24-08 Simile of the Raft(뗏목의 비유)

[khemacara]

I do a lot of that, I do some good, I do some good, I'm done, I'm done, I'm done, I'm done, I'm done, I'm done, I'm done. Okay, everyone will come back here. And we are, Adam Brown wanted to have a rest today, since I am here instead. So I apologise for anyone who expected Adam Brown, but this is the way coach sometimes never hard-tune the expectations because there will always be a challenge there at some point. So because of that, we are going to carry on with the sutta that we started a while ago, I never know exactly when we started these things.

This was a sutta, some time ago, and so it's going to be a follow-up on that one. And we are going to carry on with this very profound and beautiful sutta called the Allahkumpa sutta, translated by Vantasu Jata as the simile of the cobra, translated otherwise as the simile of the snake. And it is basically a sutta about non-self, and so it is very profound and interesting in many flat reasons, also many other reasons. Not least because of the very two famous similes that have a farm at the very beginning of the sutta, the simile of the snake, and the simile of the raft, both are very well known.

And the simile of the snake, we have already looked at it, and I discussed that in a fair bit of detail. So today we are going to start by looking at the simile of the raft. And one of those kind of remarkable things is in the sutta, that sometimes you see that certain similes are talked about in other places. And for example, you find that the simile of the saw, another very famous simile of the Buddha, is talked about in other sutas, referred to. And we get this feeling when we read the sutta, that there are references to various things back and forth. Some sutta's are mentioned in one place, this sutta is mentioned elsewhere, the sutta's about central pleasures, etc.

They are mentioned in various places. We get this feeling that this is a cohesive whole, a coherent whole, and without all the little parts, the whole thing doesn't really make any sense. It only makes sense when you read all the sutta's in unison, because when it's referred to somewhere else, obviously you have to have read the other one, for it to make sense. And this is one of those little hints and feelings, and a feeling that you get for the sutta's by reading them, the sense of cohesion, the sense of wholeness, the sense of one picture, and a picture has many details, with one kind of idea of the dhamma.

And of course that one dhamma idea is rooted in that insight of awakening that the Buddha had, and everything that came, comes in the sutta, is a consequence of that insight that awakened inside there. So having looked at the simile of the snake, it narrowed us and moved on to the simile of the raft. So I'm just going to do what I normally do, and read it out, and then I'm going to discuss it a little bit as we go along, and I don't have any projection today, so you're just going to have to listen, which hopefully will be alright then, so we'll see what happens.

And so after delivering the simile of the raft, which is about grasping the teachings in the right way, just like grasping the snake in the right way, he then carries on, and I say what the Buddha says next, this is a bhatta sujata's translation. He says so many times, when you understand what I have said, you should remember it accordingly now.

But if I have said anything that you don't understand, you should ask me about it, or some competent, competent, medicaids. So first of all, when you understand what I have said, you should remember it accordingly, in other words, this is the idea again of the simile of the snake.

The idea of grasping the teachings in the right way, inquiring into them, trying to figure out what the Buddha is talking about. Because if you don't understand what the teachings are, and then you sort of teach them to someone else without really faddening what's going on there, that is obviously very bad idea, we are representatives of the Buddha, our livelihood depends on the Buddha's awakening, and the dispensation that he has laid down. So we have an obligation to carry out or teach those teachings in the right way. Otherwise, we're not living up to that obligation that we have there. So you remember them in the right way, and if you don't understand them, you should ask it.

And if the Buddha isn't around, then you should ask some competent medicaids. So then you have to figure out who the competent mennequins are. That's pretty tricky. Who are the competent mennequins? Who should we ask these things? This is always very difficult, and this can sometimes really go straight when it comes to this sort of thing. How to really find out who was a competent person? Ideally, the competent people are the areas, the noble people. But how do you know if someone is noble? So you hang around as a brown for a while, and after a while you get the feeling, maybe this monkey is pretty impressed. He probably is a noble one.

But it's hard to be absolutely sure. And especially if you meet someone who don't know very well, or you travel overseas, or there's a foreign language or whatever. It's very, very hard to see that. And so very often what you have to do is you have to kind of take the teachings of the Buddha, and then you have to inquire very deeply into those teachings, compare them to what other people say, and then see the lines. And you have to use these two things to weigh them up against each other. And that is really the only way to find out whether someone is teaching the right way. And it's a very difficult thing to do because we are all biased.

We all want our teacher to be special. But actually seeing our teacher in that light carefully is actually a very hard thing to do. But that is really required unless we want to go astraying her. We have to be brutally honest with what is going on there. Otherwise this path doesn't work and it fails. So this is our job. And we also have to be very humble about our own understanding as well. Because if you are too sure about yourself then very often you also end up messing up as a consequence. So that is the consequence of that simile of the snake care.And then the Buddha goes on to the simile of the raft. And this is how he teaches this.

And this is this. Meant to tell. I will teach you a simile of the teaching as a raft for crossing over, not for holding on. Listen, apply your minds well, I will speak. Yes sir they reply and the Buddha say this. So how is there was a person traveling along the road? They would see a large deluge, like a large river or whatever, whose near shore was dubious in parallel. Well the far shore was a sanctuary free from parallel. But there was no ferry boat or bridge for crossing over there. They would think it wide off I gather grass, sticks, branches and leaves and make a raft.

Riding on the raft and paddling with my hands and feet I can safely reach the far shore. And so they do exactly that. And when they have crossed over to the far shore they would think that this raft has been very helpful to me. Riding on this raft and paddling with my hands and feet I have safely crossed over to the far shore. Why don't I hoist it on my head or pick it up on my shoulders and go wherever I want. What do you think about the chance? Would that person be doing what should be done with that raft? No sir. And what may they can should a person do with a raft? When they have crossed over they should think.

This raft has been very helpful to me, etc. Why don't I be sick of dry land or set it at rift on the water and go wherever I want. That is what that person should do with the raft. So I think the basic idea of the simile is fairly clear. You kind of get what the idea is. The raft of course is here, simile basically for the noble, hateful path that the thing that takes you across. But there are a few little tricks to the simile to understand really what is going on there. And especially this idea of abandoning the raft when it comes to the other side. It's tricky to really get that important to get that right so we don't kind of misunderstand the entire heatings of the good one.

But let's start from the beginning of the simile. The raft is for crossing over not for holding on there. But remember that while you are crossing it you have to hold on to the raft a little bit. Otherwise you get a wave or something, you get a shark or whatever or a crocodile and the overturned the raft. And then you are in trouble with that. So obviously there is some degree of holding on that is required there. And this is what you find I think almost everywhere. In the suit as you find this idea that it is only the areas who don't grasp, who don't hold on to the sealer or to the path. It's only the areas because they don't have to. They have internalized it. Everyone else needs to hold on to some extent. That is what it means to have training rules.

That is what it means to try to apply yourself in the right way. It means a degree of trying effort. And that trying effort is a kind of holding on to the path there. But start from the beginning. Someone is travelling along the road. And when they are travelling along the road they see a deluge. In other words a river advanced and expands water.

And the near shore is dubious and perilous and the far shore is a sanctuary free of peril. So what is actually going on here? What are they actually seeing when they see this large expansive river now?

And of course what they are most likely seeing is like Saint-Sara. They see the kind of the whole extent of what Saint-Sara is about or they have an initial idea of what it means. Maybe they have an idea of rebirth, maybe they have heard the first teaching of the Buddha. They are worried about their own life. They are worried about uncertainty and reliability of everything. They get an initial glimpse of the Dama. But seeing that deluge there. The danger, the stream, the current which is so strong carries you on. The current is often a metaphor for the craving. The driving force in Saint-Sara which drives you on.

You cannot stop it very easily. You tend to be submerged in this craving. So when you are seeing it you might have thought that actually why aren't you in a current? Surely you are in Saint-Sara. You are not actually standing on the shore watching it. So I take this to mean that actually this is a kind of a rising right view. The right view is like seeing something. So you are kind of standing a bit apart there and you understand something in your mind. That is how you kind of see this river. It is a kind of initial right view arising here. Once you see that, once you understand that the present shore is dangerous, then of course the desire to arise.

The desire to cross means creating a vehicle that will take you across. You will notice here the Buddha says there is no telly man. There is no telly person. There is no bridge. So what does that mean? No telly person, no bridge. I take that to mean that there is no god. There is no kind of chillites and you will kind of come to the other shore. You will have to worry about it. That is what I understand it to mean. You have to do the work yourself put together the raft. There is no kind of simple way of getting across this. Actually you are ultimately responsible for this. So even though Christianity may sound like a good deal.

Yeah, I remember this woman once told by the other time that Christianity is a good deal. So she became a Christian rather than a Buddhist because you just have to believe in god and pick your god. That is it. Fine. But of course that is a bad idea. What if there isn't any god? The idea is not so good after all. It is a bad idea of the end of the day. So you have to be realistic about things otherwise you get kind of taken for a ride. The garden famous garden apart and nothing really happens. So I think this is kind of the idea here. There is no easy way of doing this. And then the first thing that you have to do is you have to gather the sticks. You have to gather the grass. You have to gather the foliage. Bind, put together, and raft. What does that mean? And I think what that means is that first of all you have to get an idea of the Buddhist teachings.

So you have to understand at least theoretically what is going on. You have to have an understanding of the gradual training, the novel eightfold path, all the aspects of the Buddhist teachings. First of all as we saw last time by reading it, by listening to it, then by reflecting on it so it actually made it real, you kind of reflect how does it affect you? How does it relate to your own life? And then gradually creating a view that you accept what the world actually is like. It's not like the binding of the raft, preparing the novel eightfold path, by coming to understand what it is about.

The right view especially because that right view was then to drive all the other factors on the novel eightfold path. And then once you have that raft, you grasp all that in.

And then you kind of, it sounds like you kind of lighten your tummy on the path, on the raft. And you paddle with your arms, maybe with your feet a little bit, and you kind of paddle across the stream. And of course you hold on a little bit because you don't want to fall off. And as you cross this stream, the way I kind of imagine what is going on here, it is like crossing through the various realms of samsara. The near shore is like the human realm. The human realm is very dangerous and dodgy.

And in one of the sutas in the Sanjukanakai, I talk about the near shore. The near shore, there are five assassins. And those five assassins on the near shore are the five kandhasa. Because these kandhas, if you hold on to them, if you grasp them, they will, then you will then die. And then when you die, you get reborn again. And these five kandhasa grasping and holding onto them, kind of keeps the cycle going. So they are like the assassins. So you want to let go of those assassins. That's kind of the first thing. And as you paddle across the river, across the demure, it's almost like moving up through the various realms. You're becoming more and more purified.

And eventually you risk the other shore now. So that is the idea. And the other shore is like the shore of safety. And so then what happens when you come to the other shore now? The whole point of this path, you have the whole point of moving from one side to the other one, is that you are gradually purifying yourself. As you do this, your mind is reducing the defilements. Your conduct is getting better and better. Your speed is purifying itself. It's like you are changing. You're becoming a different kind of person from when you started out. And this is one of those really critical things on the Buddhist path. And it is one of the things that the Buddha talks about in a very, a number of places in the suttas.

This idea of making progress. The idea of the unestablished mindfulness becoming established. The unestablished sea love becoming established. The unestablished samadhi becoming established. This is the whole purpose of the path. And as long as we are making progress in these things, there will come a point when you go to the other end, when you come to the other shore. That is what progress means. Progress that is compounded. Progress that is carried on will eventually mean that you are going to the other shore now. And so this is such a significant thing. And I think it's something that every monastic, every one who is really committed to the Buddhist path,

which always unscrews ourselves, are we heading in the right direction?

Is there a change happening here? Because if that change isn't happening, then after a while you wonder why are you a monastic? What is the point of the monastic life? Unless that transformation from an ordinary person to something more purified. If that isn't happening, after a while the whole path kind of falls apart. And that's why you end up disrobing it here. But if you feel that there is progress happening at all the time, then the purpose is there. The meaning is there because you feel that you are actually doing the whole thing that the Buddha is talking about.

And so this I think is really fundamental to create meaning in the monastic life. Any kind of Buddhist life, anyone who is serious about this practice, to think about the path in this way. And so what this means is that when you finally come to the other shore, when you have crossed this entire stream, you are no longer the same person. And the moment you cross the stream, not only are you no longer the same person, but you are fundamentally transformed as a person. This is the idea of becoming a noble individual, whether you are a stream actor or an arabant or whatever it is. Is that you are fundamentally changed? You are no longer the same person you were before.

You are psychology. It is different from what it was before. You cannot longer do those things that you did before. That is why a person who is a stream actor is said to be fulfilled. You have a paddy poo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo.

Someone who is a non-returner is fulfilled in samadhi and the arabant also fulfilled in wisdom. You cannot long before back it. You have reached something. And that of course is the reason why you can put down the raft.

They are putting down the raft does not mean that you can do anything you want afterwards. They are putting down the raft is not the kind of carte blanche to do whatever you want or whatever kind of your defilements are. No, they are putting down the raft happens because you are already purified. You do not need the raft anymore. You are psychologically transformed. A stream actor is incapable of doing those things that they shouldn't be doing, even more so the arabant. That is why the raft can be put down there.

But this more than that there. And this more than that because not only can you put the raft down there, but you will put the raft down there. Because one of the points of being a stream actor is precisely that you cannot hold onto things anymore. The stream actor does not hold onto the path there. So if you still carry the raft with you after you have crossed over, it is a sign that you have across the net. So this is really to me kind of the final understanding of assembly. If you carry that raft, actually it means you have not crossed it. Because anyone who has crossed by definition they have let go of the raft. The raft is gone. They do not hold on anymore.

And this is kind of the idea here. So if someone is holding onto a raft, if you see people in monastery holding onto the raft, you know they have not crossed the raft. So what is that raft? That is what I said. So what does it mean to hold onto the raft? It does not mean carrying the raft around. That is not really what it means. What it means is that you are arguing with people about the raft. You are getting heated about it. This is kind of the symptom of carrying the raft around it. It is kind of holding onto the stage. In that sense it fits very well with what we saw before.

The idea of the symbol of the snake. Because the symbol of the snake is also not used in the teachings in the wrong way. So carrying the raft really means holding the teachings in your mind in the wrong way. In a way whereby their meaning is important to you. It gives you a sense of identity as a Buddhist, as a monastic. These are my teachings. I hold onto them. And then of course you end up arguing as a consequence.

So this is, I think, the idea of the symbol of the raft. I think in this monastery in Provedamasara, most people are part of this particular Buddhist society.

Have a fair understanding of these things. We do not really get these things so wrong.

But you will be surprised if you go out into the big bad world. And then people actually misunderstand basic things like this. And the reason why they misunderstand is because they have not really read the suit as broadly enough. If you really understand the suit as in the full breadth and full scope, it is obvious what this must mean. It is kind of clear. But it is like also when you go to places like the suit under Kata often talks about not having any views. Kind of giving up all views.

And again, this is a similar kind of thing because it is similar because it is about not holding onto the raft. So not having any views, it doesn't mean that you are a person without any sense of reality or whatever. What it means is that you don't hold onto those things. You don't create arguments out of your views. And the reason of course is you know. And because you know, you don't care what other people think. You know what the truth is. And so you can let go. In that way, you don't carry that raft around with you anymore. So that is the similarly of the raft. Ah, okay. So, yeah. And all of these things that we have seen so far, the similarly of the snake, obviously, and the similarly of the raft.

And these are spoken in response to the wrong view of Arrita. Arrita, when we start out the sutta, how are the view that there is no problem in sensuality?Yeah, it is about not grasping the teaching in the right way, using the teaching in the right way. And then when you have used it in the right way, then you let go of the teachings at the very end. So this is the right way of dealing with this. So now the Buddha moves on to a long teaching on right view, or views in general, right view, of course, specifically now. And again, this is also a counter to the views of Arrita, because Arrita has this weird idea that those things that the Buddha says are obstructive, I understand them to be not obstructive then.

It is kind of very, very strange kind of idea, it was quite like that, but it was a very weird way of putting it. Yeah, the Buddha says they are not obstructive, but I understand the teachings of the Buddha as such that they are not obstructive. It is very confused kind of argument as far as I can see. But of course, all the search for views, they arise out of something, they arise out of more fundamental misunderstandings. So what the Buddha does now becomes, it analyzes these views and has a look at what views actually are in existence, and how they come about, how these things actually arise. So let's see what happens next.

First of all, the Buddha says, in the same way, I have taught the simile of the teaching as a rah, for crossing over, not for holding on there. But understanding the simile of the rah, you will even give up the teachings. Let alone what is against the teachings. So you give up what is against the teachings, obviously. Giving up the teachings means not following them, it means not holding onto them, not grasping them. This is the idea of giving up through out the suit. Many things, there are these six grounds for reviews, Dictyitana, what six. Take an unlearned, ordinary person who has not seen the noble one, and there is neither scale nor train in the teachings of a noble one.

They have not seen true person, neither scale nor train in the teaching of the true person. They regard for as self. This is mine, I am this, this is mine self. They regard feeling as self, they regard perception as self, they regard choices as self. They regard whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, sought, or explored by the mind as, this is mine, I am this, this is my self. And as for this ground for views, the cosmos and the self are one and the same. After that, I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. They regard this also as, this is mine, I am this, this is mine self.

So here we come to some of the very basic wrong views on the Buddhist path, and of course always the more elaborate wrong views, wrong views in regard to sensuality or wrong views in regard to almost anything in the world. Somehow they evolve or they emanate from these more basic wrong ideas on the path. These are called the six grounds for views, they are views in their own right, but they also lead to further wrong views than the track. So they are wrong views and they kind of lead on to further bad things as a consequence if you might. So if you are an unlearned, ordinary person, a suttava putujana, putujana, the many person unlearned a suttava, the one who hasn't heard anything yet, who has not seen the normal ones, who is not skilled in the teaching, who has not trained in the teaching yet.

Yeah, this is kind of this other critical thing. So this is someone who has no clue at all, you haven't even seen the normal ones. You are not skilled in the teachings, you have never read a suttava, no idea what the Buddha is talking about, nor have you practiced it. You have no practice in this teaching. So you see the normal, this is a standard kind of sequence that you see right there, you see the normal ones, you hang out with them, then you learn the teaching here, and then you practice. And the more you have of this, the less likely you are to have this kind of views.

Yeah, so this is kind of this whole grey scale here, from the very beginning where you start to have very little knowledge, maybe you only have been inspired on meeting some wonderful person, all the way to someone who has practiced all the way. The whole grey scale along this axis here, from singing all the way to practicing all the way to the end. So you haven't done this in regard to normal ones, nor to true persons, the true persons are the sakurisa, it's just a synonym really for the normal ones. And because of that, that is why you have all of these ideas, yeah? You regard for Rupa as this is mine, I am this, this is myself.

So what is going on here, what does this actually really mean? So first of all, what is meant by form, Rupa? And form, to a very large extent, sounds a little bit kind of abstract when you think about it like that, but form is almost like appearance, the appearance of somebody, how do we recognize people, usually by the appearance. You see in the dependent origination, you have the idea of Narva Rupa, and Narva Rupa are the two things by which we identify individuals, they have a name, and they have an appearance, they have a form, and they have a name, this is how we individually people, how we make them stand out from everyone else, and how we kind of give them that personality, if you like, with that individuality.

And this is one of those very interesting things about dependent origination, the idea that consciousness depends on individuality. That is the idea of Narva Rupa, Pachayavinyan , Vinayakwatcha Narva Rupa, is that it depends on individuality, that undermines this whole idea of the cosmic mind, which we have in the Brahmanical tradition. So, Rupa is like appearance, and of course we tend to identify to some extent with our appearance, you look at yourself in the mirror and some place, you think, well that does look like me, or the other thing that looks like me, it is kind of the some degree of identification there, but the most basic idea I think, and this is why it comes in the sequence here, this is mine, I am this, this is myself, there is a clear sequence.

Mine is often the most immediate feeling, you take things to be your, this is my body, this is my glasses, this is my computer, whatever. This is a very immediate sense of ownership of things, and everyone has that term. And so this already right there tells you, actually this is the wrong view, right there, that there is a feeling, that there is sensation, that you are own the owner of something, is actually wrong, because you are not the owner of things in the way you think that you are owner of things. The ownership here gives this idea that we have more, we are more in charge, we are more, we have more ability to control things, that we actually have.

And this is kind of the problem with ownership, there is a rude perceptual problem there, where you perceive the things in the wrong way, in one way this computer may be mine, you can consider that I can look in the sense that I use it or whatever, but in another way it is not really mine, in the sense that it can disappear at any time, in the sense that it is unreliable, in the sense that it doesn't really have those qualities that I impute it to have. So I think both in the sense of ownership is maybe the most obvious one there. And then the second one of these three is I am this, and this is where it is a bit more reflective, yeah, who am I as a person now?

Okay, so maybe I am the doer, or maybe I perceive myself in a certain way, or whatever it might be, or I know things or whatever, but that is a little bit more abstract than the immediate idea I am there. So you relate yourself to certain things, and that is kind of the I am this idea. And then, so the first one is about craving, these are kind of the three obsessions in the party, what is it, the party with obsession again, come to remember now, he has the craving, and there is the conceit, this is the idea I am this, and then the last one is views, this is myself. And the moment you come to the last one which is the views, the moment you talk about the self, then you have added even more to this particular equation there. Then you have added the idea of the self, which is an entirely abstract thing.

First of all, you just identify with something, without really being very clear about what you identify with, but then you postulate some kind of permanent aspect that within that experience, you call that the self, that is where then views arise about the work there. And then once you have this idea that you have a self, from that, come to further views, and these are the views that you see through out the suitors, and this is the eternalist view and the annihilationist view that, because once you postulate that you exist in a real way, and that existence, either it goes on or it comes to a stop.

So you can see how this kind of evolves, and it kind of carries on, and it leads to all kind of philosophical implications, and views that kind of expand and move on in this way, and have all kinds of consequences as a result of that. So you look at the form in this way, feelings in this way. Yeah, feelings is a very powerful thing on the Buddhist path, because feelings are so much about what life is about. We do everything in response to feelings, and this is why you often see in the suit, that often the arachnidship is very often attained based on contemplating feeling, because feeling is also fundamental aspect of what our existence is about without feeling.

There is no motivation, there is nothing really, no point in living at all. Then you have the idea of perception, how we relate to the world, the choices, the doer within, the agency within, and then instead of saying consciousness, the next one he says is whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. This is mine, I am this, this is myself. And there is an earthly note here by Manthasu Janto, and he says that this refers to all kinds of knowledge and spiritual wisdom, especially that which is gained through mysticism and meditation. So this here includes, especially the higher kind of consciousnesses, where you have that go of a large part of the kandhas.

There is only a tiny little bit of the mind that remains, this is kind of the deep state of samadhi. This refers to all the samadis that are attained in the world. This too is not mine, this too, I am not, this too is not my self. And this is kind of where the Buddha's teaching gets very interesting here. And this is where it is really revolutionary here, because this is precisely where it counteracts all the pre-existing ideas of that time. Now all the ideas of that time was the idea of a universal consciousness, the self and the world being the same thing, underlying the visible world, is this kind of idea of the world spirit that they call Brahma in those days.

And when they have a state of samadhi, then they assume that this state of samadhi corresponds to that Brahma, it corresponds to that world spirit. When you attain samadhi, you actually achieve this same self. And the Buddha says, no, although those things are not me, not mine, not the self, they don't correspond to that. That is not the self, that is not how it is. And you can imagine that it is a very easy mistake to make. Anyone who has a little bit experienced some meditation, the more experienced you have on meditation, the more you know that when you start to become really peaceful, when you start to experience joy and these kinds of things in meditation, it starts to become incredibly meaningful.

And the deeper that meditation is, the more powerful it is in terms of giving you meaning, in terms of giving you bliss, in terms of giving you a sense that you have found something far superior, far more real, far more powerful, anything ever experienced in ordinary life. You are beyond these things, this is something beyond ordinary experience. And so if you are going to take anything as real, it is this thing in samadhi. And so then, because you take it as real, and because you recognize it as unchanging, as an experience that has a certain kind of characteristic which lasts over long periods of time, you then go to the, leave to the conclusion that this is like a permanent reality behind the façade, behind the appearance of reality, and that is, for that reason is the ground, if you like, of the universe, the ground of all being or whatever in that.

So you leave to that conclusion, and that of course is the way you make the mistake.

One of those, it's very, I think, very natural mistake to make because of the power of this thing. But one of the things that they forget, and this is kind of what the Buddha says literally in number of places in the suit, and it's that whatever kind of experience you have, whatever kind of samadhi you have, it is always a limitation. It begins at a certain point, it ends at a certain point. Everything, all of these experiences are permanent. And the moment you take an experience that actually is impermanent, and you say that this is the reality, the eternal reality, you're adding something to the actual experience.

You're adding an interpretation. You're adding something which actually isn't there.

You are starting to speculate. You're starting to confabulate. You are having an idea about the universal consciousness for which there is no reason to have an idea based on your experience. The Buddha shows you the impermanence, even of something which is so profound and so powerful that, and that really is the idea behind this self.

And so you cannot take those things as yourself, as the real me, whatever you like. And one of the mistakes that is often done, and I think this is kind of very important to understand as well, is the mistake is often done.

Well, you think that this samadhi experience, actually it is a non-self experience. It is a non-self experience. Why? Because during the samadhi there is no sense of self. And so it must be a non-self experience. So it qualifies as fitting with the Buddha's teaching. But that is actually not quite right. Because one of the points of the Dhamma, it is not just the fact that you can feel the sense of self while you are inside the experience. It is also about taking that experience as self afterwards once you emerge. So when you come out of the experience afterwards, you can think of that experience that was not, that is the real me.

And this is called in the suttas. It is called the asmi-mana-anusala, the underlying tendency to the conceit Ayanna. And as long as that underlying tendency is there, when you come out, that would make itself felt. And then you will think of yourself, that was me in that experience. And there will be very, very tempting to take that as you. Why? Because you feel like God is, this is what Brahma feels like. And if you feel like God, it kind of sounds good. Very powerful, very viscous, unified with everything, no separation with anything. If I can be the god of the universe, you see that in the suttas in many places, Brahma gets completely wrong.

He thinks he is god. It is a very, very tempting thing to think of a god. I remember this fellow I met in England, many years ago, I was fighting out in the UK. I was at some of the monasteries over there. And there was this guy who had some very profound meditation experience. And he said that when he came out of that, it happened kind of out of the blue, he came out of that. He thought he was god-basically. That is why he told me. He thought that it was kind of no limit to what he could do. He felt so incredibly powerful. And so that is the problem with these kind of things. It is so tempting to take them as being you. Why?

Because they are so extraordinarily powerful. So this is the, I think the Buddha is talking about here, and this view that the cosmos and the self are one and the same. All of these views here, all of this really is a mistake. And if I will be permanent, everlast, then you turn on imperishable, will last forever and ever afterwards, well that, this is mine, this is myself. That is problematic as well once you understand what is really going on there. And so I personally think this is really really significant. It is kind of fascinating when you interact quite a bit with the Buddhist world, which I obviously do because of traveling or whatever it is that I do in there.

And you realize that how this is the area where there is most, in my opinion, wrong view in the Buddhist world. And so this is a very important area. And remember the reason why there is wrong view in this area. There is a very powerful tendency of the human mind to want there to be something there. And the desire to exist would take the teachings of the Buddha, and regardless of how clear you think they are, it would take those teachings. They would warp them. They would distort them until they fit your desire of permanence. That desire or permanence is far stronger than the Buddha's teachings sometimes is to understand your delusions. And so this is why when you find people with arduous empathy, that of course there is some kind of entity. There is something going on.

Things don't just stop. This is kind of a very, very common argument around the Buddhist world. Why? Because the desire, the craving to exist is such a powerful thing

at the foundation of almost all human beings. So there is very, very significant thing to understand this teachings right there. And I think that the, you know, if you read the sutta, stepful in there, and you really look at what is there, and if you are fortunate enough to have a teacher who can point you in the right direction to help you see those things in the right way, you should feel so lucky, yeah, because it's so easy to get these things wrong.

The false gold in the world is becoming very abundant. You know that sutta with the false gold, right? When the false gold arises in the world, that is when the real gold loses its value there. And you kind of see that all the time, yeah, from the very beginning almost. It started soon after the Buddha passed away, the false gold was starting to emerge, and then it started to multiply over time.And eventually of course the whole teachings will be gone because of that thing. So it is very useful to have some clarity around these ideas so that you can kind of stand your ground. One day, you know, great teachers like Ajahn Brahm will no longer be here. And what do you do then? Where do you stand then?

Then you have to stand on your own two legs there. And sometimes that's quite difficult, yeah, when you are faced with the kind of world and the world and the many ideas, it's very hard sometimes to know what to say and what you think when you are faced with so many different kinds of view, yeah? You have to have a certain salinity about you. Ideally you practice going a long way, but also a certain salinity in the teachings because they kind of bring it all together in a beautiful way, yeah. So that is the six grounds for vision, yeah? And then we have the opposite, and this of course is the learned noble disciple there.

But the learned noble disciples has seen the noble ones, and the skilled and trained in the teachings of the noble ones, they have seen the true persons, and they are skilled and trained in the teaching of the true persons. They regard form like this, this is not mine, I am not this, this is not mine self. They regard feelings, perception and choices in the same way. Whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought or explored by the mind like this, this is not mine, I am not this, this is not myself. And the same for this ground for views, the cosmos and the self are one and the same. After that I will be permanent, everlasting eternal, imperishable and will last forever and ever.

They also regard, they also regard like this, this is not mine, I am not this, this is not myself. So basically everything there, they are essentially what the Buddha is saying here. And in other places of course it does say, besides with that, that everything is not self. The idea of self is an illusion there. Okay, seeing in this way they are not anxious about what does not exist. And of course what does not exist is the self, yeah? That's kind of the point, you will see this point kind of coming out quite clearly. When he said this one of the mendicants asked the Buddha, Sir, can there be anxiety about what does not exist externally now?

There can be many can send the Buddha, it's when someone thinks, Oh, it once was mine, but is mine no more. Oh, it could be mine, but I do not get it then. The sorrow and the wail and the mend being in the breast and falling into confusion but it's a anxiety about what doesn't exist externally now. So whenever you grieve about a possession, maybe you had it in the past or maybe you want to get it and it is gone, that grieve is because you misunderstand the natural reality. It was never yours in the first place and what you thought it was yours. If you really understood the nature of these things you wouldn't grieve if it disappeared, sir.

This has come to a point of this, so again this idea of mine here underlie this idea of having anxiety about external things, external bahida, in other words things that are not directly related to your five cantas. There can be no anxiety about what does not exist externally now. It can make the cantas and the bahida. It's when someone does not think, oh, it was once mine, but is mine no more. Or it could be mine, but I do not get it then. The don sorrow, wail and the mend being in the breast and falling into confusion. That's how there is no anxiety about what does not exist externally now.

It's very simple, you just don't think like that. That's really all there is to it now. Can there be anxiety about what doesn't exist internally? Ajata, a jata literally means relate into oneself, relate into the other. There can be no cantas and the bahida. It is when someone has such a view. The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be permanent everlasting eternal, imperishable and will last forever and ever now.

The here the realized one or the disciple takes in the dhamma for the uprooting of all the grounds fixations, obsessions, insistencies and underlying tendencies regarding views.

For the stealing of all activities, the go of all attachments, the ending of craving, failing away, cessation and extinguishment. And they think, whoa, I am going to be annihilated and destroyed. I won't even exist anymore. The sorrow and wave in lament, beating the breast, falling into confusion. At this hour there is anxiety about what doesn't exist internally now. That's really powerful for that. The idea that there exists something that is permanent. And then you hear the teaching of the Buddha and you think people no longer exist. And when I say, whoa, that's actually through the translation by Bhaktasuddhara. That's not translated.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay, I can't take this anymore now. So this is, yeah, and this, of course, this is the problem, right? It is very challenging here. And I think for me, it has always been the case that I think for all of us probably that we expect spiritual teachings that if they are profound, they should be challenging. If they are not challenging here, if they don't do something to you, which really changes your view, your way of looking at things, and it's not really worthwhile. Yeah, it must be something really profound.

If someone the Buddha just discovered the same thing that other people had discovered before, the idea of the journey of mind, the idea of something going on afterwards, then the Buddha wouldn't really be that revolutionary. There's something about these things that are really out of the normal. Something very profound about that, and this to me, what makes them interesting there. Because it is kind of not really obvious at all. It doesn't really follow along with our design here. It's kind of to have you want to understand the world there. If you think that there is an eternal self that is the same as the cosmos, if that's what you think, it kind of flows naturally when you're departments.

It flows without craving. You want to exist, you want to live in a happy realm forever after. This is really a real challenge they have. When the Buddha says that his teachings are profoundly challenging, it must come from something else, something more profound. Something more profound ultimately, of course, turns out to be preferable. But it turns out to be really what this part, what life ultimately is about and what we really should be aiming for now. So something very interesting about this, and this idea that I want to even exist anymore is, of course, a natural feeling for people when they come across these teachings the first time back.

But can there be no anxiety about what doesn't exist internally there? The can, said the Buddha. It is when someone doesn't have such review, the cosmos and the self of one and the same. After death, I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever again. I have realized why all the disciples teach in the Dhamma for the uprooting of all the grounds, fixations, obsessions, insistencies, underlying tendencies regarding views, for the stealing of all activities, letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation and extinguishment. They don't think, wow, I am going to be annihilated and destroyed. I won't even exist anymore now.

So I want to sorrow, wail lament, beating the breast, falling into confusion there. But it's hard, there is no anxiety about what does not exist internally here. So, there's not left of this request, I'm not going to be able to go through everything. Tonight, I think maybe that might be a nice place to stop her. Does anyone want to comment or ask anything about this? No, there's a chance to clear all the doors. No, it's the time to come forward with your return with views. If you have any questions. So, anyone like to say anything? Does it make sense to anyone? Does it not make sense to anyone? Is it continued neutral to everyone? One thing I was wondering is people obviously do have a great desire to exist. Then why is it, I mean, there's lots of people who don't believe in an afterlife, don't believe in their soul, they're quite willing to believe that. Why do you think that's particularly important in the world? I think there's, I mean, there was obviously even at the time the Buddha, there were an eyelash list, right, that people who believed in my eyelash.And so there are some people who don't want to be reborn now, who want to be an eyeliner.

Now, I remember there was a Venable Dearman, so there's an English one who used to say before. And he was discussing this and he said to me, like that, he was speaking to his aunt, he was this, she was an old lady back then, 10, 20 years ago, and so he kind of had gone through the Second World War in Europe and he had seen so much suffering in her life. Some people had an enormous amount of suffering in their life. And so then he was talking to her, she was talking about all the difficulties, and she was like, oh, I'm kind of looking forward to dying.

And then he said to her, you might get reborn. I don't want to be people. I'm having that, right? I don't want to go through this again. This has kind of been such a difficult life. I'm hoping this would be the end of the time. And then there is, I think, a certain subset of people in the world who actually want to be enlightened, they don't want to carry on again as a huge share, right? There are people who want to enter. And so for them, these things and it kind of teaches you all the modern ideas of the kind of world coming in.

And when you die, they will become quite natural now. I think it's one aspect of it. I think it's something that I think is like, because it is kind of the intellectual, they kind of accept it ground, yeah? People will take that view even if it goes against a natural feeling. Because they would force themselves to accept something that is really difficult,

because they could kind of intellectual accept it then. Yeah, if you're going to be a real scientist, you know everything stops when you die. Yeah, so of course you have to follow that kind of view. I think maybe there's a mixture of those two things that might be going on there. So, yeah. You happy with that? Not entirely?

Yeah, I'm happy.

No, it's not entirely.

I'm happy.

I'm happy.

I'm happy.

I'm too happy.

It's right.

I can't.

It's a white bit of white.

Okay.

Good.

Anyone else want to say anything?

Last class?

Okay.

Okay.

I'm happy.

I'm happy.