I don't have any students, right? So, unlike last time, I had carefully read this whole thing before I Xeroxed it. Not to say there will be any improvement from last time. Now, see, this part that we have here is from the chapter on karma, which we read some of before. The part that I Xeroxed last time, I think was from Volume 1, which is not about karma, but it's about, there's a section earlier here on causality, the six causes, the six causes and the four conditions. And that's, just to give you an idea, this is a vast structure, right? That's in a section called Dharma is not associated with the mind.

[01:14]

Yeah, this is what we did last week. Now, remember, we spent a lot of time on the universal dharmas that arise in the mind, remember that, and we spent a lot of time on the defiled dharmas that arise in the mind. These are dharmas, then there's a whole section on other dharmas not associated with the mind. So these are like, somehow, forces in the world. See, like, form and mental and physical phenomena are all associated with the mind. Like, form is associated with the mind, and my seeing of form outside of my own body, I apprehend that with my mind. So these are all things associated with the mind. All the dharmas associated with the mind are all enumerated and discussed. Then they have a section, which is very controversial, because not everybody agrees there is such a thing. But the Sarvastivadins say there are other dharmas that are not associated with the mind that are real entities. And in that section, they discuss causality, as if

[02:20]

causality were something that was real, like a real substance almost, but it's not part of the mind. And under that section, they talk about the six causes and the four conditions. And that's what we were doing last time. That's in chapter two. And because it seemed like it would be a good idea to look into the whole philosophy of causation. And we got a little bit of some mileage out of it, but it was really complicated and hard to understand. We doubted that it was worthwhile, so we scuttled that. Now we skip back to the chapter on karma, which we had many happy times with in the past. And so we're back to that chapter. So it's odd. You'd think that the part on causality would be in this chapter, you know what I mean? It's kind of strange. So I don't really understand why causality, the function of causes. I think maybe the thing is that here, it's more focusing on moral conduct. Karma seems to be, the chapter on karma, seems to be more

[03:26]

focused specifically on moral conduct and not general causality. Because under the chapter on karma is discussed the parimoksha rules, and discipline, and the various precepts, etc., etc. So... Did you find out from Rev? Oh, yes. We had a conversation about that. And actually, sort of a non-event in a way, because... Did he remember? He remembered, but we couldn't figure out exactly what the issue was. But we had a nice discussion about the text that I had brought up in the Dharma talk that caused people to question. And the text was Dogen's text, Deep Faith and Causality, which still disturbs me, that text. Because in that text, if you remember,

[04:31]

and I brought this up in the Dharma talk. And in the Dharma talk, I was speaking from the standpoint of that text. I was sticking to the point of view in that text. And in that text, I would say that, in my opinion, Dogen takes what you would call a dualistic view. He denies the perfectly good teachings of Zen and Madhyamaka Mahayana Buddhism that say that from the ultimate perspective, karma is empty. And there can be freedom from karma from an ultimate perspective. He quotes many Zen masters who bring up both the ultimate and the relative, and honor both. And he says they're wrong. Only the relative is true. And if you think that the ultimate perspective, that there is freedom from karma, is true, you're blah, blah, blah. You're deluded. So this is like a surprising thing. But he does say that in that text. Now, whether he...

[05:32]

Again, remember when we talked about it in here, we said maybe he was saying that for a particular reason in a particular circumstance. We don't know. But if you pick up that text and you read that text as being what it is, it does take that one-sided stance. And I, in my talk, took that one-sided stance on behalf of the text, and that's what was disturbing to the students. So Rev and I talked about it, and I had to convince him, I admit. But I did convince him, I think, that the text, that in effect, what was going on there was Dogen was teaching unorthodox dharma in that text. And of course, Dogen knew that. Of course he knows. So the question we're left with is, why did Dogen... What do we have to learn from a wrong view being purposely propounded by someone who we know knows it's a wrong view, and yet he insists on it? What's the reason? What is the koan in that for us?

[06:36]

And I'm still working on that. But Rev and I did come to agree that, never mind what the correct view is, let's look at what Dogen is saying here. And we agreed that we know from other places in Dogen that Dogen knows better, that he knows the right view. We know that, and that he supports it. But yet in this text, he on purpose taught the wrong view, and we don't know why, and what could we verify? And I can understand it. I can see, I can imagine a time when just like form is form, emptiness is emptiness. And sometimes you say emptiness is all there is. Form is all there is. And one has to really appreciate that point. Maybe for a particular situation, a particular student, you really have to come down on that point, because the student needs to hear that, or the situation calls for it. So anyway, that's where we ended up. When was that particular text written in his life? Was it toward the end of his life? I don't think Shambhala Ganges was organized necessarily chronologically. No. Well, we could tell. The reason I say this is, I was reading Heinrich Dumoulin's History of Zen,

[07:39]

and he said that Dogen, in his later years, kind of became like really Frankie. Oh yeah, that's definitely. And maybe even sort of like denied some of his earlier teachings, very conservative and very monastic stuff, and you know, without a little less of an olive branch to lay practice kind of. Oh definitely. This is one of the kind of contemporary discoveries about Dogen, because prior to that sort of thing, was the idea that Dogen was, you know, like infallible. In other words, that Dogen's teaching was one piece, and that he didn't, how could you change? How could a Buddha change over time? Buddha would always teach the true dharma. And so this is a modern, you know, a view of modern scholarship, but it's agreed on. I think everybody that I've read, all scholars agree that that's true. So the question is, when did he teach this text? And the answer is, this was compiled during the summer training period.

[08:39]

I believe this was compiled during the summer training period in 1255 by Eijo. Oh, see, this is a good thing. By Eijo, who listened to Dogen teaching it. But if it was 1255, Dogen was already dead in 1255, so it must have been a late talk. Plus, he says, he added the following remarks, I have copied and compiled these writings, but they are as yet incomplete. The complete version must be written in the future. So maybe we can write it off. But no, I don't want to write it off. It's a big problem. Why write it off? Is this it? Anyway, that's what happened there. We had a good talk about it. It was very interesting. Reminds me of a cook who has written many cookbooks, announcing recently that, oh yeah, I knew there were some problems. I knew there were some mistakes in the recipes in that

[09:42]

particular cookbook. I put them in there intentionally, just to see if anyone would notice. So anyway, this thing here, the Aizerox, I read with a lot of interest and I feel like it has some relevant parts to it in our effort here to understand. And, you know, keeping in mind that there's a lot about this we don't know, and we're picking this up in the middle of something. And also keeping in mind the fact that this is a sort of a classical Buddhist scholastic philosophy. It's not exactly the same as Zen thought. Still, let's

[10:46]

see what we can find out. I feel like this section starts on 629, after the three dots. By virtue of what characteristics is an action determinate? That is to say necessarily retributed. Retributed, yes, retributed. So there's a lot of talk before this about different kinds of situations in which actions don't have retribution. Arhats, beings in other realms, etc., etc., what kinds of actions have retribution, don't. So now we're getting into the section here about regular, ordinary, everyday stuff that we know about, that action retribution. So by virtue of what characteristics is an action determinate? That

[11:48]

is to say necessarily retributed. How would you define retributed? There's a consequence. There's a clear consequence from it. And then the Kara says, action accomplished through intense defilement or through intense faith with regard to the field of qualities continually in the murdering of a father and a mother are determinate. So that requires some explanation, obviously. And then the explanation says, action accomplished through intense defilement, action accomplished through intense faith, action accomplished with regard to a field of qualities and action continuously accomplished are determinate. Field of qualities signifies either the three jewels or certain persons, namely the possessors of the results or saints and the possessors of certain absorptions,

[12:55]

meaning concentration states. And you got to remember that for these writers, the concentration states were very definite. They were like different worlds. There was Kamadattu, Rupadattu, Arupadattu. And Rupadattu and Arupadattu were worlds of meditation, concentration, and they were like different universes in which the laws were different in those universes than what they were in Kamadattu. And a lot of the discussion always is about, well, what's it like in Kamadattu? What's the same thing in Rupadattu and Arupadattu? So here, if you have intense defilement, in other words, insult or bad thoughts about or something, the three jewels, or people who are very accomplished in the way, having gone through, realized, you know, this is very scientific, you know, they've gone through certain stages and realized certain things. If you diss them, you get a really bad karma for that. Plus, if somebody has, even if they're not a saint,

[13:57]

an enlightened one, and there's various categories of enlightened ones, even if they're not an enlightened one, but they have entered this certain absorption, certain concentration state, and you diss them, then you also get bad karma. Action accomplished with regard to these fields, even in the absence of an intense thought of defilement or of faith or of continuity, is determined whether it is good or bad. In other words, the opposite is true, too. If you do, if you make offerings to them, you can see where this is all coming from, the need to take seriously and make offerings and have faith in the possibility of awakening and have faith in the people who have accomplished it, or the converse, to disrespect them, this brings serious consequences one way or the other. The same for the murder of one's father or mother with whatever intention it was committed. So, in other words, these are the heaviest and most clearly, things that bring the most clear repercussions. It's more complicated and less dire. So, in other words, disrespecting an

[15:03]

arhat or a stream-winner, etc., is just as heavy as murdering your parents, which is the heaviest of all negative crimes. So, that's what it says. So, these definitely will bring retribution. All other action, which is done with a weak defilement, etc., is indeterminate. So, in other words, there's karma there, but it's mixed up with other things, and it's not so clear how that's going to go, what's going to happen exactly. Only these things? All it says, all other action. So, only the things that they talked about, disrespecting the arhats and killing your parents, only that handful of things? Are necessarily retributed. Necessarily. Necessarily retributed. Aren't necessarily retributed. That's what it seems to be saying. And it says, then, that continually...

[16:03]

I get that the key is the issue of weak defilement versus, the weakness versus previously it was talked about, intense. That it's not... In the one that you just said that was like dissing the arhat or something like that, well, it seems like maybe you could do, you didn't necessarily have to, you could maybe just really appreciate the Coca-Cola, but if it was intense, that was creating karma, whereas if you just sort of kind of liked it... Yeah, right. It's intense. So, if you just, if you made a casual remark, you know, that arhat is a jerk. Forgetting about arhats. But anybody. Yeah, you did the first, in number 54, yeah, through intent. Well, see, the thing is that, to me, as I understand this, it does seem to refer to action, intense defilement, or faith, specifically with regard

[17:11]

to the field of qualities. Not anybody or anything, but the field of qualities. And either the three jewels, or an arhat, or someone who has attained this concentration state. Now, the continually, action continually accomplished, I mean, let's keep in mind that, you know, these karikas are subject to interpretation. The interpreter here is the writer of the karika, so you got to have faith in his interpretation. But it could be that this action continuously accomplished, meaning have deeply rooted intense defilement, it could mean that it could be a separate thing. In other words, intense defilement relation to the three... That's how I... To the three, yeah, that's what you're saying, I think, to the three jewels, etc. Or a continually intense defiled point of view, even if it's not in relation to to the field of merit. Because that just seems to be what determinate karma,

[18:14]

more, you know, more accurate. The intensity, yeah. And the field of qualities becomes much more general. Yeah, because in the next line it says, all other action which is done with a weak defilement is indeterminate. That's where I got, yeah. Yeah, well, that makes sense. I feel that that is supported by what, so what it's saying. So in other words, the idea is that if you have a weaker defilement, then you may, there'll be difficult karma coming with that, but not necessarily, because it's mixed in with good karma and all other kind of factors, you know, which is kind of common sense. It makes more sense than statements that you read about in Zen, where it'll say, you know, one moment of defiled mind is infinite, you know, defilement forever. One moment of enlightened mind is enlightenment forever. If you take that literally, it sounds kind of like terrifying, you know. It's like, I have one bad thought and I'm like completely doomed forever. So this says, no, it's more mixed, and you can't tell. Of course,

[19:18]

just like Pascal's famous argument about belief in God, you don't know for sure. Since it might be true, you better be careful. This is like that here. Even though it's indeterminate, you know, it's not a good idea to indulge in weak defilements, since probably some bad things are going to happen. So by virtue of what characteristic is an action experienced in the present existence? So since we've had many conversations in here, and we're not so sure that we're convinced about future existences, this is an interesting question. So this is specifically about actions that you do in this life that are going to come back on you in this life. What kind of actions are those? Action bears result in the present existence by reason of certain characteristics of the field and the intention. Now, by reason of the excellence of the field,

[20:28]

remember the field means the three jewels, etc., even though the intention may be weak. For example, the bhikshu who becomes a woman through having insulted the sangha, you are nothing but women. This must make the women in their own field great. This is the frankly misogynistic view of these early people. But the point, forgetting about that, the point being that even though the intention, the defilement is weak, even so, there's going to be retribution in the present life, it says. Or conversely, by reason of the excellence of the intention, for example, the eunuch who delivered voles from the danger of being castrated and so regained his own sexuality, which is a famous story in Buddhism. Gauguin tells this story. In fact, it might actually be that same basket on deep belief in causality, he tells this.

[21:33]

So, in other words, this sort of seems to contradict the previous section, in a way. I guess, unless there's a difference between intention and defilement, or still further. And also, when one is definitively detached with regard to the stage in which the action appears. When a person is definitively detached from a certain stage, a certain, I think, and I didn't have all my books with me last night, so I wasn't able to look up chapter four. Why don't you look up, while we're talking, look up chapter four, uh, number 52, if you wouldn't mind. Chapter five. Well, this is it. Chapter four, number 52.

[22:40]

Yes. A certain plane of existence. He has, um, by his practice, he is able to detach himself from that plane of existence, so that he will never be reborn in that plane of existence, and therefore any results that might come in that plane of existence are his immune to. The first Dhyana in Kamadhatu is an example. And this basically refers to one of the saints, one of the people who have burned away all defilements, and therefore are eliminating states in which they might be reborn. So, if they're, um, detached with regard to that state, um, they won't. You can't backslide?

[23:44]

Yeah. Well, when you, once you pass a certain level, you can't. That's what they say. It sort of makes sense. So the idea here, but this is a very curious idea. The idea here is that, as it says, since the person is detached from being reborn in that stage, and he commits an action whose retribution would happen in a later lifetime in that stage, since he's not going to go to that stage in a later life, he's going to get the retribution in this life. So in a way, like, so what this is saying is that the saints have worse karma in this life than other people. Other people. So you do an action, you see, that you, in another life, you would get the retribution for it, but the saint doesn't have to do the same, because he's not going to go to that other life and get that retribution. So he or she gets it in this life. It's odd, I do. Thank you. I was saying that in the karma workshop too. Actually, it's more instant retribution.

[24:47]

Yeah, that's it. Because you're more and more in the present. That's it. Yeah, that's what it is. So in a sense, that's why sometimes, like, I joke and I say, well, when you practice, it's worse. Your life is worse. Because in fact, you're more, this is like a modern psychological way of saying the same thing. You practice, when you practice, you're more aware of what's going on. And so you're not burying stuff, which you're going to reap later on. You get it right away. You know tomorrow that today, you were mean. And tomorrow you have anguish over yesterday's meanness. Instead of waiting 50 years or 20 years to reap that meanness, you know it already tomorrow. There's another great, I'm not sure if I have this saying right, but it's something like, the suffering of the saints in the highest heaven is worse than the suffering of the devils in the lowest hell. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because there's no ignorance. So sensitive. Yeah, there's something here, I think, I think it's here about the saying about people in hell

[25:49]

and their relationship to all this. Anyway, so these are all instances of action, which you would experience in this life, which we could take to mean very quickly on the heels of an action. Examples aren't so contemporary. What? The examples aren't so contemporary here. No, no, they're not. This is an old, I mean, think about it. How old is this text? Sixth century or something like that. Seventh century. I forget how old the Abhidharmakosha is, but it's, you know, like over a thousand years old. It's amazing that it would make any sense at all to us. When was Bodhidharma around? Is that about the same time? Earlier. Earlier, I don't know. That's a good question. One should know this immediately. And I know Bodhidharma's approximate time is sixth century, but I'm actually not sure. Maybe at the very beginning, let's say. Yes, yes. The early part of the Abhidharma literature is fifth century.

[26:52]

And this text is... Still, it's like 900 years after Buddha. Oh yeah, it's a long time after Buddha. Bodhidharma was a long time ago. 1,500 years ago, almost a thousand years after me. I don't see it right now. But I think that Vasubandhu's dates, the author of this, is a little later than Bodhidharma,

[27:55]

but I could be wrong. Well, this is the same Vasubandhu who was in Arjuna's chain? Yeah. Well, then he's before Bodhidharma. Yeah. Oh, yeah, that's right. No, you're right. But let's see. Fine mind. It says, all I know here is that Xuanzang, it says, I'm pointing right away, worked on the translation of the Abhidharmakosha Bhashan in 654. So it was written a long time before that. So let's say, yeah, yeah, you're right, of course, at the end of the day, so it's really old. Really old, right? It's before 500. So in a way, it's amazing that it's, you know, you can get anything out of it.

[28:58]

So anyway, going on here. Action determinate with regard to retribution. This refers to action having a necessary retribution, but indeterminate with regard to the period of its retribution. This action will be retributed in the present life. So there's a contradiction there. As for action determinate with regard to the period of its retribution, it will be retributed in the period for which it is determinate. Person for whom action should be retributed in this first rebirth in a certain stage cannot be definitively detached from this stage. As for action non-determinate with regard to the retribution itself, it will not be retributed if one detaches himself from the stage where it could have been retributed.

[30:04]

Which, so that's the end of that. It's hard to understand, huh? Yeah. It seems like you were discussing that last night, although I was so out of it. But in this Fundamentals of the Middle Way, I read a chapter on examination of actions and efforts. Oh, that's the same stuff. What does it say? Well, so there's this whole thing about various actions in one's life, and that nothing is ever canceled. But in fact, there's no record anywhere that's being kept of canceled. I mean, everything has its cause and effect, has past retributive quality. Right. Yeah. And the thing that, before I kind of, as long as I could stay with it, it seemed as if there was a sense of time, when we were talking about time, as like someone who's more aware, moment by moment, of what's happening,

[31:10]

would be aware of the consequences. But just because you're, I'll say, more unconscious, it doesn't mean that the consequences still aren't happening right then. It's not like there's some lag time. Right. Where it's happening. Right. So he was talking about everything, the dependent co-arising of everything. Your whole life is, you know, coming to fruition moment by moment. So there's maybe, how we're talking about this, awareness in the whole thing. Anyway, so far, as I, we got, is that Nagarjuna wasn't taking any, wasn't being contentious with what seems to be the opponent's point of view. What we didn't get is Nagarjuna mounting his reply against all these positions. Yes, this, what you were saying, reminds me of the, this thing that we discussed a number of times,

[32:14]

the problem of, which Western religion has, of the person who, when you have God who rewards and punishes, and you have the example of a person who seemingly does bad things and doesn't, and lives a good life, you know, gets goodies, and the converse. This is a problem. But in a case like this, and this is the same thing being said here, there is definitely retribution in future life or sometime. And, don't forget, one of the articles of faith is that a Buddha or an awakened person can see the past lives and the pattern of retribution. And even though, so that you see a person who is a mean crook, right, and they, and somebody says, but they're still wealthy and their children are so happy and they're in good health. How could that be? A Buddha would see that in fact it's not so. Even now, the seeds of that evil karma are there to be seen, if you have the eye to see it.

[33:16]

So that this doesn't appear, you know, for Buddhism as a difficulty. And faith and causality is not shaken by these sorts of things, which on a more superficial level look like they're problematic. But let me, and along the same lines. But don't seeds sound like a thing? And how would Margaret Hewlett, it sounds like there's something. Yeah, something actually there. But you know. You were talking about that, you know, during some zipping, something zipping. Yeah, right. Well, it's always, remember that the basic idea here is that there's a constellation of mind that's born due to conditions and causes. And it's, and it has a moment of abiding and then it passes away. And then it itself becomes a major cause among many other causes for the next moment of arising. And so if it had a taint in it, it would, it's gone, the taint's gone. But then the next moment there's another mind and that mind might well carry that same taint.

[34:19]

Because of causality, forces of causality. So there's nothing there to be substantial. And yet, karma continues. That's why when a guardian analyzes this closely, he says there is no karma. Because there's nothing there to hold on to. That's true. But that doesn't mean that the law of cause and effect, you know, doesn't go on. But along the same lines, I'll read you this footnote. Because there's a footnote given here, right? 231, after the stanza. And it says here, it's a reference to the Majjhima Nikaya and the Anguttara Nikaya. With the question, can the action to be experienced in this life be transformed into action to be experienced in a future life? Same problem is examined in the Karma Prajnapati, which is another philosophical text. And it quotes from that text. There are eight types of actions. To be experienced agreeably, disagreeably in this world, later.

[35:22]

To be experienced in a small manner. To be experienced gradually, ripe, and unripe. Can action to be experienced agreeably through energy and effort be changed into action experienced disagreeably? In other words, can you change your karma? Can you take, you know, karma and change it around by your good works? No. This is impossible. Can unripe action be changed into ripe action? Yes and no. Some, in order to carry out this transformation, cut off their hair, their beard, their hair and beard, and torture themselves by different paths and bad penitences. But they fail. This is the Christians do that. It doesn't work according to this. Others, through energy and effort, obtain the result of srotapana. That's yes. So, in other words, if you do the right thing, then unripe action can be changed into ripe action.

[36:27]

It sounds like what they mean is unripe karma, positive karma for the path can be ripened into path karma. But you can't get rid of your bad karma through, you know, beating your breast. There are three actions. Actions to be experienced in this life, in the next life, or later. Does it happen that one who experiences the first one also experiences the other two? Yes. When one obtains the quality of arhat, the retribution of the other two actions occurs. These are really hard things to understand because arhats aren't reborn. So how could it be that actions in the next life or the life after that were not born on earth? They're not born anywhere. So it's hard to understand other than maybe the retribution is not to be reborn or something.

[37:29]

Anyway, the point here, it's the same, what you were quoting from Nagarjuna, is that you can't get out of karma. Karma is there regardless of your good intentions. Now remember we talked about this before too and found that the karma could be experienced in a different way as a result of your activity in practice. Remember the story of Angulimala who was a murderer and who did experience the karma of his murdering, but he didn't experience it because he was enlightened. He didn't experience that karma as a hell experience. He experienced it as negative karma in the present life. Unpleasantness, difficulty, but not burning in hell and stuff as he would have experienced it if he had not practiced. But the karma was still there to be retributed. So it appears then, we learn here, that there's some kinds of action that gets definitely retributed in a particular way.

[38:37]

There's a whole sutra that I was reading the other day where they say if your behavior is like this, this is what's going to happen to you. They actually say different things that result in specific actions. How much of that we can buy in this day and age, I don't know. But it does say that. But then there are other actions that are negative or positive that have indefinite retributions. Then there's actions that have retributions that are in definite time periods and actions that have retributions that are in indefinite time periods. So, I don't know, I can't quite get the gist of what this is saying. I'm just curious if any of the ones that are definite karma are in the realm of mental suffering. Well, there's a whole section, a very interesting section on mental suffering in here. Because I'm curious whether, for example, in this view, an enlightened person would continue to have the effects of past anger. For example, or past greed or anything like that.

[39:38]

And experience them differently or would not have those effects. That's, of course, the big question. That's a really important question. And I don't, so I think we have to hold that question as we get further into this. Because I don't think, as far as I understand this, that so far that's addressed in this. But later on, where is it on page... Mental trouble. Mental trouble on the bottom of page 632. There's a whole discussion about mental trouble, which is just what you're talking about. So, I think that this is all leading up to that. So, I think maybe if we just work our way up to that, we'll get a chance to discuss that. Because that is the really important question, definitely. Okay, so let's charge on here and see what we're getting. Which field confers on an action, which is in a relationship with it,

[40:46]

the quality of being necessarily retributed in the present existence? Which field? In general, it is the sangha of bhikshus having at its head the Buddha. To enumerate its persons, there are five types of persons. Persons who have left either Naroda or Maitreya or Aranya or seen the truth as a result of arhat, all good and all bad, with regard to them, is immediately retributed. So, this is getting... Like I was saying, in Zen, particularly in Dogon Zen, there's a strong antipathy toward listing the different types of enlightenment and the requirements for each one, as if they were hard and fast categories. But in this system, they do that. So, these are the kinds of people in their various ranks, spiritual ranks. The person who enters the absorption of extinction... I remember years ago, Gil at Francille's, when he was here, he was just back from Asia,

[41:49]

and we used to talk about this stuff, because he was studying in, I think it was Thailand or Burma. And they used to have this thing where, you know, like, there was this, the meditation, the extinction, the meditation on extinction, which was close to nirvana. You would work your way up to that, and then you would do that, and you would get that meditation. There was a big push to get that meditation. And they honored that very highly, because certain privileges and certain transformations were thought to happen in your innermost being, as a result of entering that concentration. It was almost like a real substantial thing. And I remember, you know, trying to say to him, well, you know, I'm not so sure that it's a good idea and all this. And then I have, actually, a student in the Pacific Northwest, whose life was ruined, literally, by such things, because the pressure to enter these concentrations was so great for this person. She was in Asia, doing all this. Then, eventually, she kind of flipped out, and, you know, it's taken her about 10 or 15 years to be able to meditate.

[42:53]

Had she entered these, supposedly entered these abortions? No, but she experienced various kinds of extra abnormal experiences in meditation, as a result of making the effort to do so. Anyway, persons who have left either nirodha or... Yeah, I'll just hold that over at the commentary. The person who leaves the absorption of extinction, which is called nirodha samapadhi, in this absorption, he or she has obtained an extreme tranquility of thought, where this absorption is similar to nirvana. When he or she leaves it, it is as if he had gone to nirvana and returned from it. So there's an acknowledgment that entering this concentration is not the same as nirvana, but it's close. The person who leaves the absorption must arrest the defilements of another, aranya samapadhi. In this absorption, his mental state is endowed with the intention of placing

[43:54]

an infinite number of beings into the absence of defilement. When he leaves it, his series is penetrated with an intense and measureless merit. His series means, you know, the series of mind movements. So when you enter that concentration, you achieve a tremendous amount of merit. And because of the strength of that merit, if somebody were to diss you, they'd get a lot of demerit for it. And then... Sort of like a meta-concentration here. Well, the next one is more like meta, the absorption of compassion. See, this is an interesting thing. You know, in Theravada Buddhism, meta and maitri are absorptions, are trance states. In other words, there is an object of love, and you enter a trance state with that as the object. And you can achieve nirvana from that trance state.

[44:56]

So meta is considered one of a number of other possible objects that can catapult you into nirvana. So here, someone who has achieved this particular absorption, that person's series is endowed with the intention of increasing the well-being of an infinite number of beings. When the person leaves that concentration state, also his or her series is penetrated with an intense and measureless merit. And then there's the person who leaves the path of seeing the truths. That's the Four Noble Truths. And through doing that, you abandon all the defilements which are abandoned through seeing the truths. And then when you leave it, that's an arhat. See, that's the bottom line. That's the defining characteristic of an arhat, is the arhat is the one who sees the truths through trance states, really understands them, you know, sort of metaphysically. And is therefore pure and cannot enter defiled states of mind.

[45:57]

It's impossible. It's like, you know, burned down in the roots of defilement. So it's impossible. So those are all the people who you can't... Who, on the one hand, if you venerate them, you're definitely going to get good results. And on the other hand, if you defile them, or yell at them, or don't do good things to them, you're definitely going to be... So, I mean, this is... You've got to remember, this is like a real thing in Asia. This is like one of the cardinal things of... I mean, in Asia, this is how Buddhism in Asia could be supported, you know, for thousands of years, right? People really believed that if they made offerings to these people, there would be serious, definite consequences of benefit for them. And the contrary. So this, you know, was not always a positive thing. There's a lot of abuse, right, on the part of monks and nuns. Mostly monks, hardly nuns. Because nuns didn't... ...happen in North America.

[46:57]

I remember I was at a retreat once in Edmonton, and there's some Sri Lankans that insisted on giving us a meal at the end of it. Oh, yeah. And what? Insisted on giving us a very, very nice meal. Because there would be benefit in giving you the meal if you're a monk, yeah. Well, I think that Westerners... Western, the possibilities of abuse of power on the part of teachers and heavy dharma gurus in the West, I don't think is based on this belief as much as it's based on a whole other constellation of psychological aspects. But you're talking about Sri Lankan people. And I think it's true. Even today, traditional people in Asian countries do feel that way. To this day, in Theravada countries, in Thailand and Burma, the same sort of thing. I remember a hilarious conversation I had with Aya Khema, who was very down on Theravada Buddhism in Thailand because of the food. Remember her talking about this?

[47:58]

The food was a big problem. Because there was so much belief in this principle that the laypeople were lavishing the monks with food, and it became a whole problem of what to do with all this food and how to deal with it. And then she said the monks didn't have time to practice. They were constantly dealing with food. But they were receiving, and giving back, and dealing with, and the donations, and they couldn't afford to tell the laypeople, lay off. So they were constantly dealing with this. And she said, better to get out of there and go somewhere where they're not so intent on this sort of thing. My two older children worked in the Cambodian refugee camps in Thailand, and that was part of every day, was to take some of the food and bring it to the adjacent monastery. No matter what else you were doing in your life, you always make sure every day to get the food over there. Yeah. So I mean, on the one hand, you can see the benefit. You know, you could say, from another point of view, you could say, well, you know, in our society, which is all, you know, greed and gimme gimme, wouldn't it be nice if some people were factored off as being standing for non-greed and compassion, and then everybody

[49:04]

remembered them, and constantly were in association with them, and gave them gifts as a way of themselves remembering that it's not all about gimme gimme. So I mean, that's a good idea. But, so there's good and bad, you know, to all of this. But you just see, you know, these are considered to be like definite stages. These people are different from you and I. I mean, there's a different kind of a person, you know. In fact, in a certain way, an arhat isn't even a human being, because, you know, the characteristic of the human being is these defilements, these seeds of defilement. And since an arhat has burned all that down completely forever, it's fundamentally different from you and me. Excuse me, I have to go. Yeah. Oh, one thing I wanted to tell everybody. Next week, can we meet at 4.30? Yeah, and I'll get covered. I'll be able to stay through. I'll work it out. Do the best you can. And the other thing is that, remember, there was a question about whether Mel's going to come and join the seminar in October, and I wasn't sure what we're going to do.

[50:07]

What we're going to do is that we're going to switch in October. We're going to forget about it. Good or bad actions, well or badly done, with regard to these five people, will bear a result in the present existence. Paths of meditation through which one obtains the results of sakradagaman and anagaman, that's like once-returner or something like that, a never-returner, are incomplete in themselves. Those are like two kinds of saints that are short of arhat, but close, are incomplete in themselves and in the result. Persons who leave the conquest of these two results are not fields of merit comparable to narhat. Their series is not pure. Their personalities have not been recently renewed. In other words, they can still blow it. They're close, but they haven't. There's a kind of real definiteness to this. And even in Mahayana Buddhism, which doesn't honor these particular saints in the same

[51:10]

way, even there, in the vast Bodhisattva paths, there's ten stages of Bodhisattva, and one of the stages is irreversibility. So there is a sense in which, even in both schools of Buddhism, there's a sense in which there is a stage of really you can no longer go back to your old ways, which you can see that that sounds believable in a way, and that sounds true. And in Zen, although Zen doesn't exactly say that, and constantly making the point of the non-difference between ordinary mind and the mind of enlightenment, still I think that the Zen tradition, I would say, would recognize, maybe not in quite so dramatic or definite a fashion, the same thing. And it's a little bit like saying, what one knows, one can never unknow. So if you really know suffering and the cause of suffering, seriously know it from the bottom

[52:19]

of your heart, you can't unknow it, and you can't knowingly. So if it turns out, for example, that you do defiled action, what that means is, although you might have thought that you had thoroughly understood, you didn't. Of course, we can think that we understand or not, but that would be, then it's complicated, because who says what's defiled action or not? How about deliberately transgressive? Yeah, like Joshu's line about the dog, yeah. Well, yes. But I think in that case, transgressing means born into the body of a dog, not so much bad moral conduct. So born into the body of a human being, already we're not perfect, right? Just an entrepreneurial promiser. Personality renewal, you know, you put advertisements in. Yeah, right.

[53:20]

Personality renewal. You can put wrinkles, you can put wrinkles for him. Personality renewal available. Even recent. Have you been recently? Recently as well. Recently, dude. There's always the doubt of recently. Right, right, recently. And of course, you can imagine the kinds of things that happen in thousands of years with this teaching, where somebody, there have been these controversies. There's a big controversy right now, actually. This was, Jack Coyne tried to pawn this off on us, which I got out of it. But there's a very famous guy in Thailand who is an arhat, like a very famous big wheel guy, who recently they discovered, you know, apparently was caught, you know, sneaking out of the rooms of women, and so forth. And it became a huge scandal in Thailand. And this guy, you know, I don't know, he had escaped the country. And he was in the West. And Jack Coyne says, oh my God, you know, he wants to come here and give a talk, and

[54:24]

I don't know what to do. You know, it's a big controversy in our community. How about he goes to Gringold's? You people don't, they don't know about that. We don't care. Maybe you don't care, but even if you do care, you don't know about it. He's not known in your circles. I said, well, I'll think about it. Then I said, let's not do it. You know, it's too complicated. So, I mean, actually, if we would have had the time, it would have been very interesting. But it was pretty short notice. You know what I mean? It would have, you know, it would have been hard to organize it the way that it worked out. So do they think that he wasn't really an arhat? That's the point. That's the question. Well, he mustn't have been, because what's in our heart, always in our heart. Well, unless he did something that was just apparently defiled. Well, you know, this looks like, this looks like a defiled person with attachments. But actually, this is the activity of Buddha. Going in and sleeping with these women, even whether he did it, maybe he didn't do it. And if he did do it, well, it's like they used to say about Trungpa.

[55:27]

This is why Dogen said there's only relative karma. Right. That's right. Right. Somebody just went over the monastery wall, you know, and they came back the next day. And Dogen said, there's only relative karma. And they said, well, what about the emptiness of karma? Dogen said, forget it. Karma is definitely not empty. There's no such thing as emptiness. Shut up. You have to empty yourself. Right, empty yourself first. So anyway, yeah, that's the kind of the problem that comes up. If an arhat is really an arhat, then, you know, when it turns out that they're not, then we don't know whether they're not or whether we're just ignorant. And then that's why, you know, we get in trouble. We get big debates over this, right? And then you either defend this or you defend that. You can't really be, there is, in fact, it's just a problem. Because there is no way to tell definitively.

[56:28]

You trust your own judgment. It's not under suspicion. It's for sure. Because one woman, who was his mistress, wrote an address in a hidden tricycle. She said, I was thinking of calling her for shit for years. And she said, and I wasn't supposed to tell because they told me I'm burning badger hell. They have a big, they have a thing, you know, in Tibetan Buddhism, where if you break your vows and speak out against the teacher along the lines of these kind of texts, you will reap this karma. Scary. So there are a number of cases of women who were literally threatened with being reborn in badger hell if they would speak out on these issues. And this woman was one of them. But 20 years later, she said, well, you know, I'm not worried about that anymore. You know, and she, in a very rational, actually, way, but not, this was a person who had overcome it, you know, come out the other end, had a happy life, without bitterness, just said,

[57:31]

well, now I'm going to tell about this. Yeah, she really had her head on the ground. But, you know, and the Tibetans have, what do you call it? Tantric. So this wasn't for a kind of tantric rituals, or it was? I think they're recalling it now. Yeah, I don't think it was. My impression is that, I think that almost, it's a little bit like Kabbalah in Judaism, where there's this esoteric tradition that nowadays, either two or three people somewhere that nobody knows about carry the tradition, or nobody does. In other words, those kind of tantric practices in Tibetan Buddhism, as far as I know, are not actually practiced. There's not an ongoing tradition of them. I mean, I don't know. As far as I know, if somebody, if there is a tradition of them, it's rare, and it's not something that's commonly practiced. So if lamas say, you know, let's have a tantric relationship, they don't, mostly don't do those

[58:36]

practices, and don't know them. They did go on at one time, apparently. That's what Miranda Shaw says in her book, which is very interesting. They're lost, do you mean? I think so. I mean, I think that they did exist into the 20th century, but I think that they're lost. Again, I'm not an expert on this, I don't know. That's my impression. Miranda Shaw, interestingly, argues that all these traditions were, the gurus of them were all women, and that although the traditions, the women were, became, it looks like the women were used by the monks for their tantric practices, you know. She argues that there were, throughout the history, very powerful women who were just as much, were full players, and not simply used as sacred prostitutes, you know. So I don't know what's true about that.

[59:38]

But anyway, certainly in terms of this text, there's no such thing. Sex is definitely completely, completely negative. There's no good that could possibly come from sex according to this tradition. So, and an arhat would be somebody who would not be interested in sex, who had no sexual desire. So you see how thorough that is, by the way. Well, you know, he could be an arhat, and having those views against women would lead him to get involved with women, to have this karma back on him, because he's not going to be reborn. And he's like negative against women, so he has to get in trouble from women. I mean, you could look at this in any number of ways. That would be karmic retribution for the antipathetic views. Yeah, for having this view on women. Or for manipulation. No, well, it's true. I have the right mind for this. I should stay away from it. I should be like an albino legalist. But no, it's a good point, because...

[60:42]

What did she say again? Now, Marjorie, you can use it. It's called justification. I shouldn't use it? You shouldn't use it. Well, no, if an arhat has to reap karma in this life because they won't be reborn, and if they have this negative idea about women, how are they going to get that karma back other than to get involved in some kind of woman like this? Oh, that's a brilliant idea. So he could still be truly an arhat, but how else is that karma going to get him before he ends his life? That's a great thing. That's a perfect idea. That's probably true. I believe that. Of course, an arhat, a true arhat, would not have negative... They really were an arhat. They would not have negative views about women. They would have neutral and positive views about women. In fact, they would have loving kindness, etc., etc. It was before he became an arhat. Yeah, but still, the idea is very sound. Because let's say there's a lot of monks who are very holy, but they're not yet arhats,

[61:47]

right? And they hold... And I think it is common. I mean, I think that there is, in my opinion, a misogynistic tendency in Theravada Buddhism. There is, you know. And so therefore, it makes sense that somebody who would hold a negative view of women would get karma for it. The negative karma would be that they would get involved with women and get in trouble for it. Makes sense. And of course, as we know, like, for example, rapists, right? I mean, I assume... I don't know the mind of a rapist, and I guess rapists are all different, but I assume that rapists must have a problem with women. They're beating them up and stuff. So, the way that they express their antipathy toward women, right, is to commit sexual violence on them. So, sexuality and negativity toward women are not that far apart, right? I mean, on the part of males, right? I mean, so it makes sense that monks who would have... Yeah, they would be... They would be... And then, of course, they'd probably blame the women for it, just like males who hate

[62:50]

women and rape them. Remember? Like, that would be... That was the most common thing, right? It was all her fault. If she hadn't been wearing that dress, I wouldn't have raped her, and so I'd get off. Well, that's Christianity, too. Yeah. Right. Blame the women, yeah. Well, Judaism, too. That's why they cover their hair. Yeah. With their arms. Yeah. So, we got a lot of mileage out of this, right? We got really far. So, we're on this next part. We're seeing if we can get up to mental trouble, so we can deal with the challenging part. The essential element of retribution is sensation. That's weird. Which is... That's Vedana, right? Feeling. The essential... That's like a big deal, right? The essential element of retribution is sensation. Can the retribution of a certain action be exclusively mental sensation and not bodily sensation? And can the retribution of a certain action be bodily sensation and not mental sensation?

[63:51]

It's interesting, isn't it? What does it all mean? Sensation... The next verse... It's a shame we can't read this in the elegant Sanskrit in which it's written, because it rhymed and everything. Translation doesn't indicate that. And it's a perfect meter. Oh, really? Like Latin poetry. Very important. Sensation, the result of good action free from vittarka, is exclusively mental. Vittarka is this discursive thought. So when we're talking about being free from vittarka, that only takes place in the concentrations of rupa-dhatu. There is no... In kama-dhatu, there's always vittarka. So sensation, the result of good action free from vittarka, is exclusively mental. So this is in some trance state that they're talking about here? Actions of the sphere of dhyanantara, which is in meditation state, the interval between

[64:59]

the first and second dhyanas... Okay, so this is a new little twist here. There's a little interval between the first and second dhyanas. Remember, there's all these distinct concentration states, and one is different from another. There's characteristics of each one. Actions of that intermediate sphere, interval sphere, the actions of the higher stages are free from vittarka, and the actions of the higher stages are free from vittarka. The first dhyana is not free from it. But the second, the interval between the first and second, and the second and higher are all free from it. Like bodily sensation, that is to say, associated with the five sense consciousnesses, which always embraces vittarka and vichara, it cannot be the result of a retribution of an action free from vittarka. Yes, the bodily sensation, I think.

[66:00]

No, because it is like bodily sensation. Oh, yes. Let me look up the footnote and see if it really helps. Maybe the retribution of a certain action. The footnote says, in fact, action free from vittarka cannot have a retribution belonging to a lower stage. Action free from this person? Including vittarka and vichara. An action free from discursive thought, they're saying? So the essential element of retribution is sensation. And then there's bodily sensation and mental sensation. So in other words, every action that you do has retribution. And the retribution is essentially a sensation in the body or in the mind.

[67:07]

And here it's saying that when there's good action in trance state, the sensation, that is the retribution of that good action, is always exclusively mental, right? But this last sentence is the one that we don't understand. Like bodily sensation, that is to say, sensation associated with the five sense consciousness, which always embraces both vittarka and vichara, it cannot be the result of a retribution of an action free from vittarka. And then the footnote tells us that what it seems to be saying is that you can't get a lower, you know, in a trance state, you're going to get a retribution of sheer mental sensation. You can't get one of physical sensation. Well, because the next thing is about pain. Yeah. Now, what does that say? Separation. Separation. The result of a bad action is exclusively physical.

[68:08]

Okay, so sensation. Sensation, which is the result of a bad action. Yeah, sensation. A sensation, the result of retribution of a bad action is painful. So sensation, which is the retribution, is exclusively physical. Right, so there's physical sensation and mental sensation. Right, so a sensation, the result of retribution of a bad action is painful. Painful mental sensation is what is termed a sensation of dissatisfaction. This is where it's getting into, you know, your question. Now, and it's very difficult to follow, but very interesting, because I remember when I was studying this last night, I spent a long time on it. Uh, so. That's the, we covered that one about transmitting. It's getting me, yeah. So sensation, which is the result of a bad action, is exclusively physical. A sensation, the result of retribution of a bad action, is painful. Painful mental sensation is what is termed a sensation of dissatisfaction.

[69:14]

We have established that dissatisfaction is never the result of retribution. That's hard to understand. Is secondary that? Yeah, let's read on a little bit. We can look up this reference to chapter 2, number 10b, and see what it says. That would be in volume 1. Would you look that up? Chapter 2, section 10. But I think if you read on, it does clear it up a little bit. But if dissatisfaction or painful mental sensation is not retribution, which we're surprised that it's not, right? So if it's not, in which consciousness, visual, etc., up to mental consciousness, is mental trouble or trouble of the mind, which is painful sensation, produced? Apparently it is the retribution of a bad action. So in other words, yeah, what about that? I mean, how, so it seems to be saying that bad actions are always physically retributed.

[70:16]

And the question is now, wait a minute. What about all this mental anguish that people suffer? What does that have to do with it? That's the question here. And then it says, so in other words, where does that mental sensation come from? There's six consciousnesses. And which of the six does it come from then? Mental trouble is produced in the mental consciousness. The expression that the Karika uses, manas-citta, mental thought, is equivalent to the expression mano-vijnana, which we all know about, mental consciousness, consciousness of the manas. Manas being? Manas, they translate here as mental. And manas is the six consciousnesses, the faculty of awareness of what's going on in the other five consciousnesses. In other words, it's kind of like, a little bit like self. It's the organizing principle that's aware of what goes on in the other five consciousnesses.

[71:22]

Otherwise, things would happen. You'd see and hear, and it wouldn't be organized into anything. And it wouldn't even come into awareness. But there's another faculty that organizes all those consciousnesses and says to itself, this is happening. That's manas, which is translated as mental, our mind. So this is, yeah, right. But they're saying if it takes place there, it's not retributive. Well, they've moved on to another question, which seemingly is going to lead them to discussion of the retribution. What happened was they said that dissatisfaction is never the result of retribution. Right. They said that. Then, if it's not retribution, which consciousness does it appear in? Now, they're moving away from the question of retribution. And then the answer is, it appears in the sixth consciousness. Okay. Well, let's see if it gets us in. We're still confused, right? It's still not answering our needs here.

[72:23]

So let's see. The five sense consciousnesses. Yeah, we're dissatisfied. And in a second, did you find that section, Swami? The five sense consciousnesses cannot be troubled because they are formed by the five senses. Free from imagining inquiry and memory. And mental trouble is the imagining of that which does not exist. That's true. So, apparently what they're leading up to here is that the retribution happens physically in the five consciousnesses. But, the five consciousnesses cannot be troubled. So, the sixth consciousness interprets the retribution that's twisting the five consciousnesses and creates mental trouble. So, now why they're saying this, it's very intricate, you know.

[73:24]

In other words, the retribution does not come into the sixth consciousness. It comes into the other five consciousnesses. However, in order for that retribution that's twisting up those five consciousnesses to be experienced, it has to go through the sixth consciousness, which then turns it into mental trouble. So, what does that mean? What does that tell us? Yeah, I don't know why they went through that process. Why did they go through that process? That's the question. Well, they seem, if you go to the next paragraph, it seems that there's a difference between bad action, bad physical action and bad mental action. And bad physical action is going to produce bad physical pain. And bad mental action will cause some physical problems, but only through disturbing the five consciousnesses. And then the sixth consciousness, and then the humors,

[74:28]

the wind and the heat and the stuff like that. Yeah, let's just read that part. I think we need to explore this more, because I think there's something to this that's very interesting if we could figure out what it was. But let's just read, I think it's one piece. Let's read to the three dots and three stars and then discuss it. Okay, so, the five consciousnesses cannot be troubled because they are free from imagining, inquiry and memory, and mental trouble is the imagining of that which does not exist. Mental trouble is the imagining of that which does not exist. That's important, right? Sure is. Okay, so in other words, the retribution is real. It's in the five consciousnesses, but we don't experience that as suffering until we run it through the sixth consciousness, at which point we make it into an imaginary thing, which we experience as pain. We give it a concept. So our pain is basically a conceptual translation of an actual physical screw-up. Is that so different from sin? No. Mental trouble arises from the retribution of action.

[75:34]

The person who troubles and deranges the mind of another through curses and formulas. The person who causes another to drink poison or alcohol when he does not want to drink it. The person who frightens game either in the hunt or by setting a jungle on fire or by the hollowing out of traps. And the person who, by whatever means, troubles the memory and the presence of mind of another will have his own mind troubled, deprived of the aid of his memory through the effect of the retribution of these actions. Through fear, let's see, 237. Deprived of the aid of his memory. I must have come down heavy on these. So this is like a long time ago, right? I was careful about my behavior. When you start to lose your memory, you wonder, like, how did I do it? Through fear, the attack of demons, irritation of the elements, and fear.

[76:35]

So, demon beings with horrible features will approach such a person. Seeing them, the person is frightened and his mind is troubled. Furious at the evil conduct of humans, demon beings will hit them in their vital parts. This is in the hell realms. The primary elements of the body will lose their equilibrium. The wind, heat, and liquid, the four elements, will be irritated. Fear also troubles the mind. For example, in the case of Vasishti, it's a story about a conversation of Vasishti with her husband after the death of their seventh infant. Formerly you were afflicted by the death of your sons. Now you are not afflicted. This is without doubt because you have eaten your sons. To which the answer is, and then they quote a long poem in Pali, which is not translated, So, anyway, this is somewhere.

[77:39]

It's culture. Anyway, this doesn't help. It doesn't help. Perhaps we better tell too many people what we're studying. I find it sweet that demons get furious at the evil conduct of humans. But, you know, the odd thing is that it does come, I mean, at least one of, it does come back to physical problems. Where the physical problems were mentioned already, this exclusive physical problems is the result of bad action. But then these physical problems, together with mental troubles, are the results of kind of mental karma, mental action. That's right. So, in other words, our suffering, our mental anguish, it's saying here, is not really the suffering. The suffering is in the five consciousnesses. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean like a pain in the body, per se. I mean, because this is on the level of the four elements. So, in other words, we are, like, fundamentally, by our karma, deranged physically,

[78:40]

in terms of distorted perception of the world. All the five senses are distorted and out of whack, you know, as a result of the retribution of the karma of our actions. Mental action. Well, mental action. Yeah, it seems to say that. Is it really that these things in the body are the retribution for mental action? That's what John just said. Where does it say that? But frightening game, you know, isn't just a mental action. No, I don't think it's mental action. It says on 57D, sensation, which is the result of a bad action, any bad action, is exclusively physical. See, the way I read this, and maybe I'm not right, in a second I'll have to read us that reference. The way I read this is that bad action brings retribution. Retribution is physical sensation. It's in the five consciousnesses. We get messed up on the level of our body and our perception. Now, then, the sixth consciousness relates to that situation

[79:48]

and projects onto it conceptual stuff. And that's what we experience as mental anguish. So our mental anguish, our mental and emotional suffering, is imaginary projection onto the real situation of our actual body and mind and world, which is polluted by the retribution from a bad action. So that would be the suffering over suffering. So we could just totally nix that whole part. Yeah, and that's why... The mental part. Yeah, and that's why, I mean, I'm just thinking of this now, that's why I say in the famous story of Angulimala, because Angulimala is enlightened, he doesn't make the projection of the sixth consciousness onto the karma of the five consciousnesses. But he does experience some retribution of the five consciousnesses. But because his sixth consciousness is purified through his practice... I think he just gets a bloody foot or something. Yeah, he has some... A rock lands on his foot. Yeah, he has some actual suffering in his body that he has to experience, but he doesn't have this...

[80:54]

So all of our suffering... He wouldn't call it pain then? You think he wouldn't identify it as pain? Or he didn't have mental anguish over it? He didn't have mental anguish, it was just pain. So this is basically saying that all of our mental trouble is an imaginary projection, but onto something that really is messed up. So in other words, there's a real element to our suffering and a projection element to our suffering. And I think this is giving us the possibility that we can, with our practice, we can work through the imaginary mental aspect. This is actually useful. It's very... Yeah, that's what I'm telling you. Every now and then, you come to something that's very profound. I mean, this is a profound thing. Well, I remember you telling me, Michael, you know, you were talking about your illness and you see some people really feel sorry for you. And you say, I'm having fun with it. I mean, I'm totally having fun with this body that's kind of... Yeah, it is a good... It is a good example, because insofar as you have mental projections and unclouded, unclear mind about the physical mess you're in, you suffer more than if you have clarity in the mind

[81:56]

about the actual mess up in the physical thing. So this is the difference between... So if a Zen person were reading this, they might say, well, the Zen part is the mental part. The Zen part is letting go of the conceptual attachment to conceptual projections and just experiencing the karma of the five consciousnesses without too much projection. Like the guy born in 500 lives as a fox, if he just enjoys himself or just accepts the 500 lives as a fox as such, without projection, then he's free from it already. So he's not free from the karma, he's free... I was saying... I was just going over my karma talk for the windmill, where I was saying, free within our cultural preconceptions. Yes, right. Exactly. Free within karma, as opposed to free from karma. So that means we don't have these mental projections on the karma, and yet we're not free from it, because it really is there in our five consciousnesses.

[82:59]

I think Rep did a Sunday talk earlier this year on this, whole talk was on this, on the two kinds of suffering. That's how I'm hearing what you're saying. Yeah, right. There's the suffering that we have just because we're born and we have a body. Right, exactly. Then there's the suffering of suffering, and that's the whole thing that you do on top of it. On top of, right. And it seems that this actually is talking about all embodiment, really. And that's consistent with other things, so that to have been born is the result of bad action, and entails necessary physical pain. Right, exactly. Although, this is where there's a difference between Hinayana and Mahayana on that point. Because from the standpoint of the Hinayana, the goal is not to be born, and this is a Hinayana point of view, not to be reborn, and therefore, yes, to have a body is already to be not quite there, and so then you suffer the pain of that without the projection, if you're an arhat or an enlightened one.

[84:00]

In the Mahayana, there's this concept of, like this is Yoshi's response about the dog. He's born as a dog on purpose for your benefit. So the Bodhisattva takes the human birth on purpose for the benefit of others. But still suffers the human problem, so. Yes, but somebody could argue not because of his defilements, but because of his action. Although, I mean, realistically, this kind of doctrine is the Tibetans use to talk about the birth of these great gurus. So in their concept, I think somebody would be born, and they would be entirely pure and entirely positive, no negativity in them. Whereas I think from our standpoint, we would say, yes, we're all born as human beings, and even though we're walking the Bodhisattva path, we have, I mean, I think Zen is a more human-centered kind of approach.

[85:07]

The Tibetan Buddhism is a very Buddhist-centered. So when they die, rainbow lights, crystals are left. Of course, they have that in Zen, too. In China, they have a lot of that. But certainly, in Zen, Japanese Zen, less. Although, Kaizan is a little bit of that stuff. Magic kind of stuff, too. Anyway, this is interesting, isn't it? Yeah, I think it's very useful to understand this. But it sounds like how I'm simplifying it. It sounds like this is like the basis, I don't know what basis, but there's a reference to mind-only school kind of thinking, right? In a way, I mean, there's even the term Madhavijnana is used here. This is not a mind-only doctrine, but you can see the seeds of mind-only in it. Yeah, you can see that in it. I think mind-only makes a lot more of Manas and Madhavijnana. These terms, which are here introduced as part of the Sarvastivadin school,

[86:12]

are magnified and recast by the mind-only school. I keep getting stuck there. I just so instinctually go there, and it's been explained to me two or three times how we're How this school is different, how Zen is not Arjuna, how Zen transcends mind-only, but I can't seem to get it. Yeah, well, I think that mind-only just speaks in different terms. The thing about the mind-only school is that it can be seen to posit the existence of mind, which is a problem for most Buddhism. It's interesting, this troubles the memory and the presence of mind of another, along with the traps and the offering alcohol. Yeah, this is a list of actions that are bad actions, examples of bad actions.

[87:16]

Troubles the memory and presence of mind of another. So it becomes argumentative or accusatory. Yeah, and that does seem to be true in a way. Although, remember what we just read earlier, that you wouldn't necessarily notice it in this life, but you often do notice in this life that somebody who goes around troubling the minds of others themselves has a troubled mind, you do notice that. Yeah, so one of the things I've been hearing recently is that, you know, like with this one too, it's like an eye for an eye. Yeah. It's kind of karma, right? Like if you trouble someone else's mind, you're going to have a troubled mind. Yeah, except that an eye for an eye in the Bible is used as a justification. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Since you hurt me, I'm going to hurt you. It's the opposite. It's quite a different premise. Since you hurt me, if I hurt you, I'm going to get hurt myself.

[88:25]

But it's like, it's actually like the song about, you know, then you grow up to be a pig, you know? Yeah. You know, if you act like a pig, then you will be a pig. Yeah, yeah. That's the song, I think. Oh, yeah. A pig is an animal. Oh, that's funny. You know what that song says? Yeah, yeah. I didn't realize that. I got to get to all the words. But in other words, it's saying, if you do this, well, then you're going to turn to this. Well, like I was saying, there's this whole sutra that I was just reading yesterday, which is called the Shorter Sutra on Karma. And I was thinking of using it for my class, you know, tomorrow night. And in there, the whole sutra is nothing but a list of those kind of things. If you do this, then the retribution is going to be that. If you do this, the retribution is going to be that. But in a way, it's kind of interesting. Although, in a way, because it's so definite and so cut and dried, it's not so useful in a way. Because, you know, do we really believe that?

[89:25]

The literalness of it. But it's kind of interesting to see what they think about the different results of different bad actions and also good actions. There's a whole thing about, if you practice, I think, like, if you practice generosity, you'll be good looking. I mean, they just lie and this kind of stuff, you know. So there's a whole, also for good actions, you know. So you kind of figure out, you know, what you would like next. I'd like to be, you know, good looking and rich. So you figure, okay, I don't want to be too good looking and rich, so I better practice this and practice that in order to get... I want to know what you do to be tall. No, actually, tall might be anything. I remember there's long life and short life. Yeah, I mean, Buddha was 10 foot, where he, you know, 16. Yeah, you have to stretch past your limits. Let's see if it says... I'll look it up and see if it says about tall. There's no answer in that. There's no reward in being tall. For a woman who kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings, because of performing and undertaking such action,

[90:30]

on the dissolution of the body after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. Then, but, if he doesn't go to hell and comes back as a human being, wherever he is reborn, he is short-lived. This is the way that leads to short life. See, this is the problem with this kind of thing, because then you have a friend who dies short, and you're pretty by that. Like Princess Diana. Yeah, Princess Diana. So then you feel bad for her. But then you say, well, Princess Diana was obviously a murderous scoundrel in her last life. You don't like to think about that. So it's bad. But it also seems to attribute intention, like some kind of universal... I mean, it seems to replace some kind of God with some kind of intention and some sense of doing just punishment and just, you know, with this kind of pseudoscientific...

[91:34]

Well, you know, this is an interesting point. This is what we have to, as we have to think about that as we read this, because that's why they wrote this Abhidharmakosha, because they felt that this was a little cartoonish. You know what I mean? Hell and heaven. You mean either or? Well, no, not hell and heaven, but the simplicity of if A then B, that's it. So here they're trying to make a sophisticated system out of it, which is absolutely based on this. See, this is the whole point of the Abhidharmakosha. They want to make a system that nowhere contradicts these sutras or any Buddhist sutras, and yet it's complex and sophisticated enough not to be... So that's why many times I've said, and as I read this, the Kosha, I sometimes get disgusted because you can just see them straining to make it all work out. And in Zen we don't have that strain.

[92:35]

Because in Zen we start with the idea that this is beyond the scriptures and beyond words and letters, and contradiction is fine. And we can say, burn the sutras if we need to. Although Dogon is different, still there's that whole Zen feeling about some flexibility in relation not to the letter of the sutra. And yet the first thing we had people study was the Abhidharma. So yeah, there's many problems with this. We've talked about this before. Get down to things like, we could join forces with the Ku Klux Klan, and we could say, well naturally these black people are downtrodden because in former lives they were scoundrels and they just ignored that. They just have to work it out. And you even hear Tibetans talking about things like the Holocaust. Yeah. Sometimes. Right. So you've got to be careful about that stuff. And it's obviously more complicated than that. And you always have to ask yourself, what is the effect of that kind of talk and that kind of thinking? Yeah, yeah. And you can be critical and realistically critical of Buddhism because in reality you

[93:40]

have to recognize that this kind of doctrine, taken literally, even at the level of the complexity of the Kosha, was the doctrine that enabled Buddhists for thousands of years to cooperate with all sorts of, if not atrocities, then to be silent in the face of all sorts of governmental, because the only thing that was really good was to give alms to the Buddhists.

[94:04]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ