|
Okay, everyone. So welcome to this sutra class or sutra reading whatever you want to call it. And we're going to have a look at a very well-known discourse called the Allah Gadda Upama Sutra, which means the simile of the Allah Gadda. And Allah Gadda is controversial what it means, but it means something like a snake.
Some people say it means a water snake, some people say it means a cobra, and so I'm going to just follow ajahn Sujato's translation, which here is a cobra. And the idea is that it is a venomous snake that is kind of the significant aspect of this. And this sutra has not a very interesting aspect to it. The first interesting aspect, it was suggested by one of the monks, and I'm always very open to suggestions, so please keep them coming here.
Because otherwise I just use the simile sutas all the time, so new ideas are always very welcome and very useful. It is also very interesting because it has two of the most famous similes in the sutas are found in this particular sutra, and that is the simile of the snake and the simile of the raft. So this is roughly what I expect to do today, those two similes. I don't think we'll get much further on that, let's see what happens.
And then the second part of the sutra, which it is also very famous for, is a very famous discussion of non-self. This is one of the kind of unique discussions in the sutas. You don't find anything quite like this anywhere else. It is one of a very few numbers of sutas that discuss non-self in quite a bit of detail. So it's this sutra, it is of course the anatolakkana sutra, which means the characteristics of non-self.
Very famous, there's also the mahatana sankaya sutra, which has a lot in common with this sutra, actually remarkably much in common actually. That sutra also is about non-self, but from the perspective of dependent origination largely here, that particular sutra. But both that sutra and this sutra, they start out with a monk who has a serious wrong view, and the Buddha's reaction to that particular wrong view.
So, and it's kind of, this is one of the slightly strange things about this sutra, which is kind of a little bit difficult to maybe understand fully. But I'll try to see if we can come up with some explanation as we go along, and you're very welcome to come up with your own if you like. The wrong view is all about sensuality or the sensory world, whereas the discussion afterwards is about non-self. And so somehow you have to tie in the sensuality with the idea of non-self, and how that connection actually works out is interesting here.
So, anyway, that is the kind of a slight preview of what the sutra is about. So, we'll just start and we'll see how far we get with the sutra. So, this is Bantasudhato's translation, as you will be aware of very soon as we start reading. It has a typical Bantasudhat terminology, which is hard to miss. So, here we go. So, I have heard, at one time, the Buddha was saying, that the siva in Jaita's grove, not the pin, because monastery here.
Now, at that time, a mendicant called Arita, who had previously been a vulture trapper, had the following harmful misconception. As I understand the Buddha's teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for one who performs them here. It's weird, isn't it? How can you? It's kind of strange.
The Buddha says certain things are obstructions, actually, that is irrelevant. It seems that they're actually not really obstructions after all. And then it says, as I understand the Buddha's teachings, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions. So, the whole thing really seems really confused. I understand the Buddha's teachings. So, the whole thing really seems confused. I wonder what this fellow is on about.
So, just a little bit of background about this fellow, maybe to understand why he comes up with such a very confused idea. If you look at the Vinya Pitaka in particular, there's quite a bit of information on Arita. So, he is the originator of Pachitya 68. Pachitya 68 is all about having wrong views. And then, if you don't give up those wrong views, then you go through a Sangha-Kama and you get a Pachitya offense afterwards. So, he is the originator of that particular rule. And so, obviously, he was quite serious what he was doing.
And then, when you go to the Khandakas, the Khandakas are all about the Sangha-Kamas and all the procedures of the Sangha, he is the originator of the Sangha-Kama called the Ukepania-Kama, which is basically an expulsion from the monastic order. And again, it is for having wrong view. The kind of wrong view that we're talking about here. So, obviously, the Buddha regards this as an incredibly serious matter. This is not kind of... It obviously matters enormously to the point where you have this Ukepania-Kama done against you.
And Ukepania-Kama is one of the class of the Sangha-Kamas, known as Dandakama, where in the commentary it's called Dandakama. I don't actually call that in the suttas or the vinya. And Dandakama essentially means like a stick, literally means a stick action. In other words, a punishment act. It is a procedure of punishment towards the monk. And so this is how you deal with it. Whether actually it is a Dandakama, not, I think, I'm not so sure about.
It's one of those interesting things of the vinya point of view. Does the word Dandakama really belong in the vinya? There are two things called Dandakama in the vinya. And one of them is if a monk misbehaves towards the bikunis, then they can do a Dandakama against that monk. And that Dandakama means don't pay respect to the monk. That's all it is, right? So in other words, what they call punishment is very, very light. And so I suspect, I don't know, it's hard to say, I suspect that these things are not really punishment procedures.
There are more necessary procedures to make the Sangha function, because if there's too much wrong view, the whole idea of a Sangha, the whole idea of monastic cohabitation living together in a community, the whole thing becomes pretty much impossible. And so I think the idea of expelling someone, basically because they are incapable of living in harmony with the fellow monastics, and so the need to kind of be expelled.
And once you have been a Sangha kama, or ukepaniya kama has been done against you, you are no longer part of that community. You don't take part in the patimokka procedures, or the Sangha kamas, or anything like that. In effect, you have become a separate Sangha from that point on there. And this is one of the ways in which you create a separate Sangha, a separate community, is by this kind of expulsion procedure here.
So it's incredibly serious, and it is one of the most serious things that you can obviously do based on the idea of the Sangha kama that is done against that person. So wrong view, considered very, very strongly. Of course, not just any kind of wrong view, but especially the kind of wrong view that we are seeing here. So that is Arrita. So what happens to Arrita? People always ask this question, what happened to him?
We want him well, you know, people. What happened afterwards?
What happened afterwards is a bit of a sad story. He disrobes, and he disappears, and that's kind of the end of Arrita. So no happy endings, and no Hollywood endings, and that one unfortunately have. So that is Arrita. So obviously he was a very difficult character, and you can see here this whole idea that he basically, as I understand the teaching of the Buddha, the teaching of the Buddha, the things that the Buddha says,
obstructions are not actually obstructive. You know, what is he talking about? It's like really confused.
So what happens next? And what happens next is, actually I should say a little bit about the idea of the harmful misconception. This is papa kar bhikti gatar. And papa kar is a word, papa in pārli means like bad. Sometimes when I say it as evil, but I think bad is less kind of Christian overtones. So basically bad is opposite very often of punya. You have papa or kaliana, actually. I think papa and kaliana are the two opposites in the suit.
And kaliana is like a good friend. The kaliana mita, whereas the bad friend is the papa mita. Bad friend, and kind of the beautiful friend or the good friend, if you like. So it is a bad thing. The ditigata is used in the suit. It literally means something like gone to a view. Having taken up a view, gone is too literal, but it gives an idea. So someone who has taken up a bad view, essentially. And it is bad, of course, because it has very harmful consequences. This is how badness is measured in the suit answer. So I like the idea of harmful misconceptions.
And as I was reading Bantasu Jata's translation, I thought I better change my translation, because this is much better than what I had. So I'm going to steal that from Bantasu Jata. It's quite nice to steal other people's words, actually. I like that. Because he doesn't have any copyright, right? So you can steal whatever you want. It's kind of really good. Okay, so what happens next? Then several mendicants heard about this. They went up to Arrita and said to him, is it really true, reverent Arrita, that you have such a harmful misconception as this?
As I understand the Buddha's teaching, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for one who performs them. Then wishing to dissuade Arrita from his view, the mendicants pursued, pressed and grilled him. Don't say that, Arrita, don't misrepresent the Buddha, for misrepresentation of the Buddha is not good, and the Buddha would not say that. In many ways, the Buddha has said that obstructive acts are indeed obstructive.
In that they really do obstruct one who performs them. The Buddha says that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress. In their older, more full of drawbacks. With the simile of the skeleton, the simile of the scrap of meat, the simile of the grass torch, the simile of the pit of glowing coals, the simile of the dream, the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of a little And the more full of drawbacks.
So, first of all, they the and this is the standard method you find in the vinya pitika. If someone commits a sanghati saya-saya offense for example or you have doubts about what they are saying is true, you should have this kind of process where you pursue and you press and grill that person and this is a standard thing you find there. And then they say to Arita, don't misrepresent the Buddha. For misrepresenting the Buddha is not good.
This is kind of the double fallacy of Arita. On the one hand he has wrong views about what you might call sensuality or the sensory world in general. On the other hand he has a problem in regard to misrepresenting the Buddha. Like a double whammy in a sense. I'll come back to this later on. This is really important I think for us as monastics
to remember the idea of not misrepresenting the Buddha. It's important to keep in mind that the reason why we are wearing these brown robes, the reason why we can
go on pinderbat and people will support us is because we are the disciples of the Buddha.
This is what makes this possible. So our entire livelihood really, our entire way of life is dependent on the Buddha. And so for that reason it is also our responsibility to ensure that what we teach is perfectly in line with the teachings of the Buddha as possible. And that has consequences. And this is one of the consequences that it has is that one should study the teaching of the Buddha at least to some extent. We should have some idea what they are about.
So you know what you're talking about. And as long as you teach the word of the Buddha in general society you teach people this wherever you go. You're always on safe grounds because you're following the word of the Buddha. And if you do make a mistake it's okay you just correct it later on or whatever. Of course everyone can make a mistake. But the idea is to try your very best to understand what these teachings are about.
And this is one of the reasons why it is so scary when you look around the world and you see the number of monastics and number of laypeople that teach from all kinds of place that teach from their own experience. They teach kind of random stuff. They teach from the Bible. It's true. You know people buy the teach from Sufi saints. They teach from St John of the Cross. They teach from all kind of weird stuff.
But very often their understanding of the suit actually isn't all that great. And sometimes it is non-existing here. You hear the famous stories that you know from Thailand and this Ajahn Brahm tells this and many other monks tell this as well. That the Sutra Pitikai is kind of locked up in the glass cabinet and you come down and you bow down to the Sutra Pitikai. But it's always locked up in the glass cabinet. No one has a key to that glass cabinet. Yeah.
And there's no access to it. And it's just there to be bowed down to to kind of to be
worshipped. And that is exactly the wrong way here. So it is our duty to understand the word of the Buddha. And when you see the amount of wrong view that is available in the world, many bad things that are being said in the name of Buddhas. And actually it is really really problematic. And to understand what is going on is just so important and to take this thing seriously.
Misrepresent in the Buddha is a very serious thing as it says here. So we should try our very best. So I would just say that to encourage all of you to read the suit as
a little bit and get some insight into what the Buddha is talking about. Anyway the main thing is that one does one's best. And if one makes a mistake, yeah that's almost a mistake. I don't think that's such a big issue here. And so this is what they say. And then it becomes quite clear what that wrong view is because then they come up with all of these similes in regard to sensuality. And so sensual pleasures give little gratification, much suffering and distress. It's one of these sentences you find in a number of places.
You find it
in particular in the Potalia sutra. And remember here sensual pleasures in the suttas, karma, does not just mean the desire for sensuality. That's part of it. But in the plural it often refers to the five senses, the five sense world and all the objects of the five translation sensual pleasures to be quite not ideal. But it's very difficult to find the suitable translation, especially if you want to find one that encompasses both sides, both the desire and the objective side, the subjective and the objective side if you like.
So I can see the dilemma there but it's important to remember what this is about. And then this really important sentence, yeah, this is really kind of significant. The idea gives little gratification, the much suffering and distress. And this is I think very important to remember. I mean I think everyone here has some idea, a little bit of idea at least of what are the happiness is to be enjoyed on the spiritual path.
Sometimes you get some nice meditations, sometimes you get some happiness out of reflecting on how you live and these kind of things and slowly slowly you build it up. But sometimes maybe you don't, maybe sometimes you go through a dry period, yeah, there's no real kind of that pleasure and happiness that is supposed to be there from the spiritual life, maybe missing. And then it's important to remember these things, yeah, the member of the danger of this five sense world, much suffering and much distress.
The gratification is only small. And to understand that, yeah, it's very easy to forget and especially if you don't get any happiness through the spiritual path, the mind automatically goes to the sense, sense pleasures. And the Buddha says this in the suttas. He says that anyone who is not an area or someone who doesn't get the happiness of the spiritual life, the mind automatically goes to the five sense world
instead.
That is where you will look for pleasures. And so because that is the automatic reaction of the mind, it is important to remember the dangers, the downside and the problem with that. And this is what the assemblies are about. And so I would really recommend you to have a look at the assemblies. They are very useful at certain time. It's very useful to give you a broad, brushed, broad-based idea of the dangers of this particular world. So they give little gratification, much suffering and distress. And they are, the drawbacks are more. They're all the more full of drawbacks. So the drawbacks are greater if you like. And so we have the, just very briefly, we have the simile of the skeleton. You can read about all of these similes in the potalia suta, magimatica 54.
And the simile of the skeleton or the simile of the bone is basically the simile that there is no real gratification, no real sustenance in the five cents world. It's the idea of the dog going to the butcher shop and getting a bone. There's no sustenance there. And the idea of forever pursuing something that never gives any real fulfillment. That is the idea. And so just running and running and running.
And there's no end to the restlessness, no end to the agitation, no end to the craving. And there's because there's no satisfaction to be found there. The second simile, the scrap of meat, I understand to be that there is always competition in the world of the five senses. Everyone is always competing, which means that the five-cent world is always full of violence and competition and people clashing with each other.
Yeah, or even clashing with animals sometimes. Because we are immersed in the same five-cent world. And so we are kind of competing against these things outside of us if you like. The simile of the grass torch is the idea of if you pick something up in the five-cent realm, it tends to hurt you very quickly because the grass torch is very volatile, it blows off you. And so soon as you pick it up, you're making yourself subject to suffering.
Yeah, as soon as you grasp something in the five-cent world, you know that this will be taken from you sooner or later. That attachment is going to lead to suffering down the track. Yeah. Then we have the very famous simile of the pit of glowing coals. And
this is the idea of two strong men pulling you to a pit of glowing coals. Yeah, and the glowing coals is like the five-cent world. This is really strong simile.
It's really extraordinary simile here. And I think to understand this kind of simile, you have to understand the nature of craving, burning you inside. Craving is something that burns. And the more peaceful you are, you know, the deeper your samadhi is, the easier it is to understand the contrast between the mind that is truly peaceful and what craving does to the mind. So I think this is where it kind of comes down to this pit of glowing coals.
But it's hard to really have quite fathom. If you want to understand that simile better, the Magandya Sutra is a good place to look. Magimani Ka 75 gives you much more details on the meaning of that simile of the glowing coals. Then you have the simile of the dream. And this is a bit like sensual pleasures always being an idea in your head. But the idea never really works out in reality. There's always a gap between the dream and how things actually work out. Simile of the borrowed goods is that all the things in the five-cent world are only borrowed for a short time. Then when you die or before you have to give it back. The only thing which is not borrowed goods is your kamma.
The good spiritual qualities that you have. Fruit on a tree, that simile I understand to mean that you get intoxicated, indulging in the five-cent world. And as you do that, all the dangers come around you. Someone comes and cut down the tree as you are climbing a tree here. And then you die as a consequence. Then you have the last three
similes, the butchus knife and the shopping block, which is not entirely clear to me how that works.
It is mentioned one place in the suit is at least, but not in that same suit. There's something about the you're being chopped up on this shopping block. That's kind of essentially what it comes down to. But not entirely sure about that one. The staking sword also not sure about that this is translated differently in different places. The stake and the sword.
So it's a bit unclear and the snake said I think is fairly clear. It just means that sensual pleasures are like a snake said. In other words, dangerous. You want to step away from that. And again the summary, sensual pleasures give little gratification, much suffering and distress and they're all the more full of drawbacks. So that is the Buddha's point of view of the five-cent world.
And then you have the view of a ritta who says that there is no problem with his things. And you can see the contrast is rather dramatic here between the two. And so they are really problematic according to the Buddha. And of course they block you from really making real progress on the path, especially in Samadhi. All right. So I will just carry on then. But even though the mendicants pursued, pressed and grilled him in this way, a ritta obstinately stuck to his misconception and insisted on it.
When they weren't able to dissuade a ritta from his view, the mendicants went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side and told him what had happened. So the Buddha addressed one of the monks. Please monk, in my name, tell the mendicant a ritta, formerly a vulture trapper, that the teacher summons him. Yes sir, that monk replied, he went to a ritta and said to him, Reverend Aritta, the teacher summons you. Yes, Reverend Aritta replied,
he went to the Buddha, sat down to one side and the Buddha said to him, is it really true, Aritta, that you have such a harmful misconception? As I understand the Buddha's teachings, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for one who performs them. Absolutely sir, as I understand the Buddha's teachings, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them. And the Buddha replies, silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way? Silly man is a polite translation of morga purissa and morga is I think related, I'm not trying to pronounce it now, but I think it might be related to
what more hard to some extent. And I think it means something like deluded or maybe often translated as foolish, foolish man is a translation here. But silly man is kind of nice, it kind of takes a little bit of the sting out of it because foolish man may sound a bit harsher, so I kind of like that. So anyway, the Buddha is not very impressed. Yeah, who on earth, I like this kind of way of phrasing it, makes it very real, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in this way?
Haven't I said in many ways that obstructive acts are obstructive and that they really do obstruct the one who performs them? So let me just stop there for a little bit because I didn't really discuss the idea of obstructions very much. So what are obstructions according to the suttis? And if you, I'm going to take this just from Adhan Suddhanat's notes because it discusses this here.
And there are three things that are actually said specifically to be obstructive in the suttis. And in the Vindhupitra you find the idea of lying, the introduction to the patimokka. And if you chant the patimokka, you may remember that one. It actually says there, the one who Musavada is an antara ikadama. It is an obstructive dhamma, obstructive quality. Then you find it in the la basakara siloka sanguta.
La basakara siloka is gains, honor and popularity, something like that. And there too you find that that can also be an obstructive thing. And the last one is this particular view here that there's no problem with sensuality. And presumably here it refers to sexuality specifically because that is really kind of obviously the biggest obstruction in this particular case. So these are the three things that are said to be obstructive in the suttis. But of course many other things will be obstructive as well.
It doesn't really stop there. Things like committing a parajika is going to be pretty obstructive. It's going to be problematic. If you do one of the antarika kamasa, not antarika, anantarika kamasa, these are the things that lead to immediate result in the next life. Antarika, antarika means a gap in between. Antarika means without gap. And so it's a kama without a gap. In other words it leads to results and immediate, immediate, immediately next life.
And so these are obvious also obstructions. But these things here are more like views and ideas and things that are not maybe as obvious being obstructions. That's why they're probably spelt out in this particular way here. So it's kind of fascinating that this is so serious in such a kind of important point. And then the Buddha carries on. I've said that central pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress. And they are all the more full of drawbacks.
And then again with the similes of the skeleton, the scrap of meat, the grass storage, the pit of glowing coals, the dream, the Borgus, the fruit on a tree, the butcher's knife and shopping block, the staking sword and the snake said, I've said that central pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress. And they're all the more full of drawbacks. But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp.
Harm yourself and create much wickedness. This will be for your lasting harm and suffering. So this is quite a strong statement by the Buddha. And first of all you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp. So he's telling him directly, this is a misrepresentation. You harm yourself. And what is the Pali here again for harming yourself? I can't remember now. Anyway, it doesn't matter. It's I think the translation is basically right. Yeah, so it's kind of self harm when you do this.
And you create much wickedness. And the Pali for wickedness is apunya, which is usually translated as demerit. So you create much demerit. And Sridharthu has wickedness. Interesting translation. So you create much demerit basically means that you are kind of heading towards bad rebirth and all of these kinds of things as a consequence. So it's fascinating. Sometimes how little it can take misrepresenting the Buddha together with kind of a clear, wrong view, misunderstanding of the dangers of the path.
These two thing together actually are really problematic. And the Buddha says this will be for your lasting harm and suffering. Yeah. So this is problematic. And I think especially in a case like Arrita, where he doesn't really repent and he doesn't really say, okay, I'm going to change my ways. But it takes it all the way to being expelled by the Sangha and then this robes. In other words, it grasps onto that view. He seems to hold on to it. Then it is really, really problematic.
But of course, if you come out of that and then you understand that you made a mistake, you stopped misrepresenting the Buddha and you correct your view, then of course you are able to come out of that demerit or at least to counteract it by living in the right way and then basically you are right. So I think that is an important kind of counterpoint to this to remember that there is a way out of these things if you do it in the right way. There is a suta in the, I think,
the Angutronikaya in an, I'm actually found a slight liberation in different places where it says that wrong view is bad kambhana. And often that is kind of can be scary for people because wrong view is kind of kind of common to have wrong view. But if you look at how and wrong view comes in so many varieties, right? But if you have an eternalist view, is that wrong view? What about Christian people? Do they never go to heaven or what about people who believe in the kind of ground of consciousness and these kind of things? And of course,
I think that is too harsh. It doesn't really make any sense because we know that lots of people go to heaven or have a good rebirth if they live well. And so the answer to that strange statement I think is found in the standard way when they talk about the tevijha, the tevijha gives it quite clearly that the kamma is when you have wrong view and you act on that wrong view and it's acting on that wrong view that I think is critical for making that kamma really, really,
really, really bad. And that's where things kind of turn really bad. And so this may have been what happened with Arita as well, although it doesn't really say exactly what he did. So his lasting harm and suffering. Diga ratang ahi taya dukhaya ahi taya, something like that. All right, so that is the Arita, a little bit more about him. Then the Buddha said to the mendicants, what do you think? mendicants. Has the mendicant Arita kindled even a spark of ardour in this teaching and training? How could that be sir?
No sir. When this was said Arita sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say him. That's quite nice as well. It kind of reads quite nicely, Arita. Anyway, so has it kindled even a spark of ardour in this teaching and training? So the Pali here is Usmi kata and Usmi means something like heat or it can mean a glow, yeah, or it can mean a spark. And kata, this means has it even made a spark.
And ardour is not actually found in the Pali at all, it's added by Bantasudrata to make it sound, you know, to make give a full sentence, I suppose. And so the idea is basically has it kindled even a spark in this teaching and training? And so I would say a spark is like a light, yeah, it is like often in a suit as it's about understanding or wisdom or insight and these kind of things. So have you kindled even a spark, I think almost works in its own right. I think the word ardour, ardour means like effort or something like that.
I'm not sure if it is kind of, you know, I mean it's probably not wrong, but I'm not sure if it gets quiet to what the what the Pali is about here. Personally, there's my my feeling without having studied it in great detail here. So not a spark, right? And I so
basically you're completely stuck if you believe sensuality is okay. And of course I think the idea of spark here because it has to do with wisdom and it has to do with light. It can also be connected with the idea of meditation practice because a meditation practice that works is something that brightens your mind, yeah?
And the more you hold on to the five cents world, the less your meditation is going to work. So it's like an inverse relationship between the brightness of the mind and the way you hold on to the five cents world. So the making a glow in the mind or a spark in the mind happens precisely because you understand the downside of the five senses in this way. You let that go a little bit that allows you access to that five cents world. And then Arrita sat there dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say here.
So anyway, knowing this, the Buddha said, Silliman, you will be known by your own harmful misconception. I will question the mendicants about this. Then the Buddha said to the mendicants, mendicants, do you understand my teaching as Arrita does when he misrepresents me with his wrong grasp, harms himself and creates much, much demerit. No, sir, for in many ways the Buddha has told us that obstructive acts are obstructive, that they really do obstruct the one who performs them.
The Buddha has said that central pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress and they are all the more full of drawbacks. With the similes of the skeleton, etc, etc. and the snakes head, the Buddha has said that central pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress and they are all the more full of drawbacks. Good, good mendicants, it is good that you understand my teaching like this.
For in many ways I have said that obstructive acts, etc, are obstructive, etc, etc. I have said that central pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress but still this Arrita misrepresents me by his wrong grasp, harms himself and creates much demerit. This will be for his lasting harm and suffering. Truly mendicants, it is quite impossible to perform sensual acts without sensual desire, sensual perceptions and sensual thoughts.
So that is a kind of interesting line right there towards the end. It is impossible to perform these things without this kind of sensual backdrop if you like. And you wonder whether that kind of gives you an idea of what Arrita actually was on the bat and it may, maybe it means that he thought you can indulge in that world without it really affecting your mind.
That is presumably what he thought. Maybe your perceptions can still be pure and your thoughts could be pure. It seems to make sense because if you didn't believe it, obstructed him, then presumably he still thought that his mind was pure. And so that sentence there may just be an explanation of what is meant by obstruction earlier on. And obstruction is not your perceptions and your thoughts are tainted by the fact that you interact with the sensual world.
There you have desires and perceptions and thoughts in accordance with that. That might be what it means. But what is interesting is that that line is not found in the parallel in Chinese language. There's a Chinese translation into Chinese of this one, a Madhyama Agamman number 200. And in that one this line does not exist. And so what does that mean? And this is one of these interesting things that you sometimes find in the suttas where there are difference between the different recensions of the same sutra.
And one of the very interesting findings of the Vendable Analayo is that sometimes the commaterial material intrudes, sometimes into the Palle, sometimes into the Chinese version. And the reason why that happens presumably is that commaterial and suttas were often recited together. And so very difficult to hold them apart. It's very easy for commaterial material, sometimes to come into the suttas. And maybe this is one of these instances, because it sounds almost like a commaterial statement that sensual perceptions etc.
This is a commaterial explanation of the meaning of the idea of obstruction in this case. Maybe it is just an idea that just came up now. I don't know if it actually is, if I'm right I can very well be wrong, but it's one possibility anyway. And it kind of makes sense in the how the sutra unfolds. Now we come to the first of the similes. And this is again, these similes are what this sutra is very famous for him. And the Buddha says, take a foolish person who memorizes the teachings.
Statements, mixed prose and verse, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories and elaborations. But they don't examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. And so don't come to a considered acceptance of them. They memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates. They don't realize the goal for which to memorize them. Because they're wrongly grasped, those teachings lead to their lasting harm and suffering. Why is that?
Because they're wrong grasp of the teachings. Yeah, you grasp the teaching in the wrong way. In other words, you don't really understand what they are about. Then they lead to your harm rather than to your welfare. So again, very interesting. This is exactly what is happening with Arrita. So it fits very well with the flow of the narrative in this particular sutra. But let's begin at the beginning of this little paragraph. Take a foolish person. Yeah, this is the, actually what is this, foolish person. Is it the morgue perisa or is it the astute of a putujuna?
Not sure. Let me look that up because it probably has no bearing at all. Yeah, it's the morgue perisa. So it's the foolish person. Yeah, so in other words, not just which makes
sense. It's not just an unlearned person, but someone who approaches the teachings in a foolish way here, he memorized the teachings. Yeah, and this is kind of interesting right here. What are these teachings? And you will find there's nine categories mentioned here.
And this is something that has been discussed quite a lot in the by various scholars, including Bantu Sujato. You have the statements. This is a suta in Pali, right? He translated statements, mixed, prose and verse. This is a gay in Pali. Discussions, these are viakkadana. Yakana usually means an explanation of something. Versus gata, which is a standard word for verse, teri gata.
Yeah, the verses of the elders. Inspired explanations. This is udana. Yeah, legends. This is itivutaka. Stories of past lives is a jataka. Amazing stories are a Buddha dama. I think elaborations are vedala. Yeah, so these are the nine, kind of, called the nine angas. Nine angas, the nine factors, or nine limbs, if you like, of the suit of the word of the
Buddha. And it's an strange kind of mixture here. If you listen to that, one of them is like the udana, right?
So the udana, you might think that refers to the udana, the book. You have the itivutaka, you might think that refers to itivutaka, the book. Jataka, you might think this refers to the jataka in the kudakanikaya. But then on the other hand, some of them have nothing to do with collections of sutas. Like discussions does not refer to a collection of sutas. It refers to viakkadana, which you find everywhere in the sutas. It just means an explanation by the Buddha or by someone else. The same thing with verse, right?
And so it doesn't seem to refer to collections at all. It seems to refer to kinds of literature. And udanas, if you start to look around in the sutas, it is not just part of a particular collection. But it's very common in the sutas to see the Buddha do a udana, udanasi. Yeah, he exclaims an udana, it's a very common thing. And then he would say a particular verse because he is inspired on that occasion or whatever to say something special. Itivutaka, presumably, has the same kind of idea.
Jataka would then mean not the jataka collection, but the jataka sutas that you find in the sutas because they are sutas jataka, and then there is a jataka collection. Yeah, it refers to what you find in the sutas. And the same thing with the rest of these things.
So it seems to refer to a classification of text, rather a classification of kinds of text rather than specific books or collections and such. Yeah, and this is kind of interesting. Yeah, can we take it at the end? Right, that'd be all right. Yeah, I just- It's not new within the nine classifications, they are more than classifications or something from the original text.
Let's take it at the end because I think we agreed on that before, take everything at the end. So please keep it in mind and we can take it at the end. But I'll talk a little bit more about now anyway. And so many people have argued that this actually is the original classification here. Yeah, and the reason is because the idea of Nikaya seemed to be a later thing.Nikayas maybe were invented at the first council or maybe even after the first council. They are talked about in the vinya pittika as being the containers at the first council.
But there is no re-mentioned of the Nikayas in the sutas themselves. In the sutas what you find is this particular classification. So this may actually be a more ancient classification of the sutas. And does that have any bearing on our understanding of the content? This is what is really interesting of course. This is what everything comes back to. Does this affect how we understand the sutas?
And maybe it can in certain circumstances because it helps us to kind of categorize the sutas and it can maybe show as if sutas have been added to or subtracted from. It can maybe help us to understand if sutas have a certain form which maybe they shouldn't have or whatever. So there are arguments maybe that these things can be, can have an effect on how we understand the sutas.
But for now I don't want to go into that because to be honest I don't really know if it is the case or not. But just to say that this is an early classification system. And there are some scholars who argue that there are even smaller classification systems and then maybe the earliest one only had three or four of these categories from the very beginning and then it was expanded into nine.
So for example in the Sarvastivadan school which has the parallel to the sutas, it has 12 categories rather than nine. So there seems to have been an expansion going on over time. So we could have started out with a smaller number. Does this really matter? Probably not. But it is interesting to know some of the historical developments. So you have that in mind. It may affect how we read the sutas. And that's why it is kind of useful sometimes to be aware of this. I don't want to make too much out of it.
However now if you're interested in this I would recommend you to read Panto Sajato's history of mindfulness where he goes into this. To my mind what he says there is, it looks to be honest a little bit speculative. But it is certainly worthy of a read. So at least you have some understanding of this. If you are interested it's certainly not required. Much better just to read the sutas to be honest. And then comes the important part. So forget about all of that.
Now comes the important part. They don't examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. And so they don't come to consider acceptance of them. And this is one of those really important things on the path. The idea that you know you read the sutas. You know what is there. You have an idea in your mind. And then you examine those teachings with wisdom. You read them 200 times to examine what is going on with those sutas.
And as you examine them with wisdom you start to understand things like those similes. We're just talking about it. What do those similes actually mean? The similes of the central pleasures. You need to reflect on them to read and understand what is going on. They are quite profound. And to my mind when you understand what they are they're actually really beautiful. And they're actually easy to understand. And as you start to understand them they go. They start out as an intellectual idea.
And they kind of sink down from the brain gradually into the heart. And after a while you feel them. You can actually feel these teachings. And that is where they become really powerful. There should be something that you experience as a felt reality. And that is where they're powerful. And this is what happens after you. I would argue happens after you read these things and you reflect on them again and again.
You start to feel what is going on there. And so please consider these things carefully. Because these are this is really the bread and butter of what it is to be a monastic. To understand these things properly. So you examine them with wisdom. You examine the meaning of wisdom. And then you examine them with wisdom. As it sinks from the intellectual level. Into the feeling level. Into the visceral level where you understand what these things are about. Then comes the acceptance of these teachings.
Either you reject them or you accept them. If you reject them. Okay. It means you leave the monastery and you become a Christian or whatever. But if you accept them. Yeah. This is kind of the ideal. If you accept them. Then of course this starts to work in a very profound way. And this is the idea here. So you learn them. You examine the meaning. And then after a while you come to a considered acceptance.
Nijanang. Nijanang. Kammati. Yeah. Kammati is the idea also of forgiveness in the suttas. But it means like you know when you forgive someone it's like you accept. Okay. They have done this but I forgive you. So the idea of forbearance, acceptance and forgiveness is kind of one group of meanings in Pali which refers back to this word Kammati. And Nijanang related to the word Jana by the way. Actually means a certain reflection around this. So Nijana is not the same as Jana. In fact the word Nijana is used to precisely to mean wrong Jana in the suttas.
Yeah. Nijana, etc. But here it is useful. And here it shows you that this actually is a different from Jana. Reflective acceptance of a particular teaching. Yeah. So this is where we're trying to go. And then other suttas that take this one step further and they talk about ditya, ditya, patevidjati here. And that means to penetrate something with view. And this is where it becomes really profound. And this often refers to the idea of things like stream entry or maybe also lesser attainments maybe on the path where you have some kind of insight into things.
And that is where it becomes very profound. This doesn't go that far but it's leaning in that direction. So this is what you, he doesn't do right? Instead you memorize the teaching for the sake of fold finding and winning debates. And I don't know about you but I remember in my very early years as a monastic I tended to lean too much to that side of things. Yeah. I wanted to discuss the dhamma in debate and sometimes you realize in the debate you start to get a bit upset. Right?
And then you understand that actually you are concerned about winning the debate and you don't like the idea of losing out. Part of it of course because you are convinced that your own position is true which everyone does until you change it. Then you're no longer convinced but initially you're convinced. And it's very easy to fold into that trap. Yeah. Especially when you are starting out and you really kind of, you really are strong on these views.And it's difficult sometimes not to get a little bit kind of worked up if you are losing a debate that you think is important.
But at the very least we shouldn't go out there specifically for winning debates. So that is where the problem arises. And finding fault with others. I had done a lot of fault finding in my life and I don't recommend it. They don't realize the goal for which to memorize those teachings. Yeah. The goal is out of reach. Why? Well because you have memorized them for the wrong reasons. And because they are wrongly grasped those teachings lead to their long lasting harm and suffering.
Why is that? Because of the wrong grasp of the teachings. Suppose there was a person in need of a cobra. I like that sentence. I'm kind of a very interested person in need of a cobra. I thought usually it's the other way around. You're not in need of a cobra. But anyway, this is what is here. And while wondering in search of a cobra they would see a big cobra and grasp it by the coil or the tailor.
But that cobra would twist back and bite them on the hand or the arm or limb resulting in death or deadly pain. Why is that? Because of the wrong grasp of the cobra. Yeah. So if you grasp the cobra by the tail they just turn around and bite you. And you get death or I would say death like pain. Not deadly pain but death like pain. That's how I understand the part of it there. Because you grasp the cobra wrongly. So just like grasp in the teaching wrongly you get similarly kind of suffering by grasping the cobra wrongly here.
And you will notice here the very powerful suffering. Death or death like suffering. I don't think that is any coincidence. It just shows you the kind of the very serious consequences of getting the teachings wrong and then teaching accordingly and maybe acting accordingly as well. In the same way a foolish person memorized the teaching etc. And those teachings lead to the lasting harm and suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong grasp of the teachings.
Now take a gentleman who memorized the teachings. The gentleman is the kula puta. Yeah. The son of a family. Statements mix prose. And verse discussions, verses inspired
exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories and elaborations. And once he has memorized them he examines their meaning with wisdom and comes to a considered acceptance of them. He doesn't memorize the teaching for the sake of full finding and winning debates.
He does realize the goal for which he memorized them. Because they are correctly grasped those teachings lead to his lasting welfare and happiness. Why is that? Because of his correct grasp of the teachings. Suppose there was a person in need of a cobra.
And while wandering in search of a cobra they would see a big cobra hold it down carefully with a cleft stick. Only then with a correctly grasped by the neck.
And even though that cobra might wrap its coils around that person's hand or arm
or some other limb that wouldn't result in death or deathlike pain. Why is that? Because of the correct grasp of that cobra. So that is the right way of doing things. You examine those teachings, the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. You have to be wise. You will notice that. You can't just examine the meaning if you are in the wrong state of mind.
So examine them when you are in a good mood. You have few defilements. Your mind is reasonably clear. And then there is a greater chance. You will understand what is going on there. So be as wise as you can. And then as you do that because you are using wisdom. And of course this is the Buddhist definition of wisdom. And you will come therefore to a considered acceptance of those teachings.
That's kind of the point. So as long as you're using wisdom it is to be expected that it will gain that considered acceptance of those teachings. And then that is when they will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time into the future. That is what this is about. And in the same way you grasp that snake in the right way here. In the same way a gentleman memorizes the teachings. And those teachings lead to his lasting welfare and happiness. Why is that because of his correct grasp of those teachings?
So mendicants when you understand what I have said you should remember it accordingly. But if I've said anything that you don't understand you should ask me about it or some competent mendicants. So what that means is that if you don't understand the teachings you should inquire further. And usually the answer is to be found in the sutta. So if you read quite broadly very often the picture comes together.
The dhamma is like one complete picture and all the various parts.
They kind of illuminate each other and then you get the complete idea of what's going on. But if you don't understand then go to Ajahn Brahm and say, Ajahn please what does the Buddha mean by this? Ajahn Brahm will just look at the ceiling and yawn and he will tell you a joke. It depends on the day. Sometimes Ajahn Brahm is very very happy to ask answered questions. And I would actually one of the things I wanted to say also is that I would really recommend you to sometimes come in and have a discussion with Ajahn Brahm. It is kind of rare opportunity to have a teacher like Ajahn Brahm.
And sometimes we have some really nice time of discussions at tea time. And it is looking at Ajahn Brahm how long is it going to last? Sometimes you wonder and sometimes it's thinking about impermanence is often quite scary. Yeah, because you know things are going to change or whatever. So I would really recommend you to take the opportunity. Come in, ask some good questions and maybe you can have a nice time of discussion at tea time.
It really can be really worthwhile. It can be very inspiring. And one of the great things about Ajahn Brahm is that sometimes these things are really out of left field. You have no idea what is really kind of unusual. And then it makes you think. Yeah, and often it takes you deeper and it kind of gives you a new perspective on what the Dharma is about. So I would really suggest I to you if you have the chance.
And sometimes I come out and sometimes I torch Rajan Brahm as well with questions.
That's also. So yeah, anyway. So I've been speaking for an hour already. The next simile, the simile of the snake is a very nice simile. Is an hour enough should we stop there? Yeah, because simile snake is kind of nice. We should stop there and we can stop. I mean the simile of the raft as well. I mean, thank you. That means I should stop. I think you're right because I want to be fresh with it.
Actually, some very interesting things about the simile of the raft. And when the bussineo is right, if I can't even get that right, I should shut up and I should stop there. So any comments or questions or anything about the what we have done. When about Radha? Those nine categories that you were talking about. Those were the woods straight off the suitors. Yeah. So it was recorded at nine categories. Yeah. So this is found in a number of places in the suitors.
Yeah, those are not categories. Yeah. And so they are a standard set town in the suitors. They seem to be very, very early. Go back. It looks like they go back to the time of the Buddha, actually. Maybe shortly afterwards. But there's a few suitors where the number of categories is less. I think one of them is the great discourse on emptiness. The Maha Sunat-a-Sutta, much of 122. Where there's four categories, I think.
And there's a few instances like that, which may point to an even earlier kind of division.
Maybe. But it's speculative. Yeah. Basically, the Buddha referring to his own teachings, his own words. Yeah. In this case, it is. Yeah. So this looks like it was before it was classified into any kind of collection. And they were just types of discourse, something instead. And it's interesting because the word sutta here seems to have a different meaning. Right? Because here the sutta obviously doesn't mean all the sutors.
So here it seems to be one particular kind of expression of the dhamma. And that's why he calls it statements. So it's just a statement. It's not a discussion. It's not a question and answer. It's not a verse. It is just a statement about something essentially.
And a lot of that is also taken to discuss what this terminology means. Sometimes what you have to do is you have to see how the word sutta is used in pre-Buddhist texts.
So this is also found in the Upanishads and the Vedas. You find the word sutta as well.
And so it's taken often from there. And that's how you can kind of have some idea what the original meaning may have been for these things. So yeah. Thanks. You mentioned that people who are not noble ones, will all return to the fine senses, and that the Buddha said that if you have any particular sutta on the tasbhuya, you can see again.
Yeah. I think one sutta is the... Chula dukkanda sutta, I think. When Mahanam goes to Buddha, let me just see if I can find that sutta here because then we can look it up straight away. Yeah. Oh yeah, I think I know the tasbhuya sutta. Yeah. So it's at the beginning of that sutta. Let me bring it up anyway because it's kind of... it's an interesting point. So Maha... What is it the Maha dukkanda sutta? No, Chula dukkanda sutta.
Yeah. Oh, here we go. Yeah. So... Yeah. So this is where Mahanam goes to the Buddha,
and... Yeah. And the Buddha says, even though a noble disciple has seen clearly as it actually is with proper wisdom, that central place that provides little gratification, much suffering in despair, the danger in them is still more. This is exactly the same phrasing we had before. As long as he still does not attain to the rapture and pleasure, or apart from central pleasure, obviously referring to the Jhanas, apart from unholesome states, or something more peaceful than that,
he may still be attracted to central pleasures. Actually, that is not the best one because it is described even better in elsewhere, where it actually says that... It specifically says that the ordinary person always goes towards central pleasures. So, yeah. So it's... I can't remember now exactly what the reference is. Yeah. In a book, Dyerdooha. I think the poetry says that... Are it sort of made people who are becoming Aryans, made people who are enjoying central pleasures?
Oh, right. Is it something that's the same mother, or why is it such a big deal that has to be established as a tenfold or something? Right. And that's like a plausible explanation for his view there, and so how would you... How do you respond to that?
It sounds plausible, doesn't it? Because this is exactly what you see in the suit, as you see kind of lay people becoming Aryans, yeah? And presumably they...
And there's even a sutta that talks about two and one's returners, the two brothers, the Putana and Isidata, I think they are, and one of them still kind of has ordinary relations with their wife and the other one is celibate. And so, you know, the question then is why is that the case? And so I think it is quite likely, huh? But you know, the thing is that... I think the answer to that is that, well, if you really want to make progress on the path quickly, and if you want to have results, it is not enough to have one insight.
Maybe you went on a retreat, maybe you met the Buddha and you might become free of hindrances, and you know, you had... because you had lots of good qualities already,
and then you go back to sensuality afterwards, obviously you're going to stop your progress. And so it doesn't mean that just because some lay people happen to have lots of good qualities and enable them to make the breakthrough despite that indulgence. Maybe the indulgence wasn't that great, quite likely it wasn't, it was just some degree of indulgence.
So if you want to make maximum progress, well, obviously the monastic life is the...
what that is for, otherwise the Buddha would have laid down the monastic life, yeah?
This is precisely what it is for. And you need to contemplate the danger of those sensual pleasures. You cannot contemplate those dangers and indulge in sensual pleasures at the same time. This is just a complete clash. One of them will win out and one of them will not work, yeah? That's kind of the problem there, huh? And sometimes you hear people saying, oh, they like to contemplate the 31 parts of the body,
but they still have ordinary relationships with people, right? It's a complete clash of two things. And the 31 parts of the body contemplation is going to lose out. Why? Because the sensual desire is far more attractive and far more interesting, yeah, than kind of going against it. So I think that there is... I think you kind of... you have to understand that, of course, sometimes you can be almost like lucky, as you know, as a bit harsh to say, lucky,
as it depends on how you live your lay life, of course. But you can, if you have lots of good qualities, but it doesn't mean that it is a positive, it actually is a negative in the practice, yeah? Yeah. Any more comments? Any complaints? Does it make sense? Maybe? Yeah. Anyway, let's stop there. Let's do the Handa mayang and call it a day.
|