Sukhi. Sukhi is a Pali word meaning, may you all be happy. It's a greeting we use in our community back in Malaysia. I feel very happy that you gave me this opportunity to study this sutra, this discourse with you again. I say again because I've taught this a few times before. but not in jeans. So I feel very special today. Very different, because whenever I see this sutta, I'll be in my robes. But anyway, I feel very comfortable having this sutta in front of me because it brings back very good memories of the time when we had this big crew listening to this very traditional sutta. we have been used to this idea of a transmission outside the scripture.

[01:00]

But if there are no scriptures, then there'd be nothing to transmit outside of. So here is an example of a sutra, a discourse. It's supposed to be very old, very ancient, meaning it represents almost, I would say, to be safe, almost what the Buddha said. Now, to be exact, we do not know exactly what the Buddha said. We do not know his Bhavatim Ipsasema. But we have a good idea, the idea of what he said. So this is one tradition that preserved what the Buddha said in the oral tradition. The tradition here, this Sutta belongs to what is called the Theravada tradition. The Thera means elder, Vada means tradition, which met, or rather they based their, one might say, to use a simpler tradition, on the account of the first council which was held three months after the Buddha passed away.

[02:12]

They decided to recite what they could remember what the Buddha taught. So from that tradition came the Theravada. That's one explanation. And this sutra was originally in Pali. So, if you like, I would kind of give you an idea of how Pali is recited, just a selection of a few lines or a verse, even how it's sung, because the monks would chant it, and lay people sing it. There's a tune to this. There's a Vietnamese tune, there's a Siamese tune, and we appropriated those tunes and made them Malaysian. So, As we go to this sutra, you see a structure which will become apparent as we go along. Sutras like this at first appear to be a kind of a mess of words, almost unrelated, but it is, if you examine very carefully, arranged in a kind of pattern.

[03:13]

And it's really fun, for me anyway, to identify what sort of pattern does this sutra have, this sutra. But this sutra, I think, has got more than one pattern, more than one arrangement of ideas. One, of course, is a very common one, arranged according to the formula of sila, samadhi, panna, that is moral conduct, mental concentration, and wisdom. But for our study here, I think I would like to take an approach which I've not done before, and it is to look at the sutra from wisdom and compassion. from the angle of wisdom and compassion. In other words, the Sutta could be divided into two sections, wisdom and compassion. Now, before I go further, let me locate the Sutta in the sacred texts or Buddhist scriptures of the Theravada, or the Pali Canon, or Tipitaka, that's the word up there. Tipitaka is Pali.

[04:15]

In Sanskrit, it would be three pitaka. Just the first two letters sound different. They mean the same thing. They mean three. And pitaka is a basket. Why it's called three basket? Because my feeling is that this word came up probably during a time when the texts were already written down. because this word Tipitaka means baskets, which holds scriptures, which holds scrolls even, so they were kept in baskets, there were three of them. The Vinaya, Sutta, Abhidhana. From my understanding, the Mahayana tradition tends to put Sutta first, and the Vinaya last, giving, I think because they wish to emphasize a kind of participation of everyone, not just the monks, because the Vinaya refers to the monastic rules of the monks.

[05:18]

So they put the Vinaya, the Mahayana, they put the Vinaya last, on the number three. So the Vinaya here, Vinaya is a Pali word. Etymologically it means to move away from. We means away and Naya means to, kind of, lead away. So anything that leads one away from evil, Vinaya, that which leads one from evil, or leads one away from evil. So from there you have various precepts and so on. Then you have the Sutta, which I'll elaborate in a moment, and then the Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is a kind of index, a kind of list of ideas given by the Buddha And it's supposed to be late actually. Some people, some scholars say that it's not compiled in the Buddha's own time, it was a bit later. Anyway, we know in the Buddhist, I mean in the Pali Canon itself, Abhidhamma is not mentioned in the way we understand it in this list.

[06:27]

In the Sutta itself, in the Pali Canon itself, we hear the word, the term Dhamma Vinaya. when we refer to the Pali Canon. There is no two pitakas, the word is not used in the Pali Canon either. So there were only two pitakas at first, Dharma and Vinaya. So, well, Buddhist scholars argue that Abhidharma would fall into the category of Dharma. And the word abhi here means in connection with, in connection with dharma, whatever is in connection with dharma. So those are a bit scholastic points to give you a bit of historical background. Now the sutta or sutra in Sanskrit, the word means thread. So it is as if the teachings of the Buddha were threaded together. So that's one meaning. And this word has crept into the Southeast Asian languages, for example, Malay, where the word is pronounced as sutra, and it means silk, so there's a bit of semantic shift there.

[07:32]

Now, the sutra section, or sutapitaka, the baskets of discourses, that's one way we translate it, discourses, has got various other categories, diganikaya, Majjhima Denkaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, Kutaka Nikaya. Now these are again Pali. Diga means long. Nikaya means collection. So this is a long collection, these are long suttas, like the Brahmajjala Sutta, Sadipatthana Sutta. Sadipatthana deals with meditation, especially Vipassana. And then, there are sometimes called Dialogues of the Buddha, because the Buddha would speak to someone in this big long discussion. or he would address the monks. Then there's the Majjhima Nikaya, Middle Length. Well, even though they are Middle Length, they are sometimes just as long as the Digha Suttas, the Long Suttas. These are just kind of convenient collections. Some of the most important discourses are in these two collections.

[08:35]

The Digha Nikaya has been translated into English in the PTS or Pali Text Society series. and entitle the long sayings of the Buddha, or dialogues of the Buddha, rather. An earlier translation is called Dialogues of the Buddha. Then the Majjhima is called Further Dialogues. That's the old translation. The new translation is called Middle Length Sayings. Now, Samyutta Nikaya is a new kind of arrangement, according to ideas. For example, the Truth is one collection, and all the sayings of the Buddha in that collection. Sayings on Mara, sayings on the six senses, salayatana, and so on, according to ideas. Then, Anguttara is numerical. It begins with one, all sets of one. What is the one? The mind is the one. What is two? Mind and body, and so on. What is three? What is four? And so on. So you've got sets. These are all teaching tools. So a teacher would say, okay, today we'll talk about something from the book of four, so you'll take maybe four hundred truths.

[09:41]

Now, we are coming to where our sutra is located, that is in the last collection, called the Kudaka Nikaya. Kudaka means small. So Kudaka Nikaya is the small collection, kind of miscellaneous collection of texts. And this particular sutra is in a book called Kudaka Pata. It's a small little volume. In fact, it's a very tiny little volume. It's hardly the thickness of this, this thickness here. which I often note, so I'm holding my hands. And the Mangala Sutta is in that Kutakapada, which means minor readings. And this is a favorite text of the monks, the novices especially, which they used to practice their chants. So that is a kind of geographical location of the Sutta. Now, why did I choose the Sutta? Well, first of all, it's very easy. And it's also very important for lay people.

[10:45]

It gives you a good idea of how the people in Buddhist time thought. There is a bit of history behind this. It is given in the notes, which you're not supposed to have, by the way, but Alan is very generous. He's given them to you, so it saves me a lot of trouble. You could kind of read them by yourself when you go back. If you have any questions, please ask me next time. Usually when we talk about sutta, there is a kind of background that we talk about. And where do we get this background from? We get it from the commentaries, the attakata. The commentaries come one more level down. So you have the sutta, and the commentaries. Then you have the sub-commentaries, and in some cases, sub-sub-commentaries. They simply kind of comment on each other. Difficult points, grammar, and so on. Since we are a bit on the technical side, let me explain some of the notes here so that you may understand why they are there. Page 4, please.

[11:47]

Page 4 onwards. Just to explain to you the structure of the notes here. is you'll find that there's some small print at the bottom, the footnotes. I won't be referring to these, I'm just telling you what they are. This is called the critical apparatus. In other words, if you are very serious about what exactly does this verse mean, how do we translate it? How do we re-translate it for that matter? Remind me to talk about the importance of translation, ongoing translation. I may forget because I like to talk about this for a while. Critical apparatus means it tells you what are the different readings, for example. Now, there are various Tripitaka, the Siamese version, the Burmese version, the Sinhalese version, and maybe they might discover an edition in India. There are many Buddhist texts that have been lost for various reasons, political, social, and so on. And there are errors. Sometimes scribes copy wrongly and so on.

[12:50]

So what some scholars have done, they spend their whole lives tediously checking, and then here is given a list of what are called Viren readings. So if you know Pali, you will say, okay, this is probably the better reading than the other word. And from there you get a better translation. Now, There are many technical terms here which I won't go into, which don't really concern us if we are practitioners. These are more for the scholars and the teachers. Unlike the religions of the book, which would fix one translation and kind of go by it, swear by it, and so on, in Buddhism we have a tradition of ongoing translation, at least in the Theravada tradition we have, especially in modern Buddhism. One reason is because you have different contexts, social contexts, so you have to re-translate the sutra so that the intended audience understand what the Buddha meant as closely as possible.

[13:56]

So, some of the translations can be a bit difficult, so we'll be discussing them, for example. A simple line, like, not associating with fools can be controversial. So we're going to discuss all these things. Every line is a suggestion for discussion and argument. So, a translator's job is not very easy. Ideally, many scholars have said, it's best to study the text in the original language itself, in Pali. But then again, how many of us know Pali? And there's a saying in Italian. I hope I get the sequence right. It goes something like, a translator is a traitor. The moment you translate, it's a new work, it's your work. So how do we know that the Buddha actually said this? That's one problem. So anyway, the point is we can get a feel of it.

[15:00]

Then we leave this study, at least for a while, feeling good about it. I think that's what's important. Or better still, you find your whole life gaining a better direction and you know what to do with yourself, what to do with others. I think that's the aim of why we study this sutta. Now, another reason why I've chosen this sutta is because In some way, it defines what is religion. One of those very difficult questions. And what is the answer, you might say? Well, this sutra gives you an idea in its own title, Mangala. The word Mangala has been translated in different ways. The word is right on your copy here. Maha Mangala, just the word Mangala. Let me just kind of explain the prefix first. Maha means great.

[16:01]

Here, this word Maha is used because this is such a popular sutta that the devotees at one point in Buddhist history started to call it the Great Mangala Sutta. That means they like it. There are other meanings of Maha, by the way, but I'm not going to go into that. It's very scholastic. It means great, the great or popular, sacred, wonderful Mangala Sutta. The word Mangala has been variously translated as blessing, good omen, auspicious sign. And after thinking for a while, I said, what would the American audience like? I don't know, I may be wrong. I thought auspicious is the best word. Good omen doesn't sound very good. So anyway, but Mangala can also mean value. By extension of meaning, it can mean value. Because when you look at all these things listed here, they have to do with values. So what is religion?

[17:03]

Religion has to do with ultimate values. And this sutta, seemingly simple, actually gradually guides us from very simple ideas and values to very complex ones. From a simple statement, not associating with fools, to the last line which talks about what is liberation to enlightenment. So it's a very grand, verbose definition of religion. the quest and the experience of ultimate, or the quest and the living of the ultimate values, or something to that effect. If you have any question at any point, please just raise your hand. If you find certain terms I use may be unfamiliar. Now, let me just read to you the first section, and then give you an idea of how it sounds in Pali.

[18:06]

Thus it was said by me, at one time the Blessed One was staying in Asawati, in the Jeta Grove, in Anathapindika's park or monastery. Then when the night was far advanced, a certain deity of exceeding radiance, illuminating the whole of the Jeta Grove, went up to the Blessed One. Having gone up to the Blessed One, he saluted Him and stood at one side. Standing thus at one side, the deity addressed the Blessed One with a verse. this section is the prose introduction the rest are all verse so this of course when we say this is buddha word we No, very well. The Buddha did not speak this first section, this first introduction. This was added in by those who attended the first council. They gave this introduction for our benefit, to give us a historical fix, an idea of this sutta, where it was spoken, who spoke it, who were the audience, and so on.

[19:07]

Would you like me to give you an idea of what it sounds in Pali, or should I just go on? Yes, yes. Now, I will chant it, okay? Ewang me sutang ekang samayang bhagava savatiyang viharati jeta vane anata pindikassa arame atako anyatra devata abhikantaya ratiya abhikanta vanna kevala kapang jeta vanang obha setvayena bhagavate nupasankami So that's the prose in Pali. Pia, would you, would the monks be chanting this, would you chant the two in unison or would it be an individual? In unison usually. So you have this very beautiful resonance. There are different styles. Some may go slow, some may go fast. Especially when we go house chanting and

[20:10]

it's nearly lunchtime, you go a bit faster. It sounds good, too. I mean, some like slow, some... So you invite, you know, this group of monks who chant fast, so if you like fast chanting, you invite them. So, that's a bit of monastic sideline. Right, so, now thus it was said by me, It's usually translated as, thus have I heard, ewan mei sutang. Now this gives a kind of stamp of authority. This is Buddha word. There's one problem here. We get other people sometimes putting the line in the sutra, so we say, OK, that's Buddha word, and there's no way of saying it's not. So we get that kind of problem sometimes. I was, well, I'm right in the middle of an international conference right now. There is one woman in the conference who is specializing in detecting spurious sutras. It seems that in China they have compiled, written some sutras, so she is specializing in detecting them.

[21:15]

I have not asked her how she does it yet. Anyway, if you're interested in this area, I know one book by Robert Buswell. The title just slipped my mind. It's one of his latest books. There's an appendix to that book by Davidson which talks about authenticity of sutans. That might be interesting for you to read. Thus it was heard by me. It was Ananda who said this. Now, how does Ananda fit in? Ananda has a very interesting history. Now, Buddha, when he was 40 years old, I think, he felt it was time that someone took care of him. So he asked the monk, anyone of you would like to be my personal attendant? Oh, many of them volunteered. Sorry, Buddha said, you're too old, you're too senior, you have too many duties.

[22:15]

And others, they put up their hands, and for various reasons, the Buddha rejected them. But Ananda kept silent. And he was one of the youngest. Then the Buddha said, asked Ananda, why are you silent? And Ananda replied, well, Lord, if you thought that I was good enough, you would appoint me. And the Buddha said, OK, I appoint you. I have simplified the words, of course. Then Ananda said, yes, my Lord, but on certain conditions. He gave certain conditions. One of his conditions was that the Buddha would, if Ananda was absent whenever the Buddha taught, the Buddha would repeat those suttas to him. In other words, he had this opportunity of listening to, one would say, almost all of the Buddha's discourses, and he had this very great memory, so tradition goes. He had a kind of photographic memory, and he could recite very fast too.

[23:18]

Well, I suppose it's quite believable because as a monk, especially as a Buddha's pupil, surely he has these special qualities with his meditation and so on, with much less distraction those days than today. So he had this special privilege of listening to all the Buddha's discourses. So here this Ewang Mesutang is traditionally attributed to him. So this discourse was recited in the first council and transmitted down to us, to the various schools in the Thiruvada. At one time, I remember spending 45 minutes just explaining at one time, but I won't do that today. It's a beautiful way, there are many ways of kind of looking at this term, levels and meanings and so on. Basically, the Indians are kind of a They're not too worried about time. Unlike the Chinese. If this was a Chinese sutra, you'll find probably the colophon at the back, at the end of the sutra, exactly when it was written, by whom, which, even what time perhaps.

[24:24]

But not the Indians. At one time. Now what the Indians are trying to tell us is that it's not that they are inaccurate about dates. Such a discourse is meant to be timeless. It enshrines a truth which is beyond time. It's like once upon a time, something happened and we tell those tales again and again. You have heard them from your parents and you're going to tell them to your kids and your kids to their kids and so on. So it's something like that. A sutra is timeless, akaliko. That's one of the virtues of dharma. So at one time, that's what it means here. And here we are, 2005 years later, still looking at the Sutta in a language which we understand. So, at one time is a qualification of time. In other words, it has happened. The sasana, the dispensation is here. The Buddha has been born in this time, in our time, at one time. So beautiful. We have a Buddha, just in these three words.

[25:26]

This is what it announces. The Blessed One, and there you have the teacher, the presence of the teacher, the time, the teacher, was staying near Sawati, and that's the location of the event, in the Jeta Grove, in Anathapindika's monastery. Anathapindika was a rich man, who decided to donate this beautiful park, belonging to a prince called Prince Jeta, for the Buddha's use and for the use of the monks. And this park was located outside Sarvasti. Today it's called Said Mahet in India. One interesting detail in this story I would like to tell you is, Anathapindika, went to the prince and said, I'd like to buy your land, your park.

[26:28]

I'd like to give it to the Buddha. The prince said, no, I'm not going to sell it, not for any price. He said, are you sure? Give me any price, I will pay. Then the prince said, well, maybe if you cover the whole floor of this forest with coins, gold coins, yeah, I might think about it. And he did. Well, at least that's how the story went. This millionaire brought in cards and card loads of gold coins and covered the whole park ground with gold coins. And he was going to do that. He was going to cover the whole area of the park. And there was this little spot left. This prince was amazed at the faith and generosity of Anathapindika. Then he said, hold it. I'm convinced you have great faith, but leave me that spot which I donate." I think he was thinking a bit of merit for himself. So there are other beautiful stories related to this park.

[27:29]

The name Anantapindika Service is interesting. It means the giver, pindika, the giver or giver of alms. In Pali, you have many ideas kind of crammed into one little word. Pindika means one who gives alms. You need one who gives alms. Four words in English, just one word in Pali. Anatha, you've got a plus natha. Natha here means a refuge or a lord. Anatha means no refuge, no lord. Giver to those who have no refuge, giver to the destitute, supporter of the street people, something like that. So he is a very generous and compassionate person. In fact, he was so generous he died poor. He became a string winner, but he died. Anyway, another interesting point is this was not his real name. It is a kind of nickname, a title given to him because of his generosity. His original name was Sudatta.

[28:32]

Now, one interesting point about names in India is usually people do not call each other by their names. They have a kind of another name. Their personal name is kind of sacred and secret. Anathapindika had this special affinity towards the Buddha, so he was waiting for the Buddha to come to the city where he was living, and as soon as he heard the Buddha was in town, he decided to go and see the Buddha there and then, but it was rather late and very dark, and there were no street lamps then. So the story went that his faith was so great, he had this great prasada, Now, prasada or prasadhi has got to do with what is called mental clarity. But so great was his faith that he actually emanated light. And he walked through this dark place, through the cemetery, seeing his way quite clearly. Of course, there are various ways of explaining this story, that his faith guided him and so on.

[29:36]

But the point is that when he reached the Buddha, whom he only has met for the first time, the Buddha addressed him by his personal name, Sudatta. And that kind of, he said, oh, the Lord knows me. This is a kind of special affinity the Buddha and Sudatta had. It's almost a kind of mind-to-mind transmission. And Sudatta, or Anathapindika, has another special quality. He's very conscious of not disturbing the Buddha. and to the extent of not asking any questions. He said, no, I'll be troubling the Buddha. He's already tired. Someone else might ask the question. The Buddha knew this, and on another occasion, actually gave teachings, unprompted. He knew what Tao, the question was arising in Anathapindika's mind, and he started talking about those teachings, and they're also in the collection of lay teachings. Those are called unprompted teachings. This particular sutra we are doing today is a prompted teaching, but the Buddha was invited to teach.

[30:39]

Let's find out how that happened. Before that, the word park, I have put in square brackets monastery. It's a modern term. We call it monastery today, but in Buddhist time it is awasa, a park. In other words, there are a lot of trees around, it's very beautiful. There's even, in some places, squirrels. There's one spot called the squirrels feeding ground. And there's another part with deer wandering around. It's so beautiful, you can picture the kind of background. In other words, a monastery preserves natural beauty. In fact, even today, traditionally, we still see such natural beauty in a Zen monastery, for example, in the monasteries of Thailand even, especially the forest monasteries. Now, I have numbered some numbers here, one and two. These numbers are to help kind of refer

[31:42]

when teaching to refer, now I'm talking about verse two and so on, and I've tried to correlate them as closely to the Pali sentence as possible, or Pali phrase. So you find a number kind of dangling right in the middle of a sentence. You don't have to read it. So you don't say two then, you just say then. Then when the night was far advanced, a certain deity of exceeding radiance Now this is the time usually when the deities come to see the Buddha, so tradition goes. The Buddha's day is kind of divided into what are called watches. That's how we got the modern word watch. You have the morning is divided into two parts. and kind of afternoon. So it's quite easy. If I say see you in at four noon, I have about six hours to see you. So it's a very relaxed pace of life. But now we talk about exactly what time. So the concept of time, the consciousness of time has changed.

[32:45]

And then the nights, interestingly, are divided into four parts, three, sorry, three parts. The first watch, middle watch, last watch. The first watch will be about six, let me see, six to roughly ten, and then ten to two, then two to six again. Now, ten onwards is a time when the devas would, so tradition goes, go to the Buddha, and have discussions with him or bring reports to him, whatever. So there's a time when I suppose the Buddha would be deep in meditation, perhaps communicating with beings of a higher level. Anyway, tradition says that's the time when the devas come. And this is what is meant here, when the night was far advanced. That would be between 10 to 2 a.m. Then when the night was far advanced, a certain deity of exceeding radiance Deities usually have great radiance. That's one meaning of the term deva. Bright beings.

[33:47]

They're so charged with energy that they actually give off light. and light and energy kind of go together. Now, we do see this represented in art. I remember seeing a beautiful Japanese sculpture, I think it's Amitabha, with kind of rods, thin rods sticking out, radiating out, and they're supposed to represent light. And in many ways, Buddhist artists represent this radiance in statues, sometimes with a simple halo. You can see some of this in the exhibition that's going on right now in Cal, actually. There are no paintings here I can point. So, usually you see either around the head, there's a halo around the body. It's another term for that. Oh, yes, yes, around Avalokiteshvara. And Prashna Paramita has got a kind of halo all around her. So that's another example. You think that this might be equivalent to aura, the terminology that people use?

[34:58]

Yes, you can use the word aura, but it's got to do with bright light in this case, not just a feeling. So in this case it's actually bright light, and the radiance is so great that it illuminated the whole of Jeta Grove. Now I leave that to your imagination. It must be really amazing if you could see this. Could you say something about the devas? Yes, okay, thank you. Are there any other traditions? Yes, thank you for reminding me. I was going to say that actually. Deva, there are two etymologies. One is playful, the other is bright. So you can choose either one. They're both playful, they're bright, because they have nothing else to do really. They have such good karma, it's kind of an extended holiday. I mean, it's great to be a deva in a way. You don't have to do things, just sing it, and it happens. And there is a level of deva who, suspiciously, is like the creator god.

[36:03]

He's called, there are groups of them, not one, nirmana rathi devas, those who delight in creating. So all they do is, they say, let this be, and there it is. Then there's another one, another level of devas called paranimitta-vasavati. Those who delight in the creation of others, that they don't even bother to create. They just order someone to create something and these other devas do it. So you have these different levels, a number of levels which I won't go into. Now these devas, their lifespans are exceedingly long compared to earthly life. And some idea of relativity of time is given to us in the commentaries. I'm not sure whether in Suttas there are such stories, but certainly in the commentaries. There's one short anecdote which illustrates this point beautifully, and I think the scientists will probably be excited when they read this story.

[37:06]

A certain woman, or a certain deva, a devi perhaps, this is a feminine term, She was one of those heavenly queens of Indra and she passes away. Now, devas pass away by just kind of evaporating. They just kind of disappear like that. They fall away. In fact, we do not say devas die. We say deva chuti. Chuti is a Pali word meaning they fall from that state. And they know in different ways. They know when the time is going to come, unlike human beings. For example, the garlands they wear would kind of become, would wither away. They begin to sweat uncomfortably. their beautiful garments begin to soil, they begin to fidget in their seats uneasily. These are some of the signs that the time is coming. But the tradition goes that way. So anyway, this deva fell, kind of passed away from the heavens and was reborn on earth. And yet, she made this vow that she wants to be the queen of the same deva again.

[38:13]

So she was reborn on earth, she led a very pure life and a life of great merit, doing meritorious deeds, offering alms and so on, and she lived for a full life of about 70 years. And she died and was reborn in the same heaven, in the very spot where she died. And there she was, it's almost like a movie, you go pop, and there she goes, and the next moment, pop, she appears again. And then the Deva King asks, my queen, where have you been this morning, this whole morning? And that one morning, 70 years on Earth. Now some of these stories sound fantastic, but when you look at it from a mathematical point of view, there's some interesting thought behind it. So I leave it to the mathematical minds to calculate one morning and 70 years on Earth, what's the ratio like? Now that's only one level of the heavens, by the way. So as you kind of progress higher into the realms, more subtle realms, the time is incalculable. It's amazing, very long periods. But I'm talking about the level of heavens from a kind of cosmological point of view.

[39:19]

There's another way of looking at them from the meditation point of view. That is, they're actually mental states. So devas are happy beings. Now, so this deva went up to the Blessed One. Now, why did he do that? Now, this story is given in the notes, extra notes, which I've given to you. Now, let me now give you a bit of a summary of the social background of the story. I think I'm going a little bit more further back than I've ever done before in Malaysia, partly because of the benefit of studying at Cal. We go back to what is called the Axial Age, a time around the first millennium BCE, a time when the great religions of the world arose. Confucianism in China, the prophets of Israel, the roots of Greek philosophy, Zoroastrianism in Persia, and of course, in India, the Buddha, Mahavira, and so on.

[40:22]

Why did the great religions arise at that time? One reason is because there was this urbanization, more urbanization. In other words, people had more time for themselves. Life is becoming more specialized. You don't have to plan your own food. You can kind of buy. There's a money economy. In other words, you have more time to think and worry. And there are a lot of other things going on, politics and so on, which I won't go into. Basically, people had more time, and when you have more time, you begin to worry. Where do I come from? Where am I going? What's death like? What's going to happen to me? And so on. So there were different teachers giving different answers. So the Buddha was one of them. It is an axial religion. I've actually oversimplified the whole affair. In fact, I've just written a paper in the sociology of religion class, where, to my amazement, I was told that, well, Buddhism began as a historic religion, in other words, an axial age religion, where the individual is placed, is moved to the center of life.

[41:38]

In pre-axial religion, tribal religion, for example, The whole society is involved in a ritual, and the idea of individuality is very fuzzy. In fact, there's no individual. You're kind of part of society. You're always part of society, you get involved with society. And there's no such thing as salvation. you fish and you get fish or you don't get fish. So you go to rice, make sure you get fish, something like that. Or when you plant something, you make sure it grows, so you do a ritual for that. So that's kind of pre-axial religion. And there's a lot of magical things, and the priest is kind of center of religion, whereas in axial religion or historic religion, the individual is kind of the center of the universe. It seems that at some point later on, Buddhism kind of regressed from being a historic religion to an archaic religion. Archaic is kind of one step behind. This is according to Robert Bellah's theory of religious evolution.

[42:42]

You can read about this in his book called Beyond Belief. But evolution doesn't mean the next stage is better than the previous stage. It simply means that there's more differentiation, more specialization of duties and so on. Now why I raise this point is because it helps me to understand certain things that are going on in Buddhism today. The paper I submitted is regarding a certain religious ceremony, a kind of Buddhist Sabbath being performed in a Sinhalese temple in Malaysia, and that occasion was used to ask for donation instead of meditation. So I was trying to explain why that was going on, and why the people accept this, and did not question. the whole procedure. So one possible explanation is that that approach to Buddhism is not historic, it has gone one step back to the archaic, where the monks are regarded as priests, as performers of magical rites, bringers of good fortune, and so on. And that has directly to do with our sutra today. What brings us great blessings?

[43:45]

What are of great fortune to us? What are auspicious to us? This question has been ongoing for centuries, if not millennia. And that was what was going on in the Axial Age. People were beginning to question, what is the truth? What is religion? What is good for us? So one of the questions is, are auspicious to us. Some say, well, when you get up in the morning, you'll hear a good sound, a good name, like Lucky, or something like that, or Beautiful. It's good, good fortune. Or if you see an auspicious color, or you see an auspicious bird, certainly not a monk. A monk is regarded as inauspicious, by the Brahmins anyway. Or you You smell something nice, or you taste something good, and so on. They have all kinds of ideas, but they're not certain. There's this big argument going on. For 12 years, the commentary mentioned. You have a question? of centralization, urbanization, development of a commodity and trading mentality.

[45:18]

That's one I would put forth hesitantly that that is there was a unit to which everyone felt connected, so they were not so separated. With the development of separation, then people begin to feel the pain of that separation. Yes. Well, that's the whole point. During the exodus, people became more alienated. They were kind of broken up, so they felt alone, lost. There are many other explanations, of course, not just what I've said. Basically, you can say that the, one way of putting it, the universal human consciousness became more acute, became more developed.

[46:19]

In a way, our consciousness become more evolved, so we begin to question more deeply. Unlike, where do I fit in? What is my place in the universe? And so on. At the same time, there were the Brahmins who, by that time, had developed from very simple being very simple priests to a whole caste. There's a caste system in India where these priests have developed such elaborate and sophisticated rituals that they actually became very powerful people. And so there's a reaction against that. That yajna, or sacrifice, is not the true path to enlightenment. It should be jñāna, or knowledge. So these are some of the issues in India. So Buddha wrote at that time, and he is the one who declared that, true knowledge should be liberated, not through rituals, not through those sacrifices of animals and so on. And there were hundreds and thousands of animals being sacrificed, 400 of this, 400 of that and so on.

[47:22]

And I suspect at one time there were even human sacrifices. There is what's called Purusha Medan and so on. And of course, the king himself had to go to the rituals in order to legitimize his rule. So there's a lot of things going on. Right, coming back to the sutra, so this Deva, rather, this argument is going on earth, made even the Devas uneasy. So the commentary tells us. Indra was watching with interest. What's going on down on earth, he was thinking. Why are these people arguing? Why can't they find the answer? Then he summoned a Devaputra, a minor probably a kind of a young deva, just reborn perhaps, said, these people are kindling a glowworm when they could have the sun. It's a beautiful proverb.

[48:23]

Now, there are lots of proverbs in the scripture. I've been trying to collect them at one point. Why don't they go to the Buddha and ask him this question? Now, I have one question myself. I'm becoming a little impious lately. I'm sure they've asked the Buddha. How come after 12 years, no one asked the Buddha? It's a bit of a question I ask myself, you know. But anyway, let's leave it at that for the moment. There are probably other explanations, but I'll just explain the text as I've read them. Anyway, so, Sakra, or Indra, he's got two names. He told his Deva, well, you go down there and ask the Buddha himself, what are the highest blessings? and bring peace to earth and stop this people from arguing. Anyway, that was his intention. So this here, this Deva came and he approached in a very interesting way. And here actually is what you're seeing is the traditional way an Indian would approach the Buddha or any sacred object or teacher.

[49:27]

And I've seen this kind of action actually going on in Hindu temple, how they approach the shrine. It's very interesting. And this is how it goes. Having gone up to the Blessed One, he said it to Tim and stood at one side. Standing thus at one side, the deity addressed the Buddha with a verse. Now, in other words, they would not, let's say if this was the shrine, they would not stand right in front of the shrine, as we do usually. They would stand aside, like where I am now, and in that way speak to the sacred person, and even bow down that way, kind of sideways. So this is a kind of Indian custom, at least in the Buddhist time. And that's the meaning of at one side. And the commentaries go to detail what's meant by at one side. Not upwind so that if you do smell, your teacher will smell. Not too far down so your teacher can't see you. Not too far, not too near, and so on. In other words, ideal conditions for the transmission of the Dharma.

[50:28]

Some of the explanations, of course, are really interesting. Very interesting indeed. So, the deity is ready. All the decorum and procedures have been properly done. And then, with his palms together, he addressed the Buddha. In this case, of course, it's a verse. Now, one interesting thing is the word deva, another meaning, by the way, is king. It's a term we use to address royalty. So a subject we address the king as deva, it can mean your majesty, or maharaja, they mean the same thing. So one possibility, another possible explanation, which may be a bit far-fetched though, but it's kind of one possible explanation, is that what we are looking here is a kind of a, it's almost we are looking at a dialogue between two noblemen, because usually the nobility would speak in verse, in India anyway.

[51:32]

Even in Shakespeare, if you notice, some of those dialogues, you know, when the king or royalty speaks in a beautiful verse, then the common folks would speak in prose. So the Deva... Now in Pali it's beautiful, it's kind of... there is a beat to it, and they're all kind of eight beats to a line, I mean eight syllables to a line. Bahu, Deva, Manu, Sacha, it's eight, so that's the first line. Bahudeva, Manusacca, many devas and humans longing for well-being have thought about what are auspicious. Tell us, what is the most auspicious fortune? Fortune has been put in between two slashes, that's called an amplified translation. It's a device I've used to show that you can remove that if you like, but if you add it in, it kind of gives a clearer meaning. You can just read as, tell us what is most auspicious, it makes sense. Or you can say, tell us what is most auspicious. But here the word auspicious is transformed from an adjective to a noun, or the other way around, whichever way.

[52:38]

So this is the introduction. So we say this is Buddha's word, but we know very well the Buddha did not speak this portion of the sutta. So Buddha's word is tradition. How do we know that he didn't speak that? Well, it's impossible. He's spoken by someone else, by the Deva. What I'm trying to say is, when we say Buddha word, it's a term meaning it's canonized, or it's accepted as sacred, or it is connected with liberation. Even following that, the other verses, again, as I said, it is not likely to be the Ipsosema verba of the Buddha, the actual words of the Buddha, because we do not know whether he actually spoke Pali. We know that Pali is one of the early languages which kind of recorded one of the traditions. He probably spoke a few languages, including Sanskrit. That's a big question even today, we're not very sure what language or languages he spoke. This sutra, many of these ideas and points in the sutra has also been inscribed by Ashoka on some of his pillars, so we know at least this tradition goes back to his time, for example.

[53:56]

So this is some historiographic evidence. When did he put those up? About 300 BC? More or less, yes, that's right. So we know up to that point There was this tradition. He could have thousands of them. That's right. It's incredible. It's also likely that it was in his time that the Pali Canon was closed. Closed means there was no more development, there were no more editions of sutras. If you remember them and they're not recorded too bad, they're extra-canonical. So there are some sutras which were remembered by some disciples, but they were not canonized. I suppose some of the sutras could have crept into the Mahayana tradition, just one possibility, remembered by other disciples. So now we come to the actual sutra itself. So what happens in Thailand when we are short of time, we would start chanting from this section. Here there are two tunes. Well, since you like chanting, I'll show you the two different styles.

[55:00]

One is chanting by the monks and the other is singing style. Now the tune is slightly different because previously it was a prose, so the sound is slightly different. This is the most auspicious. Now, I've chanted a Siamese style. The sing-list got a little different. It's got a bit of Indian sound to it. Now, how do we sing it? We got something like this. Now this is sung in the East, especially by children at Sunday school.

[56:14]

So they go on repeating this round song every verse with the same tune. There are variants of this tune. It's a moment for reflection, so you hear those words, ah, that sounds familiar, okay, that's the line on not associating with fools. Oh, I forgot that one, then you check it out what it is. So every Sunday they would sing this tune. Now we come to the exciting part where I hope we have kind of various discussions. Some of the statements might sound controversial today. Now, it is very important to remember the context of this sutta. It was spoken by the Buddha 2,500 years ago to an exile society in India. There are so many seekers, many people are not sure what are the values in life and so on. There was this urbanizing going on, there was this big empire that has come up which allows greater freedom of movement.

[57:15]

Once you have a great empire, it means there's more religion interaction, and when there's more than one religion, you begin to start questioning your own. So it's a very difficult time. So this is one set of ideas given by a great teacher. So what brings great blessing? The first one is not associating with fools. Now, on first reading, you say, wow, this is quite a shocking remark. Who are the fools? My first impression when I read this some years ago, I said, wow, if that's the case, why did the Buddha arise? I mean, only fools would go to him. I mean, if we are wise, we need not be Buddhists, need we? We need not meditate. It's the foolish who need religion. It's kind of intellectualizing going on in my head at the time. Now, the Pali word might help a bit. The Pali word for fool is bala. Bala.

[58:16]

Not bala by the way. Bala, short sound means force or strength. But this is bala. So the short sound and the long sound, they're very important. Bala could mean a young boy. Someone immature. So by extension it means foolish. So it could mean do not associate with immature people. But then again, you've got to understand what's the context of this word. Here, one explanation is someone who is not able to distinguish good from evil, and evil from good. And it goes on like that. Any discussion here? Well, I think of the last line in Insomniac's Dream. Now, what happens if we literally practice this, we keep away with fools?

[59:25]

And what happens when we do associate with fools? So there are two questions here. What happens when we do, what happens when we don't? Anyone like to say anything? Yes, outside. Well, one thing that we talk about who are immature or acting foolish. So it's, I think, being aware of our response to what's going on and how we act accordingly. I think there are moments when we try very hard to kind of relate to people, even help them. Then there comes a point where you feel, no, I don't think I can do any more. So maybe that's the point where you can say, yeah, I think this is where I apply this line or this sutra, perhaps. Perhaps that's one way. But before I give my next reminder, would anyone else like to say anything?

[60:28]

Yes? When you say distinguishing good from evil, I'm a little confused because I experience learning from both. And distinguishing good from evil, is there a value judgment in there that evil is bad Yeah, I think this term value judgment, for all of you, is introduced by the scholars. And even now, I think they're saying, well, it's alright, you can make value judgments, you can make up your minds. I think there are times when you have to make value judgments. What is of value, what is not of value to you? And if you don't, no one else is going to do it for you. And by trial and error, you discover, yeah, this is what is good. I mean, the worst thing is someone comes along and tells you, this is it, and you're stuck with it. That can happen to the sutra, you know? Avoid fools and say, oh, you're a fool, and keep away. But that's the end of the sutra itself.

[61:30]

That's not what it's trying to tell us. Right? Yes? I think it's a little bit along the same lines of learning from bad as well as from good. I think associating with someone who we might say is foolish or immature, you might learn something from their behavior. Now, oh yes, okay. I think maybe if we don't think about fools being people outside of ourselves, but aspects of our own self. Okay, you read my mind a bit. That within ourselves, if we associate with the wise and not the foolish. Because then you keep creating this other, you know, make someone, call someone else a fool. Well, you've gone very far then. your charm of big leap. In other words, if you regard others separate from you, yeah, that's a fool. Right? Okay, let's try to fuse some ideas in between. Yes?

[62:31]

One of the things about Shakespeare that I find very fascinating is that he's given some of his best lines and best wisdom to the mouth of fools. That's true. What do you mean by fool there? It's jester, isn't it? The fool would be the one that is acting contrary to the direction of the play. So it's a paradox. The fool would be pointing out the paradox. I think in Shakespeare it's a device, this so-called better comers fool. He's actually one of the wisest people in the play. is trying to show what happens if you do not do something. I mean, that's one way I see it. But here I think we're talking about an aspect of a person which will bring ruin and harm, not in the case of the Shakespearean fool, which actually is pointing towards danger and saying, that's what you should not do, or that's what would happen if you do it.

[63:36]

Assewana. Assewana also means to do something to do with serving, to kind of associate with, to be a part of, to relate to. So assewana means not to. But serving, that's an interesting... Yeah, it's a broad meaning, so that's one meaning. Now, I was going to say, one important aspect in the study of sutras is, we're talking about, this is the transmission with the word, the sutra or scripture tradition, unlike in Zen where you deal with ideas and emptiness, is to come as close together towards the Zen tradition as possible. And the link is the three characteristics, especially non-self. Now what would happen, I call this comparative Buddhism, by the way. Comparative, two meanings. One is taking different aspects of various sectarian Buddhism and try to relate, see how they're related.

[64:45]

And the other one is kind of on a doctrine level. So in other words, you say, okay, here is this line and what Teaching, can I relate to this? Usually it would be a three-characteristic. So, I suppose if we try to relate the non-self teaching, non-self doctrine or non-self concept, whatever you call it, to this line, what would you get? I mean, I think someone got an idea of it. What do you get? If you relate the idea of non-self to this line, to not associating with fools, then you get some kind of insight into that line, don't we? that a fool is not really a person. I mean, we cannot say A is a fool the moment he's born, the moment he's going to die. Right? So when I say, no, I'm not going to associate with him, he's a fool. Now we're condemning this person totally that he is a fool from point zero to his last moment. Right? So what we're talking about is that which makes this person foolish.

[65:50]

That's the moment, the time when we have to dissociate ourselves. There must be the distance or space at the right time. Let's say in a family, sometimes it becomes a point where you have this big argument and you kind of try to go on and you try to win. No, that's not the time. So you've got to back off. That's the time not to associate with fools. Maybe you are the one. You'll be foolish at that time. So dissociate yourself with that person you would be. So you move up. So it's one way of looking at it. So you kind of retreat, retreat into wisdom. So it's not as simple as it seems, it's like not associating with fools, certainly not a person, then the doctrine of non-self would be not related to it, it would be meaningless. But associating with the wise. Pandita Nancasevana. These two lines are kind of related, you know, they're kind of opposite, opposing to each other.

[66:52]

So Sevana is in front in the first line and at the back in the second line. Remember, they're all kind of eight syllables, it's beautiful, you know. It would mean that more, not associating with the Suraj. Yes, you can say that, but here, to keep to the original Pali term, it's a noun. Yeah, I understand. Yeah, I think if you say, the foolish, we write to it, it's a noun. Yes, I suppose. But associating with the wise. Pandita, the wise. One etymology, the Indians love giving etymologies, is those who pick. The wise, they pick, you know, they're very careful about what they say and how they think. Banditta, the wise. Well, here, from the first idea, I think we have a very good idea of who are the wise. Well, Traditionally, the wise say to those who practice the kusala karmas, the wholesome karmas, generosity, keeping the precepts, things like that, understanding the nature of precepts.

[68:06]

In other words, moral conduct is kind of excellent. That's why we're putting it. Later on, we'll come to some other ideas of what the wise like. In fact, you can say that the rest of the sutra has got directly to do, they define who the wise is. Any discussion here? I have a question. I'm not clear on what associating what kind of relationship that implies. Well, in the most general term, to keep company, to have any kind of connection, especially a kind of direct connection in the exchange of words and ideas. any connection that would, in some way, affect you emotionally, spiritually, that is the meaning of Sevana, or the opposite of Sevana.

[69:08]

So if it's going to amount to something negative, it is best to keep away. Now, in fact, these two lines have got to do, in fact, all these three lines here, have got to do with spiritual friendship, in a way, define spiritual friendship. There are times when our energies are low, and like the level of water which is low, we allow ourselves to be filled with negativity if someone negative is nearby. It's deflected into us, we tend to absorb it. The traditional analogy is like a lotus leaf that holds a rotten fish. The leaf would smell. So we do, some negativity in other people do rub off onto us. So what the Buddha is saying is that there are times when it is wiser to just keep away from such a person at that point in time. It's that person's best left alone.

[70:11]

So that's another reason why we do loving-kindness meditation, to remove this negativity, this unwholesome, this dark feeling in us, so that when we are in the company of others, we exude a kind of good, wholesome feeling. So we can even talk from the level of meditation. If one wants to go further, one can even say, those who meditate should not associate with those who do not meditate. And in a retreat, for example, especially. Because if you do, as a chef, you just do not meditate, then you have different, there'll be a clash of interests. You'll be distracted. You'll be telling you what's the latest show on TV, and there's a big fire in Los Angeles, and so on, and you kind of start worrying. So that's one end of the level. You can discuss this point. So, in other words, the Buddha is addressing beginners here. So it's like protecting a nursery of plants.

[71:15]

We want this plant to grow healthily. So if any negative thoughts, emotions creep in, then the growth will be stunted, something like that. Or at least certain moments in our life, we have to go into retreat. That's what retreat is about, actually. Why must we go into retreat? Retreat from what? Retreat from whom? This very first line tells us that. We retreat from the foolish. Right? And we associate with the wise. In the retreat, who are the wise? The teacher, the other people who are meditating? So, I mean, you can kind of relate these lines in the context of retreat. I find myself retreating within the retreat a lot. You do? Yeah, I mean, there's a lot that comes up in a retreat and a lot of the teachers are wise and they're teachers, but within the context of retreat, there's still a lot of pushing away. I guess I see it not associated with fools as kind of the one side of attachment, which is rejection, right?

[72:25]

There's grasping and there's... pushing away. But you're talking about there's a difference here. Yes, as you said, I was thinking of, I could almost hear the word renouncing in what you have said. You know, we kind of, another way of talking about this three lines is, or these two lines at least, is a kind of renouncing of certain distractions that we like, distractions which are things we are attached to. The foolish aspect of us, we have to renounce that. So when we go into retreat, we renounce those things, at least temporarily. In a way, going on a retreat is like getting ordained, like becoming a monk or whatever, becoming a renunciate, at least temporarily, while you are in practice. It's literally dualistic.

[73:26]

On a lower level, yes, definitely. Because the Buddha is addressing dualistic minds, so he's using dualistic ideas. But as you go higher, for example, there is a very interesting example where the Buddha uses emptiness language. Emptiness here means non-dualistic. A watcher came to the Buddha and asked the Buddha, is there a soul? The Buddha remained silent. Is there no soul then? The Buddha was silent. And Vajraguta goes away. End of story. Now, we wouldn't have known this happened. But for Ananda, he was watching. I call him this transcendental busybody. For our benefit. For our benefit. He was watching from the... somewhere anyway. He was sitting nearby because he's got to attend to the Buddha. He came up to the Buddha and asked the Buddha, Why didn't you answer him? In the traditional Pali way of, you know, Pali repetitive line, because it's an oral tradition, you find very tedious repetitions.

[74:33]

So he asked the Buddha, Lord, why didn't you answer Vajragupta when he asked you, is there a soul? And then the Buddha said, well, if I had said that... Now, why did you answer him, there is no soul? Then Buddha answered, if I had answered, there is no soul, you would have said, yes. He would have been terrified. He might even go mad, because he believes in a soul. And for him to be told there is no soul is too shocking. Now, why didn't you say, there is no soul, then? And when he said, why is there not... Is there a soul? Why didn't you say, there is a soul? The Buddha said, if I said yes, then what's the poem you're teaching? It goes against what I've taught. So the answer was silence. Now, this silence kind of actually later brought Washakota back and became a monk, and quite a well-known monk. So this is a language of silence. Of course, you might say, well, he's just giving Washakota the benefit of the doubt. But on a higher level, it is a language of emptiness.

[75:36]

There is truth in that answer. Because that simple anecdote actually summarizes the doctrine of non-self. On a higher level, on a more doctrinal level, where this is anecdotal, on a doctrinal level, the Buddha said, to say that there is a self amounts to eternalism. To say there is no self amounts to nihilism. So there you are, he knocks down dualism. And from there you get Madhyamaka. So it depends on the audience, really. Even in this same collection called the Pali Canon, you have those different languages. I'm not saying that the Theravada has got all these things. I mean, the Theravada itself comes from an older tradition, before Pali tradition, that is. So we have in this tradition the roots of the later traditions. Any of that?

[76:38]

Yes? Sorry. I'm beginning to understand a little bit what foolish and wise is about and I'm starting to think, well, how do I recognize it? Just even within myself, my own foolish initiatives and my own wise initiatives or experiences or beliefs or etc. Maybe that's not part of this, but... Yeah, you know, sometimes, you know, the lines are so simple, and sometimes so difficult for us to try to say what we know about it. So I think we try to intellectualize, and it's difficult. So what I suggest is, This is what I sometimes do. I'll just take the line as it is. I say, oh yeah, I don't think this is true. How can it be true? Where are the fools? We out of our compassion should associate with fools. So we go along with this intellectualizing. But what I find helpful is as you go around talking to people, looking at life,

[77:39]

Let the sound of this line come into your life, into your mind, and you hear it. It just sounds by itself sometimes. You say, yeah, well, this is the situation here. It's so true to you. You see it for yourself. It's not taught to you. You know it. And that is called sanditiko. You see it from within yourself. So I think that is where the Dharma has come upon you. Yes? but is there harm to take it literally? Since this sutra is, you said, is very popular, so it's probably had been taught all over the world. So if that is the case, should there be any caution? But I suspect some people do take it literally, and I'm not here to say whether you should take it literally or on a higher level. I think there are times when you should take it literally, and there are times when you have to kind of adjust the level in the understanding according to the doctrines of non-self.

[78:45]

Yeah, I think there might be harm if you take it too literally all the time or even most of the time. Especially if you go around flinging the Mangala Sutta at people you don't like. I mean, that would be the last thing we should do. Did you say flinging or singing? Flinging, flinging. Or thumping the Mangala Sutta at someone and say, you are a fool, see this first line? I don't think that's what's meant here. What's meant here is that there are occasions when, yeah, this is a very difficult situation and it'd be foolish either for myself or the person to be involved. Yes. Theravada may be illiterate at times, but I don't think it's overly strong. Not associating with fools, but associating with the wise. So each of these is a blessing. So that's number two. Number three. and honoring those worthy of honor. So here, of course, the question is who are those worthy of honor?

[79:51]

How do we honor? This is where you need some sociological or social adjustments. In the Buddha's time, you honor people by bowing down to them, with the head touching the ground. According to some traditions, you serve the teacher, the teacher is one of the people worthy of honour, with food and washing his clothes and robes, massaging his legs, things like that, personal service, that's called body service, and so on. So in the American context we have to adjust, what do you mean by honour here, or respect. For example, I was a little uneasy at first when, you know, here we call each other by name. We're so used in Asia, if you're a senior, you don't call by name, you have terms. Uncle usually is a favourite term. It sounds strange, but it's a term we use. Or we have other titles, even we call We use mister in front of miss or whatever. We never call someone by name, especially someone who's kind of senior. So that's the Asian way of honoring others and so on.

[80:55]

But here, it's not rude. It's not regarded as rude to call someone by name. So I have to adjust my mind to that kind of situation. So that would not be called as honoring someone. So you have to adjust. So this is not an ultimate teaching, it's a conventional teaching, so you have to make adjustments. I think sometimes in the case of Zen, they try to communicate ultimate teachings, that is the transmission outside the scripture. So we're talking about the same thing really, two different methods. So the word honour is puja here, by the way. So it's a very interesting term. We come for puja, right? So we're honouring the Buddha. So we're not actually... In a way, you can say we worship him. Worship in the sense of honouring a great teacher who has renounced so much that even we will not go to the extent of not only renouncing the world, but discovering the ultimate truth in so doing. And not just doing that, the third step is he actually transmitted, took the trouble to teach this teaching to the world.

[82:01]

So you have kind of three levels of, maybe that's one reason why we bow down three times to the Buddha. The first time we bow down, we reflect that this man is so great, he renounced the world. He gave up things that we wouldn't even dream of giving up. A great renunciation. The second time we bow down, we say this man, through his renunciation, discovered his ultimate truth. He would have been a Pacika Buddha if he had remained there, an Arahant. But then, we bow down for the third time, reflecting that he has given us this teaching. So each time we bow down, it's a beautiful, deep, heavy feeling inside us. This heavy is a good meaning. Garu. From there you get the word guru. Guru is one who's heavy. Now I can figure out why a guru is heavy, but that seems to be etymology. It's heavy. I suppose it's slang, you know. So, but when you bow down, sorry? I heard today an explanation of that. Oh, you did? Okay. A guru is heavy in the sense of gravity.

[83:03]

Ah, yes. He's my classmate, he's done Hinduism. So yes, there's a wonderful explanation. You just get attracted to the guru here, the swan over here, I suppose. And you bow down to him, you have this heavy feeling and you just go down. You have this heavy in the sense of you feel fulfilled, like a flower filled with dew, or you can think of some beautiful imagery. So this kind of reflection is wonderful, otherwise it's just a mechanical bending of the body. All these actions, these mudras and asanas, the mental states must go with them in order to be meaningful. We have a few more minutes. I'm quite happy with the rate we are going, because most of the points are quite easy, unless there are some controversial points. What I want to show later on is how they are interconnected, and how we divide them up into various categories, according to wisdom, compassion, and so on.

[84:08]

Any other? Yes? Would it be a traditional reading to see this Yes, as I said, there's one level of understanding it. You can look at it on different levels. For example, the way we approach today, because you're such a mature audience, I go a little higher than I usually would in Malaysia if I used this sutta for, say, a group of very new beginners, students from school. And I have to be more kind of literal with them, actually. But as we grow older, avoiding fools becomes more sophisticated. I mean, if you have kids, you just say, no, I'm not going to be your friend, and you go away, and that's the end of it. You can't do that nowadays. I mean, that person could be right in your home, and you see him every day. So you can't just quote Mangala Sutta literally. So you have to kind of figure out the various levels of interpreting it, and that is what it's meant to be.

[85:13]

But all of it can be applied to oneself. Definitely. All the sutras actually come at one point and they kind of emanate in different ways. But then there's nothing to talk about. So here is one beautiful orchestration of this beautiful spiritual music in simple terms. And then at the end of that verse comes a kind of like a seal, this is the most auspicious fortune, or each of this is a mark of good fortune. If you do not associate with fools, it is a most auspicious fortune. In fact, you can even just say, you take one line and say that is the most auspicious fortune. That one line comes with all the other blessings. They are interconnected. There are points for discussion, actually. We have four minutes for any questions.

[86:18]

Yes? When it says about associating with the wise and honoring those I thought of the three refuges and one of the refuges being the Buddha, and I was wondering if that is what it is meant by. Yes, definitely. Traditionally, the first objects that are worthy of honour are the three jewels. Then you can hold a whole course on why you honour the three jewels, one day for one jewel. Then you go into the various virtues. For example, in the case of the Buddha, you've got Ittipiso, Bhagavan, I think there are eight virtues there, I think. So because he is bhagava, he is blessed and so on, arahant, worthy, and then you reflect on all these things. So these are reflections using certain qualities of the Buddha. This is to inculcate faith for those who are very intellectual. I hope you like the presentation so far because it's the first time I'm having an American audience.

[87:30]

How was it doing it in blue jeans? How was it? You said it was the first time in jeans. Very comfortable. I've been meditating in them. Thank you for reminding me. I was going to say something beautiful. To me, anyway. The robes are the most comfortable clothes I've ever worn. There's one regret I feel not wearing the robe. Jeans are the next most comfortable. And very simple. Thank you for your attention tonight. Blessing and connection with the Sutta. Bhavatu Sapa Mangalang Rakhantu Sapa Devata Sapa Buddha Nubhavena Sada Soti Bhavantute Bhavatu Sapa Mangalang Rakhantu Sapa Devata Sapa Dhamma Nubhavena Sada Soti Bhavantute Bhavatu Sapa Mangalang Rakhantu Sapa Devata Sapa Sangha Nubhavena Sada Soti Bhavantute

[88:47]

And you're supposed to say, Sādhu. Sādhu. That means kind of, excellent, that's good. What I recited basically means, by the virtue of the Buddha, may all the devas protect you. I have to recite it. May all the Buddhas, by the power of all the Buddhas, So this is kind of a very mundane blessing, but I hope you... It's a traditional chant the monks give the lay people, and an ex-monk gives you.

[89:30]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ