I vow to taste the truth of the Tathagata's words. Hi everybody. Nice to see you. While I'm thinking of it, Just to remind myself and all of you, we're going to meet for three weeks after this week, on the 3rd, 10th and 17th. We added the 17th when we ended up not meeting last week. And I was looking over the Book of Sutras and thinking that... we're going to, maybe we'll get through tonight, the short sutra, the finger snap, and also those of Kesaputta, maybe we'll get that far. And then I was thinking after that, to read the Magiya Sutta, the sutta called Parable of the Saw, and then the Angulimala Sutta,

[01:13]

So I don't know. I mean, I assume that all these are either you already have them already or that they can be made available. Is that right, Charlie? Not a problem to, yeah. So I will leave that to others to iron out. But that's what I was thinking for the rest of our time. So, we're going to damble along as we have been. The Finger Stamp. An obscure sutra, actually, which I wouldn't have found without the help of of my friends in the Western Buddhist order who, you know, Sangharaksita who's the founder of that order is a very scholarly chap and, you know, really has an extensive knowledge of the Buddhist literature and many interesting and useful theories about Buddhism and Western Buddhism and so he sort of has picked out certain suttas that he thinks are important and this is one of them.

[02:40]

And the reason why he thinks it's important and why I like it too is that it's one of the purposes of this book is to show the continuity between the Mahayana and the old way, as I call it, the old way, the original way of Buddhism. And this is a sutra that really does that. It begins by saying that the nature of mind is luminous. This mind, oh monks, is luminous, meaning bright, shining, full of light. That's the nature of mind, but it gets obscured and covered over by defilements, smeared with muck and messiness. And so you would never get it, that it's bright, because it's so covered over with all this other stuff. But its nature is brightness. And this saying is a kind of a rare saying in the Pali Canon, but it's just very much like the Mahayana Buddhist idea of Buddha nature that we're all so familiar with.

[03:50]

It's not so much different between saying this mind is inherently luminous and saying all sentient beings have the Buddha nature. So that's why I've chosen it. So, let's just read it and see what we can get out of it. The finger snap. This mind, monks, is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from without. But this the uneducated many folk understands not as it really is. Therefore the uneducated many folk there is no Wherefore, for the uneducated, many folk, there is no cultivation of the mind, I declare." So it's a funny kind of archaic language, but you know, it just means ordinary people don't understand that the nature of the mind is luminous and that it has been covered over by defilements that are not inherent to it, that are not necessary.

[05:03]

that can easily be removed, that are not, I don't know about easily, but can be removed, that they're not built into the nature of mind, and quite the opposite. The nature of mind is to be, you know, light and enlightened. But people not realizing this, sort of take for granted the way that the mind is appearing to them, and so they don't make the effort to remove these taints, find out how they got there and reverse them, because they don't realize what the nature of their mind actually is. And it is a very fascinating thing, which there's not much to say about, but it's fascinating that in all religious traditions the imagery of light is always used, you know. Saints are always pictured with halos, you know, and glowing light emanating from them.

[06:05]

And the imagery of light associated with spiritual beings and wise and pure beings is pretty much universal in religious practice. And here it is again, this mind is luminous. Enlightenment means to become full of light, to become luminous in a way. You may think, but wait a minute, didn't the Buddha teach last time we were talking about all this, didn't the Buddha say that the nature of conditioned existence is suffering? Wasn't that the first thing that came out of his mouth when he started to teach? Isn't that the opposite of this? Doesn't that sound like the nature of mind is not luminous, but messed up? Well, not really, because what the Buddha said was that the nature of conditioned existence is suffering, is to be tainted.

[07:09]

But then he said that when you discover how this comes about, you can be free of that conditioning by virtue of the path, so that there is nirvana, and nirvana is like the luminous mind. So even though he the first noble truth is rather shocking and stark in a way, you know, the nature, the very nature of conditioned existence is suffering. But I think it's that way to kind of get our attention. Because we, you know, there's two things we need to really get, I think, in order to practice. We really need to get it that, first of all, our nature is luminous. We have the potential and the nature of awakening. But also we have to get at how thoroughly we are messed up. That it's not so simple, you know, that it's not so easy. It's going to take some effort to return, to remove the taints and return to the luminous nature of our mind.

[08:12]

So therefore, it's very skillful for the Buddha to have made this very strong and dismaying statement. The nature of conditioned existence is suffering, is to be tainted. Yes? I'm curious, is it removed or imbibed? Say that again? To remove or end the midst of suffering. Well, again, you know, one of the things that we are always going to be dealing with in reading these old suttas is this kind of distinction. Whereas the old suttas will use language like remove the taints and enter nirvana, leave samsara and enter nirvana. In Mahayana Buddhism, this is the same thing. put into different language. Instead of saying, remove taints and go from samsara to nirvana, there's the notion of the recognition of how things are, is itself the removal of taints.

[09:15]

In other words, the recognition, the inner turning of understanding, is itself the removal of taints. so that we don't run away from suffering and think that we're going to get rid of suffering, but we transform suffering in the midst of suffering by our recognition of what suffering really is. So that's what Mahayana Buddhism focuses on, and so the language is different. So we have to remember, you know, to kind of translate in a way, you know. I'm so used to it that I don't even think about it, but yeah, you always think about that, translate. So anyway, the main thing here in this first paragraph is simply stating The good news, almost the opposite from the way the Noble Truths start. The good news, this one starts with the good news. The Noble Truth sort of starts with the bad news and then gets to the good news. This starts with the good news and then tells us the bad news. The mind is really in great, you are great, you are really a Buddha. But unfortunately you can't notice that because there are so many defilements and problems and ways that you don't understand what your mind is that you would never guess it.

[10:26]

And most people don't know it and therefore don't make the effort. Then he repeats, this mind monks is luminous but it can be or it is cleansed of these same taints that come from without. So, you know, the opposite of the opening statement. This mind is luminous, but it's defiled. People don't see that. Now, those who want to cultivate see that this mind is luminous and it can be cleansed of those taints that come from without. In other words, that are not inherent to it, that they can be removed. This the educated disciple understands as it really is. Therefore, for the educated disciple, there is cultivation of the mind, I declare. So these are two sort of mirror opposites. The mind is luminous. It is defiled.

[11:28]

People don't understand this. They don't cultivate. The mind is luminous. It can be purified. Practitioners understand this, and they make effort to do so. And of course, when we hear this phrase, the mind is luminous, it can be cleansed of taints that come from without. This kind of goes to your comment of a moment ago. It reminds you right away of the sixth ancestor. You know, the famous story of the two verses. The sixth ancestor's rival writes a poem that says something very much like what the sutra says, that the mind is like a mirror, brightly shining, but it's covered over with dust and dirt, you should wipe it clean. And the sixth ancestor then sees that poem and says, no, no, no, that's not right. And then he writes a poem that says, there is no mirror, there are no taints, what could you wipe?

[12:32]

Anything clean anyway. So then, and then of course, the story goes, the sixth ancestor wins the prize and he's right and the other guy's wrong. But actually, so that would make you think that, oh well, then the Mahayana is right and the old way is wrong, you know, and they just didn't really get it. But, actually, most Zen commentators on this story always say, especially in our tradition, it is always said, no, both are right. You can't have one without the other. You know, if you cleanse your taints in the realization and recognition that there really aren't any taints, but you do it anyway. Because you know that if you don't, and you get stuck on there aren't any taints, then you might build up more taints and you might become a Zen foxy, Zen, you know, person who goes around doing, you know, evil deeds and so forth and so on.

[13:41]

And we can't do that. Shouldn't do that. So, therefore we have to have both. So, monks, if just for the lasting of a finger snap, And a finger snap, this is a scientific term. A finger snap in Buddhism is a scientific term. It is the length of time, it's technically the shortest possible length of time is a finger snap. They were very interested in the nature of mind and time and so they try to figure out, you know, what's The idea was that mind would flash into existence with all of its constellated elements and would flash out of existence and then another mind would flash into existence and so that the life that we think that we're leading that has continuity and so on actually doesn't. It's like a film, little still pictures that flash on and off. It didn't look like it was continuous.

[14:43]

So then of course they start thinking, well now how long does it take for this picture to... and they said, well it takes the shortest conceivable amount of time that there could be and how long is that? A finger snap. So they... that's what... that's like a technical term for an instant. So in other words, if just for an instant you, the practitioner, would indulge or we could say, this translation is not too good, you know. What it means is, if just for an instant you would just stumble on the thought of goodness, not intending to do anything about it or anything, but you just sort of stumbled by accident, you know, you had a good wholesome thought, even if just for an instant you stumbled into a positive thought, a positive state of mind, then you would be a true, just that much, you know, you would be a true cultivator.

[15:50]

A monk here means, you know, a true cultivator of the way, a worthy cultivator of the way. Not empty of result is his musing. In other words, he's meditating, it's worthwhile, his or her meditation practice and contemplation practice is worthwhile by virtue of that one instant of a wholesome thought. He abides during the master's bidding. Again, this means he's really following Buddha's way just by virtue of the fact that for an instant that one thought, by mistake maybe, crossed his mind or her mind. He is one who takes good advice and eats the country's alms food to some purpose. In other words, his meals are worthwhile, you know, he's not wasting food, you know, going in one end and out the other for no reason at all. There's some, it's worth it, you know.

[16:51]

Somebody who gives him alms could feel like, you know, okay, well, this bag of rice was a good investment because he really is, he had a thought for an instant there of goodness, so it's worth my giving this bag of rice. What then should I say of those who make much of such a thought? So in other words, if somebody who just stumbles into an instant a thought of goodwill is a worthy person, what about somebody who does more than just stumble into it but cultivates such a thought and pursues it and strengthens it? And then the next paragraphs repeat the same idea with exactly the same words except each one is a little bit more the person is doing a little bit more in that instant. In the first instance, he just bumps into a thought. In the second instance, he actually intentionally tries to cultivate that thought of goodwill. In the third instance, he's cultivating it with even more diligence.

[17:52]

That's the idea. So monks have just, for the lasting of a finger snap, a monk cultivates a thought of goodwill. Such a one is to be called a monk. not empty of result is his musing he abides doing the master's bidding he is one who takes advice and eats the country's alms food to some purpose what then should I say of those who make much of such a thought and so on for the monk who gives attention to a thought of goodwill same thing all because the nature of mind is luminous. And the monk understanding this would cultivate and be active in trying to uncover the luminous nature of the mind. Monks, whatsoever things are evil, but better would be to say unwholesome,

[19:01]

or leading to suffering. And things here includes, doesn't mean like just objects, it also means mental and emotional things, thoughts, feelings. So whatever phenomena inside or outside are unwholesome and would cause suffering, All those things have as their ultimate cause the mind, or thought, or feeling, spiritual, mental, you know, things, as the cause of all that is unwholesome, all that would cause suffering. First arises mind as the forerunner of them, and then all the rest of the, you know, unprofitable, unwholesome things will follow. So this is a, you know, a curious and important thing here.

[20:08]

The nature of the mind is luminous, but at the same time, and the defilements, the taints that mess up this luminous mind are adventitious, which is to say they're not inherent. They're added on extra from outside, and yet at the same time, the cause of all those things is ultimately the mind itself. So that's good because it means that we can change the way we work with, operate with, understand and function with our mind. So this is a pretty good, if you take this whole thing as a whole, it's a pretty good statement of the perplexity of the human problem, right? We have in our good We have within us, you know, the capacity for all the virtues, you know.

[21:09]

Otherwise, how come they would exist in the world? How come we would even have an idea of love if we weren't capable of it, right? How come we would have an idea of goodness and have so much in human history and culture that speaks of goodness and cultivates it and praises it and so on, if it weren't that which we're capable of. And so we are. But at the same time, all the rottenness of the world and all the trouble of our own life ultimately sources in that very same mind. Even though its fundamental nature, he's saying here, is to be luminous, still, the cause of all the taints, ultimately, is the mind itself. Without a mind, without mind, human, suffering would never happen and all the troubles of the world would never happen. So then he says, the monks I know not of any other single thing of such power to cause the arising of all of these unwholesome suffering states when they haven't arisen or to cause the waning of the good states in case they should arise

[22:24]

as negligence. And again, I don't think that's a great translation. I think what it means is unmindfulness, carelessness, not paying attention, not being aware. That's the most powerful thing that will cause the unwholesome states to arise when they aren't there. And in case you did bump into that good thought, it would go away very quickly with unmindfulness without paying attention. So the power of unmindfulness is great. And of course then the next thing is the opposite statement, which is that the power of diligent mindfulness is also great in the opposite direction. Monks, I know not of any other single thing of such power to cause the arising of, excuse me, to cause the arising of good states that haven't yet arisen, or to cause the waning of negative states that have arisen as earnestness, or I would say diligence in mindfulness, diligence in awareness.

[23:38]

In the person who is earnest, good states, if not yet arisen, do arise, and negative states, if arisen, will wane. Monks, I know not of any other single thing of such power to cause the arising of evil states, if not yet arisen, or to cause the waning of good states, if arisen, as indolence, laziness. In the person who is indolent, these negative states, not yet arisen, do arise, and the good states, if arisen, do wane." So this is a talk to the monks to spur them on to action. And hopefully it does that for us too. we think to ourselves, is really the truth. And these things seem true to me. Don't they seem true to you? It really is true that people are good, that we all have within us, I mean everyone without exception, has within us a beautiful power of goodness.

[24:43]

And that everyone, probably without exception, has not brought that potential out to the fullest. And some of us haven't brought it out hardly at all. So the power of a diligent mindfulness to pay attention can increase the light and not paying attention can decrease it. And it's such a beautiful thing to increase the light that don't we all want to do that and don't we want to be diligent in our practice so that we can more and more have that kind of light and lightness in our lives and he says all of the negativity in the world comes from the mind so that when we take care of our mind and our practice in that way On some deep and fundamental level, it's not just our own self that we're taking care of, but we're reducing, to whatever extent possible, the sum total of negativity in this world, and we're increasing, to whatever extent we can, the sum total of the light in the world.

[25:58]

So this is really good news because it means that, you know, we don't have to look in dismay at this large, out of control world and think, oh my God, you know, what can we do? It's a poor, small person such as ourselves, you know, with very little resources and capacity to influence policy, et cetera, et cetera. My God, it's hopeless. But this is saying, no, no, that your capacity to work with your mind and increase the light of the world matters. And it does have an effect. Maybe we don't know exactly how or how much, but it does have an effect. And that it's worth pursuing for one's own happiness and maybe in some way that we can understand the happiness of others as well. So that's what he says in this sutra. And I wonder what you think or whether you have any comments, questions, appreciations. A song would be all right. Yes? Yes?

[27:00]

No songs. No songs, okay. Well, I studied Theravada and Tibetan and Zen traditions, so... Oh my gosh. Are you confused? Yes, I'm feeling confused, so that's why I put up my hand. Yeah. I'm sure I'll clear it up in short order. Just, well, my understanding is that there are a whole bunch of words for mind in Tibetan, and I have no idea if that's true in Pali. And it just seems to me that the way that, like, in the first sentence it says, this mind wants is luminous, and that that is, they're talking about the nature of mind. That's luminous, that it's clarity, and, you know, all of that stuff. And then later, where it says, I don't know if this is true.

[28:10]

Do you think that they're using the same word for mind there? Because it seems to me like they're not. Well, you're bringing up a really good point and it's hard to, when you're working in translation, it's very hard to get down to that level of detail, of course it's very important, but you really can't do it because you're dependent on the translator's choices. But I think your point is very well taken, that there are numerous words in Pali and Tibetan and Sanskrit and Chinese for mind, all of which are really fundamentally kind of untranslatable, because we're talking about very subtle issues here. But I think what you're pointing out is probably quite true, that in the first instance, what's being talked about is the fundamental nature of mind. In the second instance, what's being talked about is the mind's manifestations as created by karma.

[29:14]

Those two things are not exactly different from each other. And actually, in this confusion, as far as my knowledge goes, it's not that far, but as far as I know, even in Sanskrit and Pali, I don't know about Tibetan, but in Sanskrit and Pali, I think even in those languages, as in English, the same word is used to denote different things. In other words, like the word citta in Sanskrit means mind and the nature of mind, it also means a thought. So the ambiguity is, I think, deliberate because there is no mind as an entity apart from the function of mind. So sometimes you're referring to mind as its fundamental nature, but there really isn't any such thing as the fundamental nature of mind without the functioning of mind, because if you drop dead and there's no functioning body, then there's no functioning mind, because there's no functioning.

[30:31]

Mind doesn't exist without functioning. So that's why the ambiguity is even in the original languages in its own purpose. So it's a matter of what we're, it's a matter of how, what we're, what we're indicating. The way we're looking at one thing which has many aspects that can never be separated, but in language we're speaking of it in this aspect or that aspect. And so the confusion is kind of like built in to the way things are. So thank you for bringing that up. That's a very sort of fine point. It's good. Yeah. Yeah. Last night I heard the editor for Harper's Magazine give a talk at Cody's about his new book about war on terrorism and his take on that. And it was a really eloquent indictment of the Bush administration. which was on the same page as him.

[31:42]

And one of the questions that came up from the audience was, well, what can we do? And I was thinking about the light that this guy was bringing forth without any plan or agenda to do anything. And it got, and I'm thinking about this line that you were just quoting from, and how that sort of defilements are cleared away and this light comes forth. about good things. It's me thinking. And my question is, is that enough? That illumination is there, and people will have whatever effects from that experience, either to go out and start marching, some of you are saying we shouldn't be doing this, people writing letters, or doing nothing, you know, murder, or what have you. Do you have a tact to take that gentleman's illumination?

[32:54]

Well, I wish I was a sophisticated political strategist, but I'm not. So I don't really know, you know, but I do, you know, because it's a matter of what's effective and there are, you know, we do have people in our midst who do think about these things and have skills in that area, so I think we should pay attention to them. But apart from that, I do feel that it is not a small thing at all to think and hope and speak. Because after all, you know, when people think and hope and speak and speak out of their practice to each other and have the courage to talk about what they feel in relation to important events that are going on in our nation, I really think that has an effect. I think it has an effect because, you know, people's minds change. I mean, you know, it's this whole business with the proposed war in Iraq has had many ups and downs and twists and turns.

[34:14]

And a lot of them have had to do with somebody saying something. And then all of a sudden everything changed. Now, it wasn't, granted, it wasn't us who were saying things because we don't have much influence. Probably nobody in this room has the amount of influence that what's his name, the guy who was the former Secretary of State had when he, not Kissinger, Baker. Baker and some others spoke out. So in other words, but those people speak out because they're talking to people. They're in the midst of a conversation. And who knows where the conversation spreads or how it gets going. So I think we're fortunate to be in a situation where we can speak out openly the things we feel. But even where you can't speak out openly, people speak out clandestinely. Sometimes it's dangerous to do that, but still, people do speak. So I think that is not nothing at all. Like I was saying before, I think it's a mistake to feel powerless.

[35:16]

You only feel powerless when you look at the conventional way things go. Things don't go conventionally. There's all kinds of forces underneath that don't appear in the newspaper that are influential in shaping events. And most of those forces are not understood by anyone. And we're all part of that. So we should be concerned about our actions and our thoughts in relation to stuff like this and feel that the only thing that is really bad is to be apathetic or turn aside. We should all do our best to try to understand, come from the position of our practice and speak out. It may mean speaking out in some big public way, but it may just mean speaking out to people that we know and people that we meet and so forth. Anyway, I don't want to get too far on this tack, but it's important. So, Charlie and then you.

[36:19]

Well, just briefly, Garvin, and you don't have to answer this if you don't feel like it, and many, many others. And I'm just wondering how the character of their monarchy or the whole idea of what kings should be and do is changed by them being Buddhists. Because this is potentially a political document here. It can't be written as a political document. Yeah, well, that's right. It could be. And if you were the president and you had those events happen on September 11th and you were coming from the place of this document, you probably would have behaved somewhat differently or at least would have understood and spoken with less aggression and more understanding than what happened.

[37:32]

But again, I have to I'm sorry that I'm right and left having to plead ignorance, but again, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not that up on Buddhist history. My impression is that Ashoka certainly and other kings were made more humane and less aggressive by their practice of Buddhism. And I think, you know, Tibetan Buddhists always speak about the transformation, the utter transformation that came about in their country, because when Buddhism came to Tibet. But, you know, history is details, and I don't know the details, so maybe none of that's true, you know. As far as I know it's true, but I don't know. Yes? Well, this is on this topic that was raised. Yeah. that just on the point of whether or not one has anything to say of any significance if one doesn't have a lot of power in a big position.

[38:37]

In this particular country, I think the small people have a very important job. And I'm remembering something that somebody recently told me FDR said, which was some group came to him with some problem and issue and presented it and he said supposedly, okay, you convinced me, now put pressure on me. That's real. We can't expect the king or our elected representatives to just go out there and do it because they got hired by us. Our job is to put pressure on them. Yeah, right. I think there's another step too, which is not just about kings and presidents and secretaries of state, but about ourselves in an everyday way.

[39:39]

And if we believe this and take it to heart and act accordingly on a routine basis in the context of where we live and who we work with, in whatever the environment is, not in a preachy way, but just as your own essence, who you are, it's modeling it, and it's putting your practice in practice. And I believe that that's very powerful. And I'm fortunate to see some of what can arise from that. It takes a while. But I think that's really useful. I agree. I couldn't agree more. Going back to the text here. Well, one question. Do you happen to know of any

[40:42]

compendium of sutras, short sutras, I mean, besides this, which actually might have footnotes and so on about these terms. But, I mean, some scholar knows what these words might mean because I think Maybe there's no solution because there are really no words that can adequately express the experience of illumination as opposed to ordinary blind functions. But particularly in India, I think people tended to be sort of technicians. Yeah. Sacred, if you will. And to try to be precise, at least in the Sanskrit sometimes, too, there's distinction between, well, what Buddha apparently, where he became heterodox, primarily his teaching was in saying, is this Atman's?

[42:15]

And Atman, as he said, Atman to Atman, that's not, there isn't any, because it was taken to mean a kind of individual permanence, you know, the kind that would be reborn and so on. Actually, that's really what this meant. That's the way it was taken. And he said, no, it's not the way it is. Yeah, well I think that, you know, the most important thing, we're reading these texts, you know, in the context of our practice and in the context of a practice tradition. So I think it's less important, at least from my point of view, less important to ascertain the details and the original meanings of things less important than it is to derive from these texts meanings that we can use for our own spiritual cultivation and advancement.

[43:28]

And that's what I'm interested in. So I feel that despite the complexities of translation and over so many generations and cultures and so forth, all of which are certainly true, I think we can read these texts in a way that is true to their spirit and the essential meaning and make use of them. So let's have this last comment and then we'll take a little short break before the next text. The most challenging line of this text to me is the line that says, monks whatsoever, things are evil, have part in evil. And then it says, I'll have the line for the causing. as to what, whose mind or what mind is going to think that the political situation has caused this situation? Are we all, I mean, I'm not expecting an answer right at this moment. Are we all responsible? Of course, I think we are. But whose minds and how many minds, are they a overlapping kind of hologram of minds that created this situation?

[44:33]

And how many minds would it take to reverse it? So how many minds do we need to have on the same page to reverse this karma that we've created? Any reflections you have? Well, the Buddhist texts see things like this in a very large scale, kind of cosmic perspective. So I think that the idea would be that many millions of mutas of kotis of time has gone into producing this mess. and that it will take many infinite numbers of bodhisattvas and buddhas to reverse it and turn it all into a glorious Buddha field in which jewels are hanging from the trees, but that that will happen. And it happens by virtue of our now contributing to it and furthering it. If we don't, it won't happen. We have to do that. But you see, we're destined to do that. It's already been predicted that we will.

[45:35]

So we're going to do it. It's just that if we would plan on having these things like totally change around by the time we get to be 75 or 60 years old, then we'd probably be disappointed. But if we didn't see, if we, you know, could see it in this big perspective, we would say, well, okay, well maybe it would take quite a few infinite kappas, but that's okay. Let's just keep going in that direction. I'll even settle for not the jewels hanging from the tree part. Yeah, you'd even have leaves and that would be okay with you. But there are never leaves in these sutras, it's always jewels, I'm sorry. Okay, let's take five and then we'll go on to the next sutra. So, the next sutra is called Those of Kesaputta. And often people say that the Buddha, you know, phrases like be a lamp unto yourself, rely on yourself, don't believe anybody else, you know, know from your own experience.

[46:56]

are often cited as a primary kind of attitude that the Buddha had. And this is a sutra that speaks of that quite directly. Thus have I heard, on a certain occasion, the Exalted One, one of the many epithets for the Buddha, while going about his rounds among the Kosalins, with a great company of monks, came to Kesaputa, a district of the Kosalins. One of the things that I like about these sutras is that there are many little stories and little sort of details about the Buddha's life and personality that come through the sutras. They're not the main point of the sutras. but I find them very interesting because it gives you a flavor for how the Buddha lived and what he was like and how he handled the events of his life and that's what I like to find in these sutras and in Mahayana sutras they're all mythical and cosmic and you don't get anything like any sense of the Buddha as a person and that's of course quite on purpose but here you do so this already is interesting to me because

[48:23]

It tells you how the Buddha lived. He would wander around. He was homeless. Buddha was a homeless person who was homeless on purpose. He would wander around with sometimes just one or two fellow monks, sometimes with larger groups, sometimes several groups would come together for an event or teaching or a ceremony. in the winter time when it rained it was very hard to walk around they would all get together in one spot and they would have a special period of meditation and practice which in Zen became the Ongo, the practice period that some of you I'm sure know about because you have Ongo periods here and that's where that originated in the Buddhist time because of the rainy season they actually call a practice period in Theravada Buddhism a Rains how many, if you want to know how long, if you want to ask somebody how long they've been a monk or a nun, you say, how many rains have you?

[49:29]

And they say, I have 22 rains. That means they've been a monk for 22 years, every year doing a rains retreat. So, but he would wander around in relationship to villages. And he would apparently have, you know, people could pretty much count on the fact that, oh, it's May. Buddha should be coming by any day now. I wonder what he'll, you know, if he's all right this year and who will be coming with him because he would travel in a somewhat predictable route. And of course it was quite practical for him to go to villages probably because he wanted to be helpful and he enjoyed seeing the people every year. But also because unless he did that he was not going to eat Because the rule that he established said that you couldn't get food in any other way than by begging for it.

[50:32]

And not only that, but you couldn't, if you begged for food, you could only get enough food by begging that you could eat for that day. If you got more, you had to give it away, so that the next day you would also have to beg. So therefore, they were always encamped somewhere nearby a village and some people, and they would basically trade teachings for food. they would be, although not exactly teachings, but virtue in a way. Because even if they never opened their mouths people would give them food just because the people felt like it was it was a good karma to have in the vicinity people who were living such a pure life or at least so they believed and so we hope. So that's what they did. And here was a time when he was making his rounds among the Kosalans And he did have, at this point, a large number of monks with him. And he went to Kesaputta.

[51:35]

Now, this tradition, to some extent, changed in China and then later in Japan. Just to finish the story, in China, large public monasteries were established and this happened in India too but long after the Buddhist time large public monasteries were established and they still preserve the idea of wandering because monks would wander from one monastery to the other to encounter different teachers, but the teachers would stay in those monasteries and would not wander, would more or less be there. And then there were some monks who would maybe stay there also. In Japan, which is the only Buddhist country in the world, where other than the Western countries, where the Zen Buddhist clergy can marry, and they established a

[52:43]

in effect a system of hereditary passing on the temple from father to son so that not only would a person remain in a temple their whole life but they would pass it on to their son who would remain there their whole life and so on down through the generations quite almost the opposite of the original idea that Shakyamuni Buddha had set out and then here in America we have various kinds of arrangements but And there are actually Buddhist monastics who beg in the streets in America, although it's rather rare. And I myself am quite doubtful whether that will ever be a viable way of earning a living here, but you never know. Wouldn't it be nice? Anyway, that's the situation of the Buddha at this time.

[53:46]

Now, the Kalamas of Kesaputra heard it said that Gautama, the recluse, the Sakyan's son, who went forth as a wanderer from the Sakyan clan, had reached Kesaputra. And this good report was noised abroad about Gautama, the Exalted One, thus. He it is, the Exalted One, arhant, a fully enlightened one, perfect in knowledge and practice, etc., etc., were indeed a good thing to get sight of such arhants. In other words, small town, not much going on. It's kind of like when the circus comes to town. Oh boy, you know, the circus is coming to town. Nothing doing around here but the circus is coming and it's going to really be exciting. So people really get up for this when there's not much else going on. So they didn't have, I mean, I think they probably did have circuses actually, jugglers and magicians and all this and they probably got excited about that. But even more, they got excited about different religious sages who would come to town, especially at this point.

[54:52]

In the beginning, the Buddha wasn't particularly famous or well-known but at this point apparently he has a large company of monks traveling with him and he's well-known and so when they hear that the Buddha is coming you know although he's probably been there before still they're excited they're getting very excited he's coming to town wow you know this is going to be great and just to catch sight of him is going to be a really wonderful event and you know maybe let's do some special cooking when they come we can give them really great stuff and so it's an event it's an event in town you know the Buddha's coming so the karmas of Kesabhuta came to see the exalted one on reaching him some saluted the exalted one and sat down at one side some saluted I don't think means this it probably means more like this saluted him and went to one side some greeted the exalted one courteously apparently meaning short of prostration and after exchange of greetings and courtesies sat down at one side some raised their joined palms to the exalted one sat down at one side

[56:08]

So maybe saluting is a prostration, full prostration. I don't know. Anyway, these are various ways of greeting, apparently in some sort of graduated form, some of which are more pious and more intimate than others. Some of them raised their joined palms to the Exalted One, sat down at one side. Some proclaimed their name and clan and did likewise, while others, without saying anything, just sat down at one side. Then, as they thus sat, the Kalamas of Kesabhuta said this to the Exalted One." I suppose we're supposed to think they said it in unison, in one voice, but it seems unlikely. But anyway, probably various people said various things, and it amounts to this. Sir, they said. And, you know, the previous paragraph sort of gives you the idea of a sense of, what's the word, formality and custom.

[57:14]

You know, you don't just, sage comes to town, you don't just sort of like plop yourself down. You greet him in a proper way. And that differs maybe in terms of how much regard you have for him or how close you feel to his teachings that maybe you had heard before or knew about. So anyway, the dust settles and they begin to explain about their problem. Sir, certain recluses and Brahmins come to Kesaputra. As to their own view they proclaim and expound it in full. But, as to the view of others, they abuse it, revile it, deprecate it, and cripple it. Moreover, sir, other recluses and Brahmins on coming to Kesaputta. Do the same thing. We have an unending stream of these people coming in. One guy comes in and says this, and he defiles and is very derogatory toward the person who was here last week.

[58:22]

And then he goes, and then the next person comes, and he or she says the same thing, giving her view, and then saying that the person who was here last week was entirely wrong. And this is an unending stream of these people, and we are really getting confused. That's what they're saying. When we listen to them, we have doubt and wavering as to which of these worthies is speaking truth and which speaks falsehood. So, this is not an unusual thing. It happens every day. In fact, this is how we know what we think. because I know what I think because it's not what you think and you're wrong. That's how we know what we think, right? We propound and that's the nature of assertion, right? We're always asserting something and we're asserting something always whatever one asserts is always in opposition to what someone else might assert or a counter-assertion.

[59:28]

So there's always an assertion and a counter-assertion and this is sort of human discourse and human dialogue and And of course, it becomes confusing, and the world is full of this kind of confusion, but it also becomes sometimes disastrously hurtful as the one person feels disrespected and denigrated by the person who's, you know, sometimes expressing a counter view in an uncomplimentary way. And people get in fights over this. I mean, they go to war over these sort of things. This is one thing, you know, that is so astonishing that, you know, people don't remark about it. It's amazing to me. But if you ever listen, say we're back on this political issue again, if you ever listen to different people from different countries speak about a situation, they're talking in different universes. It's not that they disagree even. It's that the terms of discussion aren't even in the same universe.

[60:30]

So it's not even a question of disagreeing. You only disagree with somebody that you're making similar assertions and you can argue over fine points. But when one guy's talking about Mars and the other guy's on Saturn, there's nothing to talk about, you know? And so much of what causes people to fight the way they do is because of this kind of thing. And people don't even think that that's what's going on. They just think, he's wrong. She's wrong. She's saying something that's disrespectful of me and it's completely a big mess. Anyway, that's just what was going on here. It was kind of normal. Only here it was not nearly as... The only result of it was that the Kalamas were confused. But so far they hadn't killed anybody or done anything about that. They were just confused. And the Buddha came and they asked him about it. They wanted the Buddha to clear it up. So now, the Buddha says, Yes, Kalama, you may well doubt.

[61:36]

You may well waver. In a doubtful matter, wavering does arise. So he begins by appreciating their confusion and he doesn't say to them, you know, you people are really dumb, you know, you should know. He says, yes, I don't blame you for being confused. It really is confusing. Sometimes I confuse myself. He didn't say that, but he might have said. Sometimes the Buddha never says such things in his sutras, but maybe he did, but they didn't report it later. He appreciates that it is a doubtful and difficult situation. But now he's going to... Yeah? I didn't catch who the Kalamas are. Is that a cultural group or are they leaders of some kind? I think it's a group, like a tribe. Yeah. I don't think it's leaders. I think it's just a tribe, a group of people, an ethnic group or tribe. So now the Buddha is going to hopefully, he hopes, give them some useful ways of unraveling this situation.

[62:46]

Now look you Kalamas. In other words, look at it this way. Don't be misled. And this is a very famous line in the sutra. Don't be misled by report or tradition or hearsay. Don't be misled by proficiency in the collections, meaning religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor after considering reasons, nor after reflection on and approval of some theory, nor because it fits becoming. I'm not sure what that means. I guess it means, you know, it seems right. More out of respect for a recluse who holds the view. In other words, so what's left? Don't believe somebody who... Don't believe something because it's, you know, a tradition.

[63:51]

You know, an age-old respected tradition. Don't believe it just because of that. Don't believe it because you heard somebody say so. It was reported that some important person said so or that it's really true. It was reported that it's really true. Don't be misled by people who can quote scriptures right and left and seem to be very proficient in that and know everything there is to know about scriptures and religious teachings. Don't believe it because it's logical. Don't believe it because it seems true by inference. Don't believe it after considering reasons or thinking about it or believing in a theory from which it comes. And don't believe it because the person is saying it is very charismatic and convincing. Don't believe anything for any of those reasons. So then you might say, well now why would you believe something? In other words, those are the criteria that you may have used before. And based on those criteria, you have all these conflicting views. So forget about all that.

[64:54]

Instead, he says to them, And this is really interesting when you think about what he's saying here. Mark Columbus, when you know for yourselves, first of all, by your own experience, not by logic, inference, believing anybody else, tradition, scriptures, but when you know from your own experience the following, these things are unprofitable, meaning cause suffering, cause trouble. These things are blameworthy. These things are censured by the intelligent. These things, when done, create loss and sorrow. When you know that for yourself about something, then don't believe it. Because you have found out by your own experience that it causes trouble, suffering.

[66:03]

So, he's not giving any of the ordinary criteria for discerning a truth or falsity of a statement. In effect, he's saying it doesn't matter what anybody says. That's not important whether something is true or false. It's unimportant. What's important is whether or not you take a statement, act on it, and it causes suffering and difficulty. That's what's important. So it's irrelevant, actually. In other words, the proof is in the pudding. The proof of the truth of something is not in the prestige, etc, etc, etc, the person, etc, etc, the truth of it is that when you make use of it and take it into yourself by your own experience and you discover that it causes suffering and trouble, then you reject it. He doesn't even say it's not true, he's just saying it's not important whether it's true or not, you reject it when it causes pain and suffering.

[67:11]

Now he's going to go on to further speak about, you know, what kinds of things would cause pain and suffering. What do you mean by this? Okay, we heard what you said. By our own experience, we see whether the statement produces suffering and trouble, but can you say more, Buddha? And so Buddha says, okay, I'll go further. Now, what do you think, Kalamas? Would greed attachment arises within of someone, is this beneficial or troublesome? Does this lead to this, you know, greed or attachment? Does this lead to good things happening or bad things happening? Bad things, they say. Because they apparently respond right away because they've had experience.

[68:13]

They've all lived and they've seen. That's really true. When they have greediness and kind of obsessive desire for something, it doesn't go well. Things don't go well. They know that already. Now, Columbus, does not the person who becomes overcome with attachment and desire in this way, obsession, doesn't this person overcome in this way lose control of his or her conduct. Doesn't he kill a living creature, take what is not given, go after another person's spouse, tell lies and lead another into such a state as causes his loss and sorrow for a long time? In other words, these are the precepts. Doesn't he break precepts? Doesn't the person who is driven by obsession act in an immoral way, causing trouble?

[69:16]

Like all, we see this now, just to switch from the war, we'll go back to the last page, which is the corporate CEOs, you know. Nice people, I'm sure. Luminous minds, no doubt. But, obsessed with, in a condition, a social condition in which they were overcome by attachment and greed, they became excessively grabbing stuff, and it caused a huge amount of trouble. They broke ethical laws and so forth, and it caused a lot of trouble. Doesn't that happen? And so they probably, having read the papers, said, yes, that's right, we know that stuff happens. We've seen it. So then he says, now what do you think, Columbus, when the opposite of this, when sort of obsessive hatred or aversion arises within a person, is this a good thing? Does this lead to good results or bad results?

[70:18]

No, no, this leads to bad results. We know that too. We've seen that too. Murders and all kind of stuff. Now, Columbus, does not this person who is obsessed with aversion and maliciousness then also in the same way lose control and break precepts and do bad things and cause sorrow and grief all over the place and you know you can imagine in a small village they all these things they completely understood they said yes well I remember the other day when so-and-so got mad at so-and-so and they were just they couldn't get rid of it and they and they ended up You know, chasing him around the town square with a cleaver, and people had to tackle him, and then so-and-so knocked him down, and they skinned their knee, and then it got infected, and then we had to go to the next village and bring a doctor in, and then we couldn't afford it. It was a huge mess from this person's malice. So we understand, that's right. When there's malice like that, and the person can't overcome it, it doesn't go well. There is preset breaking, and that does lead to trouble.

[71:21]

So listen to what's going on here. They're asking him about what's true, right? And he's talking to them about conduct. He's not talking about metaphysical truths. He's talking about how people conduct themselves. And he's saying that the way that people conduct themselves, meaning, you know, we ourselves, the way we conduct ourselves, and what we find from noticing the states of mind that lead to this kind of conduct and the states of mind that lead to that kind of conduct, that is the only thing important to discern when it comes to truth or falsehood. It's all irrelevant other than that. And he doesn't say that directly, but that's the implication. of what he's talking about here. And then, you know, these are the three, the famous three poisons, you know, greed, hate and delusion or attachment, aversion, confusion, however you discuss them, name them. But anyway, the third one is now confusion or delusion or whatever you call it, same formula.

[72:28]

When delusion comes up, is this a good or bad thing? No, we know it's bad. When a person is deluded, doesn't the person have bad conduct leading to trouble? Yes, he does. And then he says that in the beginning, he said also that it would lead to bad things that lead to bad results are censured by the intelligent and wise are things that are to be rejected. So he goes on to say, are they blameworthy? They are blameworthy. Are they censured by intelligent people? They are censured. So then, Columbus, As to my words to you just now, be you not misled by proficiency in the collections, nor by mere logic or inference, nor after considering reasons, nor after reflection on an approval of some theory, nor because it is fitting, nor out of respect for a recluse who holds it, but, Columbus, when you know for yourselves these things are unprofitable,

[73:36]

these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the intelligent, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to loss and sorrow. Then indeed do you reject them. Such was my reason for uttering those words." So, the other thing that I get out of this, which is important to me, and I think is a really really by implication, a key point that the Buddha is making here is how are you going to find this out? By studying your own bitter suffering and the suffering of those around you. The only way you're going to find out if a certain state of mind leads to this unprofitable and unwholesome and sorrowful actions is because you've done that or you've seen it or you know for yourself, right?

[74:40]

So I don't think the Buddha is advocating, you know, experiments in evil or something but I think what he's saying is that when you have negative states of mind and troublesome things happening in your life instead of you know, running away from that, thinking that it's a mistake, or blinding yourself or somebody else, you should study that. Because that's exactly how you're going to find out what it is you have to let go of. How did I get into this mess? What happened? What was I thinking? What were the conditions that caused me to think that? Oh, I understand now. This is the ninth time this has happened. Exactly the same thing. This is the ninth time this has happened. Now that I'm really looking at what has happened here, I'm beginning to understand that when I look at things in this way, and begin to proceed with my speech and action based on that view, this is the kind of thing that happens.

[75:47]

And I'm really getting tired of it now. And I think maybe, through the study of my own suffering, maybe I've gotten a little wiser. So that's what he's saying. That's the way you ascertain what's true. A, it has to do with conduct, not with metaphysical assertions. B, it's something you discern from your experience, not from your thinking, although, you know, there's thinking involved because you reflect on your experience, but really it's about your experience. And C, you discover it by studying your own suffering. So that's what he's telling the Kalamas when they're complaining about all these wise men and women coming into town with all their doctrines. Look to your conduct, study your suffering, validate for yourself. So, maybe we'll leave it there and we'll finish this next time and go on to the, what did I say, the Magiya Sutra and I think there's a few minutes for

[76:52]

Yes, just a few minutes for comments and questions. You had your hand up first. Go ahead. When he speaks of delusion, what is meant there is inflated self-importance, inflated sense of independence there? Well, I think delusion means that and more. It means the whole way that we generally have self-centered and distorted view of what's going on in front of us and don't see things as they are. Just, you know, clearly and purely as they are. And one of the main ways that we do distort things is through self-inflation and self-centeredness. So, yeah. Does it include anger and greed or is it something others can impart from that? Well, you know, these three things are in a sense artificially separated one from the other. But you could see the difference between anger is one thing and delusion has something to do with our view of things.

[77:59]

Anger is more like a powerful emotion. We could be deluded without being angry, right? Oh, yeah. But probably it would be hard to be angry without being deluded, but we could be deluded without being angry. It feels to me like anger and greed are a little easier to understand. Yeah, yeah, they are. Yeah, because they're more immediate. The emotion is more noticeable. Delusion is more subtle, yeah, and harder to uproot, yeah. Because we could be deluded and go along, you know, fairly peacefully and not know that we're making a mess until later, you know. Whereas if we're angry, usually it's noticeable. although sometimes not some people have you know, there are all kinds of ways that people have of Actually deeply not noticing how angry they are right? We all know about that And if we're if we're obsessively Grasping for something, you know, usually we know that So they're different.

[79:04]

Yeah. Mm-hmm I've been thinking about So many people in one form or another is oftentimes boredom. And it seems like the antidote to that in Buddhism is being awake, being aware of where you are. There's a phrase that's always kind of confused me, which is in meditation, boredom. And I never really quite understood that. And I was in conversation with somebody the other day, and she was saying, well, what that means is the boredom is like your marker that reminds you that you're not being awake or aware.

[80:05]

That's what that means. That boredom is something that you not look forward to, but something that reminds you that you need to wake up. And that's why it's something that's sought. that it's telling you you're living in another space right now and you need to be present. This is a very fascinating thing that you're saying here because personally I don't think it's a universal truth of Zen that this thing about boredom that you're Well, you know, what I think is, if somebody says, it's good to be bored, I don't think, when they say boredom, in meditation practice, I mean, when they say boredom, I don't think they mean boredom. I think what that indicates to me, if somebody, if I were to hear a teacher say, you know, it's good, you should be bored, it's good to be bored, I think that, what that teacher would be meaning is, it's good that the mind becomes calm,

[81:16]

It's good that the mind is no longer seeking after exciting things to focus on, including exciting spiritual experiences or insights or thoughts. It's good that the mind is stable and clear and steady. You know, my wife teaches the seventh grade and sometimes she has a line when her kids come to her and say, this is boring. She says there's no such thing as boring. There isn't, you know. I think if just to sit peacefully with some light in the mind, it's boring if non-boring means lots of things are going on. Then I suppose by that standard it's boring. But it doesn't feel boring. It feels full of life. Quiet, but full of life. So, I don't know about this, you know, later on you'll tell me who said this and I'll investigate for you.

[82:24]

Anyway, that's what I think. Personally, I don't get bored in meditation practice myself. I think that, I mean, it's sort of like saying, you know, how could you be bored with life, right? I mean, you're always alive. you're always present and alive. So, what's boring about that? Even if there's nothing going on, it's not boring, I don't think. So I find meditation practice always worthwhile and delightful, even if it's not spectacular. It's nice to be present and quiet, I think. Anyway, that's what I think Well again, thank you for a lively and interesting class and Next week. I think we'll finish this sutta and go on to the magia Sutta which is also very entertaining.

[83:28]

I think you'll like that one so Any oh anything any other thing else we need to I know Diana wanted to make a little announcement, but we'll do that after chanting. Okay then, thank you. Beings are numberless.

[83:49]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ