada aspect, is sort of a different tack. with the same material, really. It's very much deeply a psychological approach that, in a sense, is closer to how we think about psychology in the West. I mean, if you went to your therapist and your therapist said, just drop body and mind, you probably wouldn't be so inclined to pay them Instead, you take advantage of the opportunity to examine your life, examine the feelings that are coming up, and try to examine the roots of them as carefully as you can.

[18:03]

And in extent, that is very much what you do in a Theravada practice. things come up, these feelings come up, and we feel them coming up and we return to our intention to sit, but after a while what you become in touch with is that these things are constantly rising, and some of them are more deeply rooted than others, but these forces, these feelings, these thoughts are constantly rising and you begin to develop a way of recognizing them, of bowing to them, of being kind to them and of moving on with your life, not caught by them, which is very much what

[19:21]

But if what you do is try to repress them, push them out of the way, blank them out, that won't work. You won't get rid of them. They will come back and haunt you as fiercely as they can until you actually acknowledge them and give them some kindness. So we examine our mind and these dharmas and all these phenomena very minutely. So, whether we use the word Karavata or Mahayana or Hinayana, this is not so important, actually, because the Buddha Dharma is consistent. These are just different approaches, but the Buddha Dharma itself Well, actually, this analogy works both ways.

[20:41]

I was going to say, Hinayana and Mahayana is not the same as, like, Republicans and Democrats. But actually, maybe it is the same as the Republicans and Democrats, because when you really look at them, there ain't so much difference between the two of them. So with that, I'd like to the Vasudhimagga and suggest that these kinds of meditations and these kinds of analysis are really instructive for us to look at our own lives and to see what we can find that's useful for us in it. So I wanted to read a little and discuss Metta and where it comes from as analyzed in this, laid out in this early text. Now, Metta, loving kindness, is one of the four abodes, four divine abodes, what is called in here the Brahma Viharas, the abodes of Brahma.

[21:55]

And there are, the four of them are Metta, or loving kindness, friendliness, The third one is mudita, which is sympathetic joy. It's the joy that arises when someone has joy in their own life, or success in their own life. And the fourth one is upeka, which is called equanimity. And that one, in a way, calls for successfully having done a lot of work on the first three. So these Brahma-viharas are some of the classic meditation subjects. Early in the in the Vasudhi-maga, there are 40 subjects of meditation that are defined in the Brahma-viharas. The divine abodes, or unlimiteds, that's another way to call them, are among them.

[23:03]

Some of you might recognize the Meta Vihara. There is a hospice in Richmond that's called Meta Vihara, which is run by Reverend Sukhita Dharma. And that's really, to his mind, it is the abode of friendliness. And when you talk to him about what they do there, both just becoming ill with AIDS or AIDS-related syndrome, and people who are also dying. And most of the work that they do, the way he describes it, is just to be friends to them, just to be friends to the people who are coming in, which fundamentally means a lot of listening. just sitting around and being willing, as openly as possible, to hear these people's stories.

[24:13]

So that's, you know, if you hear Mettatvihara, then that's very literally been translated from this kind of intellectual So I wanted to read you just a little about these four votes so you have an idea about their characteristics. Loving kindness is characterized as promoting the aspect of welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is manifested as the removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing lovableness in beings. It succeeds when it makes ill will subside, and it fails when it produces selfish affection.

[25:20]

Compassion is characterized as promoting the aspect of allaying suffering. Its function resides in not bearing others' suffering. It is manifested as non-cruelty. Its proximate cause is to see helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering. It succeeds when it makes cruelty subside. and it fails when it produces sorrow. Gladness, or sympathetic joy, is characterized as gladdening that is produced by others' success. Its function resides in being unenvious. It is manifested as the elimination of aversion or boredom. Its proximate cause is in seeing beings' success. It succeeds when it makes aversion or boredom subside, and it fails when it produces merriment. Equanimity is characterized as promoting the aspect of neutrality towards beings. Its function is to see equality in beings.

[26:25]

It is manifested as the quieting of resentment and approval. Its proximate cause is seeing the ownership of deeds in this way. Beings are the owners of their deeds. Whose is the choice by which they will become happy, or will get free from their suffering, or will not fall away from the success they have reached? It succeeds when it makes resentment and approval subside, and it fails when it produces the equanimity of unknowing, which is that worldly-minded indifference of ignorance. The question is sort of how we practice metta and what is it useful for to us.

[27:28]

And I just think it's a little more clear here how you practice it. A meditator who wants to develop firstly loving-kindness, if he is a beginner, should sever the impediments and learn the meditation subject. Then, when he has done the work connected with the meal and gotten rid of any dizziness due to it, and I suspect that that's fairly literal, I think that means after you eat, you stop. and gotten rid of any dizziness due to it, he should seat himself comfortably on a well-prepared seat in a secluded place. To start with, he should review the danger in hate and the advantage in patience." So hate or aversion or dislike, this is the work that Metta is designed to

[28:34]

to take on. And Metta itself has, it has, I mean, anger and resentment are the, they're the enemy that it takes on. But it has what's called a near enemy and a far enemy, which is an interesting concept. The near enemy is In Buddhism, almost every quality has a near and a far enemy. The near enemy is something that is very much akin to the feeling itself. And there's always a danger that if you're really not paying attention to how you're practicing or how you're conducting yourself, it's easy to slip into this near enemy. And the far enemy, of course, is more the antithesis The divine abiding of loving-kindness has greed as its near enemy, since both share in seeing virtues.

[29:37]

Greed behaves like a foe who keeps close by a man, and it easily finds an opportunity, so loving-kindness should be well protected from it. An ill-will which is dissimilar to the similar greed is its far enemy, like a foe ensconced in a rock wilderness. So loving-kindness must be practiced free from fear of that. for it is not possible to practice loving kindness and feel anger simultaneously." Well, all I can say is, you can try. And I think that's the best you can do in these situations, is to keep trying. And I think that's very much what the meditations that it's suggesting are urging, because After it describes Metta in all this kind of florid language, it says, it tells you basically how to go about it.

[30:48]

And the way it suggests you go about it is to begin by applying it to yourself. and to proceed from there to apply it to someone who is dearly beloved to you, someone who is then someone who is neutral, a person that you have neutral feelings about, and then someone that you feel to be hostile. And it's quite clear about the order that you take on this work, because you have to begin by applying it to yourself. You have to start by saying, may I be happy. And then proceed in these gradual stages to subjects that are more and more difficult. Because if you haven't set this groundwork, then you're bound to fail.

[31:52]

But the bulk of of the text on Metta is related to, well, what happens when you can't do it? And there are about 20 pages in here of that. There's about three pages of how you do it, and then If resentment still arises when he applies his mind to a hostile person, because he remembers wrong done by that person, he should get rid of the resentment by entering repeatedly into loving-kindness. Okay, that's the first one. And then there are perhaps eight or ten other techniques which makes one realize resentment and anger are fairly persistent. And they were just as persistent 1,500 years ago.

[32:56]

I mean, we're talking about, this is a book that was written for monks, among people who had already taken the vows, who had taken 250 precepts, and who had this very strong calling. as strong for them as it is for us sitting here. And some of the techniques, I'll just read you a couple of them because I think they're actually quite useful. Another technique for examining this resentment is If, as he reviews the special quality of this person's former conduct, the resentment still does not subside in him, since he has been long used to this defilement, then he should review the suttas that deal with the beginninglessness of rebirth.

[34:04]

Here is what is said. It is not easy to find a being who has not formerly been your mother, your father, your brother, your sister, your son, your daughter. Consequently he should think about that person thus. This person, it seems, as my mother in the past carried me in her womb for ten months and removed from me without disgust, as if it were yellow sandalwood, my urine, excrement, spittle, in her lap, and nourished me, carrying me about at her hip. And this person, as my father, went by goat paths, and paths set on piles, etc., to pursue the trade of merchant. And he risked his life for me by going into battle in double array, by sailing on the great ocean in ships, and doing other difficult things. And he nourished me by bringing back wealth, by one means or another, thinking to feed his children. And as my brother, sister, son, daughter, this person gave me such and such help, so it is unbecoming. Another technique.

[35:13]

If you are unable to stop it in this way, try resolution into elements. How? Now, you who have gone forth into homelessness, that means becoming a monk, when you are angry with him, what is it you are angry with? Is it head hairs you are angry with? Or body hairs? Or nails? Is it urine you are angry with? Or alternatively, is it the earth element in the head hairs you are angry with? Or the water element? Or the fire element? Or is it the air element you are angry with? Is it the eye you are angry with? Or the mind you are angry with? For when he tries the resolution into elements, his anger finds no foothold, like a mustard seed on the point of an awl, or a painting on the air. And actually, the last technique, which is... These are like the last three, when all else fails.

[36:17]

And the last technique is extremely interesting. But if he cannot affect the resolution into elements, he should try the giving of a gift. It can be either given by himself to the other, or accepted by himself from the other. But if the other's livelihood is not purified and his requisites are not proper to be used, it should be given by oneself. And in the one who does this, the annoyance with that person entirely subsides. And in the other, even anger that has been dogging him from a past birth subsides at that moment, as happened to the elder monk who received a bowl given to him at the monastery by an alms-food elder who had been who had been three times made to move from his lodging by him, and who presented it with these words, Venerable sir, this bowl was given to me by my mother, who is a lay devotee, and it is readily obtained. Let the good lay devotee acquire merit.

[37:22]

So efficacious is this act of giving that this is said, a gift for taming the untamed, a gift for every kind of good. Through giving gifts, they do unbend and condescend to kindly speech. There's something really powerful and beautiful about that to me. I mean, it just would not have occurred, it wouldn't have occurred to me as the last resort of friendliness. But it's something, if you think of, in the realm of karma, we have body, speech, And what we have body, speech, and mind, we have words, thoughts, and deeds, or thoughts, words, and deeds in that order. So the last, the most powerful thing is an action itself. So the giving of a gift is a very strong, it has very strong implications and very strong

[38:25]

Lastly, I'd just like to come back to the Mettā Sutta, because to me, the core of the Mettā Sutta is of how you do it, or how I think about it, is this section that begins, even as a mother at the risk of her own life, watches over and protects her only child. So with a boundless mind should one cherish all living things, suffusing love over the entire world, above, below, and all around, without limit. So let one cultivate an infinite goodwill towards the whole world." I have some experience of this and many of you do and I don't think you need a child to do it.

[39:35]

But it's very powerful because it's not this love and this friendliness is completely unconditional and it's also not always so nice. You know, it fits in the realm of, I guess what they call now, tough love. Well, there are things, the baby is getting into everything now. She has her own, she's embarked on her own 12-step program. That's about as far as she can walk. 12 steps and then she falls down. But she's highly mobile, she's getting into everything and wants, you know, a sort of untrammeled freedom. But from the point of view of being a parent, we're both terrified and protective.

[40:38]

And so on the one hand, there's a kind of love that just wants to eat her up, just hug her and kiss her and just all of this love just flows out of you. And there is also the side that is fiercely and fiercely intensely and automatically protected. And I think that in this true expression of metta, the true expression of metta is not this kind of You know, that's not what it's about. There's really steel there. And the steel is in caring as passionately for these beings, for all beings, as you would protect your only child or as you would protect your own life.

[41:52]

It's been my experience meeting monks in different traditions. They have this friendly style, which is so warm and comforting to me. But when you see them working, or when you see them, what they're willing, the circumstances that they're willing to throw themselves into, you begin to see this steel that's there. And again, it doesn't matter whether it's, that's where there's no difference to me. In fact, I suspect there's no difference between practitioners of almost any spiritual tradition in the deepest sense. And that provides a real core of strength for people.

[43:09]

And again, you know, we have this Bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism, but I don't feel that there's any difference. This Sutta predates any kind of division like that. And yet the idea of the Brahma, the Haras, and of Metta in particular, is so completely fitting to the Bodhisattva ideal. that is steeled by the love that you feel for all beings. Well, I think I will stop there.

[44:11]

I'll leave a few minutes for discussion. This is really just sort of scratching the surface, but I wanted to just give a brief taste of the Vasudhi Magga and a taste of how some of these Human beings have not changed, but techniques of being in the world haven't changed much. It seems to me that what you've read, the Siddhi Magga, that it's not much different than Fritz Perl's. Put your whatever it is in a chair and talk to it, or give it a gift, tell me about it.

[45:12]

I was also thinking about an object of hate that I've had for years, Richard Nixon. At the retreat they talked about Henry Kissinger. I thought that idea of a gift to a real I like what you said at the end about both the sweetness of it and the steel of it. When I first heard it, my response was to be very, I just felt very grateful for the lovingness of it, and also quite riveted because it came to me as a kind of political statement, with this terribly difficult line, and that one not desire great possessions even for one's family. Because it seems to me that if you really extend the meta to everybody, as you think more about it, it becomes a very radical political point of view.

[46:22]

Why should anybody have any more possessions than anyone else? Then you get into all of that. And I'm glad to have a sutra that does, at least for me, take a political point of view. It makes me think about that. And let not one desire great possessions even for one's family, that almost seems kind of like... I mean, it seems to wish others would have great possessions. That seems to be like generosity, or it's a desire for another's happiness? Is it to wish Did the family not be overcome by possessions?

[47:29]

I think so. I think it's rooted in an understanding that these possessions don't necessarily bring you happiness. And also, as Meili was saying, that usually what happens in the world, if one person has great possessions, that means someone else And that's the way our world tends to work. I think it worked that way then, and it certainly works that way now. So if you're wishing for great possessions for one's family, then you're not seeing the larger notion of family of all beings, that that's going to mean someone else will perhaps be deprived. So what if one seeks to accrue possessions in order to give away possessions? Like it's a selflessness, just a desire to, you know, say a person feels that they can do the job better than anybody else, go out into the world and to set

[48:52]

of an economic situation that would be self-sustaining to give, you know, to help support charities or, you know, to not be overcome by possessions or anything, but to give. What about something like that? Well, fundamentally I think that would be wonderful, and secondarily I would, all my instincts say that person should examine their motivations really carefully. should be really careful looking at that. Because there might be something else that person wants to possess that might not be what we generally recognize as a possession. Yeah? I think I would differ a little bit with the radical political notion of this clause. I think the emphasis is on the word desire. Possessions themselves have an inherent quality, which I think in the United States we have to acknowledge we have a problem with, which is that one possession seems to breed the desire for another one.

[50:13]

But I'm not sure that the having of possessions in a damaging sense than the only possessions that you would need for usefulness would be very simple ones. And in that sense, it's still sort of, of course, the idea of not taking more possessions than you need so that everyone can have a certain amount of possessions. I see that.

[51:44]

I just want to raise a question. I think I know the answer, and I don't like it, but whether there is any place for anger in dealing with the world, for being angry at Kissinger or George Bush or Lionel Wilson, for that matter. Here, if you can take it. I saw the mind tube not long ago and was put in touch with my anger at push, for example. And now I can say, I like that anger. I'm very attached to that anger. And the answer is probably it's not helpful, but I really do. I find it very hard to let go of it. What I notice too is that I feel kind of foolish at the notion of letting go. Like if I'm not, angry at Jewish, then I'm a sap or a fool or something like that, that I'm letting, I don't really know what's going on, because if you know what's going on, surely you would be angry.

[54:23]

I have a habit of being angry, and it's there. But anyway, the question I want to raise is, is there any, did energy come from it? That's what I think is good about it, that's it. At any rate, is there any place for being angry? Can you have loving kindness and be angry? Maybe you could have loving kindness and be fierce, but could you have it be angry? I think this is where I want to end. I'd just like to say that actually this is precisely a question that came up. It was a talk given by Christopher and Greens Party activists at the retreat. And we had just, you know, all during the week, we've particularly been hearing from Dr. Ayuratne, and we recently had the example of the Dalai Lama being here, who were really talking about a kind of, they were talking about taking on your anger.

[55:40]

They were not, you know, he was not advocating anger in any way. He was unequivocally saying this is not helpful. And Christopher Titmuss, who came in late in the event for one day, was saying essentially what you're saying, I think. Do you remember that? Yeah, but you say it. I mean, I think that he was... I just want some confirmation. I think he was saying that there was such a thing as constructive anger. And this was a debate that didn't get played out. I would have loved to have heard it. The question got raised, but not fully discussed. And this is actually... why I want to talk about this today. So, I think maybe it's a quarter after 11 just about, and I think this is a good place to end.

[56:48]

This is where we have our work to do. So, thank you very much.

[56:54]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ