|
Okay, so welcome back again. We are going to carry on with the Uppama-suta, the simile of the snake. Very kind of well-known-suta, well-known-similes. We had looked at the similes already, and we started looking at the long disposition, or the long kind of understanding of non-self, which follows after that. This is famous as one of the most important suitors on the idea of non-self. It goes through non-self from a large number of different views. And it starts off, as you may remember, with the not Arrita, who has this wrong view, that there's no problem with sensuality. And then, of course, the Buddha then goes into the idea of wrong view, the roots of this problem.
And of course, the root of the problem is always the sense of self. That seems to be the kind of how this suit holds together, the idea of the root cause for all of these issues and all of these kinds of views. And so, last time, we ended up by looking at the various kinds of anxiety you can have as a consequence of that wrong view of thinking that something exists either internally, externally, to yourself, but is somehow permanent and real. And then, when you don't have that view, you don't think of it in that way. Then, of course, you don't have that anxiety. So, it's basically saying, if you don't want to be anxious, get rid of the sense of self.
Maybe we should teach some psychologist about this idea, maybe that's kind of the path to happiness. Buddhism is really a psychology here. And this is kind of what I find so interesting here. I would always argue that you argue Buddhism is a religion, is it a philosophy, is it a psychology? You can argue a little bit from all those points of view.
But to me, the main thing of Buddhism is really a psychology. It's kind of the ultimate psychology, the psychology of happiness. And this is what we are really seeing here.
And so, for this reason, I think it has so much to say to the modern world, when all the mental illnesses, all the problems that everyone at me always have these problems anyway.
But the more we can kind of present Buddhism as something that is not contrary to secular society, but complementary to secular society, as this kind of psychology, I think is just a very powerful grounds for spreading this into the world and for people to accept it as something very, very powerful in their lives. Anyway, let us go on, follow up, carry on. We have again looked at this idea of how there is no anxiety about what doesn't exist internally. And of course, what doesn't exist internally is precisely the self that most people think or feel or experience as existing. And then the Buddha carries on with this kind of this variety of ways of looking at the idea of non-self.
And it says, mendicants, it would make sense to be possessive about something that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. But do you see any such possession? No, sir, good mendicants, I also can't see any such possession. So the idea here, if there is something that is permanent, you can grasp onto it. Yeah, it is no problem. If something actually exists in the real way, of course, you can grab onto things because then you will never actually be challenged by impermanence. Impermanence always challenges that sense of ownership. Nature takes things away from you. Nature is just impermanence itself, that's kind of the Buddhist idea of nature. And so this is kind of always the problem in Buddhism. The problem is always this combination on the one hand we attach to things. But the nature of the world is always unreliable, impermanent, problematic. And that's why there is ultimately suffering. This is why impermanence is so problematic.
We'll come to this further down later on when the Buddha has this standard kind of question and answer session with the monks. He says what is suffering is imperman, although that. But that is kind of at the root of this whole issue of why it is problematic. And it's interesting, I noticed that sometimes people will argue, you can see this kind of dodgy arguments on the Internet of course, and elsewhere, the argument is that sometimes impermanence is good, because suffering goes and you feel happy afterwards. So surely impermanence isn't always bad. How can we say impermanence is bad? But that's kind of misunderstanding the issue.
Because if impermanence is good, it means that there was a problem to begin with. Otherwise impermanence wouldn't be good. So that shows you that there is already a problem right there. So that is only part of the problem, that there is actual suffering.
And then that is what makes impermanence good in a certain way here. But the deeper point is that whatever there is in the world, the reason why impermanence is so problematic is because we tend to grasp onto things. And sometimes you even grasp onto suffering. Yeah, this is kind of the problem. Sometimes people don't want to get rid of it. They don't want to let go of some kind of negative feeling they have.
Ajahn Brahm tells the very interesting story. He gives these talks all the time to the Cancer Association in Perth, the Solaris or whatever they call that. And he said that one year when he was there, he gave this about how to stop grieving, right? And because people die, obviously from cancer and all these kinds of things. And then this lady came up to him afterwards, don't take away my grief is what she said. And he just couldn't believe it. What do you mean don't take away my grief? And this is the idea when you get sort of attached to it because it is part of your personality.
You can't let go of it anymore. It doesn't matter if it's suffering or happiness. It is something that you're holding onto, it becomes your identity. And that is the problem with impermanence. These are things that we identify with. Ownership is one of those things. Ownership is just an extension of the sense of self. And then when you take away what you own, then of course it's problematic. I think as I mentioned last time, you can see the Buddha talks here about ownership. The next thing he talks about is the grasping, the doctrines of self. Last time we had the idea of this is I am this. It's identifying with something here. And that these things kind of come in a certain sequence. I don't think it is random.
Nothing in the suit as it's really random. And I think for many people the most obvious and immediate way to know that you have a sense of self is precisely through ownership. Monkeys, animals have a sense of ownership. If you try to steal something from monkey, he will take it back. So it is already there. And from that you can deduce or infer that the monkey also will have a sense of self. Because that is actually what drives that sense of ownership right there. So a sense of self is very immediate. And then comes the more advanced ideas of self. Yeah, I am this which takes a little bit of contemplation to know exactly what it is that you take to be yourself.
And I think this matches on also with the spiritual path. When you start out on the spiritual path, the main thing that we have, most people in society have, is this immediate sense of ownership. Yeah, everyone has that. But then as you, and that is of course what the sensual realm is about. The sensual realm is largely about ownership.
Things, people, status, all of these kind of things. But then as you start to let go a little bit of the sensory realm, and you have a little bit of success in your meditation,
you start to identify more with the inner qualities. Why? Well, because they are more stable, they are more easily accessible, they are not as vulnerable as the world outside.
And they are just more beautiful. So of course, that is where we then start to think in terms of I am this. And then if you go really profound, you kind of get into the very deep samadis, like the genres and that sort of thing. That is where you get into ideas like this is myself, because it becomes so attractive that you want, basically, you are driven by craving to want this forever. And as a consequence, you create the theory that this is the real me, the Jana state is the real me. So I think it is related here to some extent to the depth of meditation that you have. And you are kind of moving through these various ways of identity, the most basic one being ownership.
Then I am maybe this feeling that I get in meditation, and ultimately this is the real me, this is the self, as you deepen into meditation. Of course, all of these exist at all times to some extent, but the power will vary depending on where you are on the path. So there are different expressions of the sense of self, possessiveness being the most fundamental one. These are just my papansha, so don't take it too seriously. It is not that the Buddha doesn't say it, but usually everything in the sutra is structured in a certain way. So I think it is reasonable to see it somehow like this.
And then the Buddha says it would make sense to grasp a doctrine of self that didn't give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness and distress. But do you see any such doctrine of self? No sir, good mendicants, I also can't see any such doctrine of self.
So a doctrine of self that does not give rise to sorrow, lamentation and despair, that of course is a doctrine which is based on reality. If it is based on reality, the doctrine will not get challenged. This is the Atavada, Atavada Upadana, Atavada Grasping, what is Grasping here? Let's have a quick look because I have the partly right here.
Usually Atavada Upadana, but Yeah, Atavada Upadana, exactly. So it's basically the second, the definition of Upadana in the dependent origination is the same one there.
So doctrines of self, right? So if you have a doctrine of self, that will get challenged by impermanence. And that's why it is not a good idea to have a doctrine of a self. But if there is such a thing as a permanent entity, something that is the real you, then of course you can have a doctrine of self because then the doctrine you have will match reality. And when the doctrine matches the reality, then you are fine.
It will never get challenged. You can be happy with that doctrine. It won't be a problem. And so this is I think a very interesting point, a very important point, which is sometimes one of the things that I hear sometimes when you argue with people or you discuss with people who want to call it, is this idea that there is some kind of existent reality. And that actually the idea of non-self in the sutas is such a strategy. It's a strategy to develop the path. But it doesn't say anything about whether there is a real reality somewhere else behind it.
But here the Buddha is saying, well actually if there is such a reality behind it somewhere, it is okay to have that view. It's okay to have that doctrine. In other words he is saying that this whole idea that this is just a strategy actually doesn't make any sense because if there is a reality, you can have the doctrine. If there is no such reality, well then that is when you shouldn't have the doctrine. Yes, this should be a matching with what the world is like, with how you approach the world, how the kind of meditation techniques, the contemplations that you use should match the underlying reality. There shouldn't be a difference. Non-self is just not a strategy.
It is also pointing to the reality that there isn't a fundamental permanent thing, inherent thing that you can rely on. So little things like this are actually interesting in terms of, you know, because the problem in the world, and you find this all the time wherever you go, it is always the same problem. People want to find a sense of self somehow. They will kind of try to find this in the suitors. It is such a powerful drive in human beings that you will always find, you know, you always have closed new loopholes. There is always new loopholes kind of showing up and new ways of thinking about it.
And some people are very sophisticated. They will come up with this amazing kind of scenario.
And then you have to kind of somehow figure out what they are talking about. And so these are the sort of things that really, that kind of closes off all of those possibilities.
So that is why that makes no sense to have this Atavadu Padana. You cannot hold on to something because if you grasp on to something, if you are grasped at doctrine, it will eventually get challenged and then it will suffer as a consequence. And then what goes on is it would make sense to rely on a view that didn't give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness and distress.
But do you see any such view to rely on? No sir. Good men against, I also can't see any such view to rely on. So here we have the idea of relying on a view. The Pali is nissitta. It literally means that you are leaning on it. Yeah? You are kind of, this is something that your sense of self is kind of tied up with. That you are kind of, you are using in your life. We have to have views. This is kind of one of the kind of interesting things about how we work as human beings. You have to have views. Views are one of the supports for a human being.
And it's impossible to give up all views unless you are an area because then you know the reality is no longer a view. Then it's like a reality, you know what's going on. But the holding on to views, it's really one of the required, one of the necessary consequences of being a human being. So you're going to have to have views. And so here you rely on that view. So can you find a view that you can rely on that it doesn't give sorrow to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness and distress? But here we're talking about obviously views that are not for the Aryans, but for a view that is grasped. Yeah, that's the grasping that is the problem because the grasping will always be challenged.
That's where you get into arguments and things. And so you don't want to grasp any views. Basically what are they saying? Not 100% sure what is meant to you, what it means grasping any view or it means relying on wrong views. It's not entirely clear. But it doesn't say wrong views. So presumably it means grasping any kind of view really.
So again, you don't want to avoid that. What happened now? Oops, sorry, it lost. Yeah, so, okay. So all of this is about the idea that you cannot really hold on to any ideas that relate to a sense of self in any way. And if you do that, you have a problem.
One of the interesting things that I kind of touched on a little bit last time is this idea when people say that when you enter a state of Samadhi, in that state ther is no sense of self. And for that reason, a Samadhi state is a non-self state. So it actually fulfills the kind of Buddhist idea of non-self. This is kind of one of these arguments. And so then they will say that not only state of Samadhi, but any kind of state that exists in a certain way, because there is no sense of self there, whether it's Samadhi or the claim, it's outside of Samadhi, whatever the call it is, whether it's the claim it is. It fulfills the criteria of non-self because there is no sense of self in there.
But what is interesting, I think, about these things is that if you, the same people, they don't like the idea of cessation. Because if you see, it seems kind of pointless, right? But they do like the idea of continued existence in a certain way. And so then you have to ask them, why do you like this idea of some sort of existence? And the idea, of course, is that somehow you are involved in that existence. Otherwise, it's the same as cessation. If you have no involvement with that existence, then it is the same thing as cessation. So somehow you are projecting into that that you are continuing to exist in a certain way. Otherwise, the whole idea doesn't make any sense.
And so from this you can actually see that anyone who is talking about some kind of existence in the future, beyond arahanship, whatever, it is always relates somehow to the sense of self inside. Otherwise, that whole idea doesn't make any sense anymore,
and you might as well call talking about cessation anyway. So this is, I think, important to recognize. But the idea of some future existence always must relate ultimately to a feeling or wanting to exist somehow. If you say it is completely non-self, it is completely nothing to do with you, it is really equivalent to cessation in the first place.
Anyway, I'm not sure if you understand a little bit of what I'm talking about. If you don't, if what I say makes absolutely no sense, then maybe I am too blame for that.
So anyway, let's move on. Mendekins, where a self to exist, would there be the thought belonging to myself? Yes, sir. Where what belongs to a self to exist, would there be the thought myself? Yes, sir. So the important point here is to say really that if there is a self, then there is the thought belonging to myself. So in other words, if you, as long as you feel that this is mine, whatever it might be, don't touch my computer,
I mean, I actually mean that. No, I don't mean that. Whatever. As long as you have the sense of self, you know that the sense of belonging, rather, the sense of ownership, you know that what underlies that is also a wrong view of reality.
And so sometimes you can actually check yourself. Do you get upset if someone takes anything from you? Yes, is that really a problem? If someone claims to be enlightened, but they're holding on to the property, well, they're not going to be enlightened there, because these are two sides of the same coin.
Yes, you may think that you have understood it on set, but you haven't actually.
And one of those kind of interesting things that you find of the arrogance in the suit, as if you looked at the, I think, is in the Mahabharata Gauta suit, Magimani Kais 73, it talks about some of the qualities of the arrogance.
And there's a list of qualities that don't have any of the five hindrances. I think it is. That's what it is. I can't remember that.
But the last one of the qualities there, which is interesting, is that they cannot live the house or life and store up goods as they did before.
Yes, because the whole idea of storing up goods is a sign of ownership. Yes, you're storing them up. That means you own them.
But the arrowhead isn't capable of storing up goods in that way. And that's precisely why they can't be householders in an ordinary sense. They can't store things up for the future. And that is kind of the sign that ownership has completely gone. This idea that you own things is no longer there. You don't store things up. You don't control the world outside. You have completely let go of that. And so this is, I think, what is kind of what you see here, the idea of themselves coming together with the idea of ownership. And as long as there is a sense of self, there will always be ownership. Yeah? Sense of self always leads to ownership, to some extent.
Of course, the deeper you go on meditation, as I mentioned before, the less that ownership will really tend to manifest. You don't think about ownership so much anymore because your sense of self is mostly directly inwards. It's easy to renounce the five-sense world. There will still be some sense of self to some extent. But generally speaking, because our experience of the world, because of our perceptions, our feelings relate to the world outside, it depends on how other people treat you, what kind of food you get. Because of that, the sense of self leads us into the world because we take our perceptions as part of our sense of self very often.
Yeah? And so that means that the external world will affect our internal world. And so that is why the idea of ownership becomes so important. The sense of self always leads to ownership because the external world and the inner world cannot really be distinguished properly. They're really part of the same package. It is about our perceptions and feelings, etc. All right. So, yeah, so where what belongs to a self to exist would there be the thought, myself? Yes sir. But since a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found is not the following a totally foolish teaching. 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.
How could it not be, sir? It is a totally foolish teaching, yeah? Anyway, I kind of like that. So, but the main point here, yeah, what is self and what belongs to a self are not actually found, yeah? And the Pali here is interesting. It is translated differently by different people. What does Bikubodi have again? He has apprehended us true and established, not apprehended as true and established, which I think is very vague. What does it mean? Not apprehended as true and as true. It's kind of very hard to really get your head around what that means. But if you say it is not actually found, which is a chance of a judge's translation, it is far more clear what is meant. It is saying that a self is not actually found. And if you look at the Pali word behind this, this comes from the Pali word Upalabati, which means to attain or reach or gain something.
And this is the negative of that, so it cannot be obtained. And if you see how this word is used in the suit, it means basically cannot be found. It doesn't exist. That is kind of quite obviously what it means. And so that is really the right translation. And then you have Satchato and Tetato, which are really as according to truth, according to reality. It is not found according to truth and reality. So maybe what that means is that there is some kind of conventional sense of self, the kind of the idea that we are separate individuals, but it's not a true and existing inherent reality.
That's what this kind of really comes down to. And is it not a totally foolish teaching here? And it's kind of, what is the Pali for that? Bala dama, bala kehvala paripud, or bala dama, it means utterly complete foolish teaching. The Bala is the opposite of the wiser. So it actually means the foolish person here. So the Buddha has a very high bar to be cleared, if not to be considered a fool. The vast majority of people in the world, 99.999% would be considered fools according to this. And how many wise people are there in the world? I don't know, five. No, maybe I'm exaggerating. Not many, right? We're talking about a very small number. We're talking really only about the areas. Maybe those who are Buddhist have a leaning in the right direction, often they don't.
Maybe sometimes they do, but really it is only the areas who have this kind of understanding. This whole idea of the self and the world being the same, this is of course the way that in ancient India, how they talked about the deep samadis, the jhanas and these kinds of things. So it is foolish from one perspective, but from another perspective it is also very profound. So it's kind of fascinating here. So setting the bar very, very high here. So now we come to the more standard way that the Buddha teaches non-self, and he teaches the three characteristics throughout the suttas.
This is what we get now. This is found in many, many places. And you will recognize this straight.
This is what we chant in the reigns of the street every year. The Anatulakkina suta, which is the other suta that really focuses on non-self. And so the Buddha says, what do you think Mandikans? Is form permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, sir. But if it's impermanent, is it suffering or happiness? Suffering, sir. But if it is impermanent, suffering and perishable, is it fit to be regarded? Thus, this is mine, I am this, this is not myself. No, sir. So as always, the Buddha starts off with a rupa. Form here is obviously a rupa. So is form. What does rupa actually mean? Form is kind of a convenient word because it kind of combines the various ideas of rupa, because rupa is what you see with the eye, is also what you feel with the body.
Form is things. But often it just means appearance. And one of the things that we attach to as human beings, we attach to our appearance. You look yourself in the mirror, you recognize it's you, that's me, straight to where you have an appearance. And that appearance is changeable. And because we attach to that appearance, changeability is a problem. It causes issues, obviously. That is what really, really, I think this is about right here. Appearance, I think, is a more easy translation to understand. And so you, because your appearance, because you attached to your appearance to some extent, then when it changes, you're sorrow and lament. You go to get plastic surgery here. Yeah, you go to get Botox.
You go to kind of get makeup. Not if you're a monk, I hope. But as soon as I wonder if any monastics have got kind of Botox jobs. I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised if there are some kind of vein monastics around who would do that. That kind of really is counter to the whole monastic life, right? If you do that then. But I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe we should check out on some kind of monks and Botox or something like that. Search for that. See. Do you want to inject something in your form? It's not the way around. Okay, that's a good idea. The anti-botox. That's a good idea. Yeah.
But yeah. You can wise it when you're all. That's right. But anyway, I mean, it's very easy to recognize why this is a problem in the world and how everyone kind of has to deal with it.
So form is impermanent, changing. And unless you're ready for it, you're going to get a slow kind of, it's a slow train crash, the body. And because it is impermanent, it is suffering. It is not happiness. As I mentioned before, it is not happiness just because sometimes you go from suffering to non-suffering. It doesn't mean that change is happiness. It just means that there's already suffering, right? And then because it is impermanent and it is suffering and it's perishable, it is not fit to be regarded as this is mine. I am this, this is myself. Why? Because it will always let you down. It will always be problematic. And this is why the whole idea of the contemplation of impermanence is so powerful.
It is one of the most basic contemplations. It is not very hard. Yeah, it's easy to see impermanence around us. But actually allowing it to sink deeply down psychologically. That is the hard part. But if you can do that, then of course it tends to overcome this whole sense of ownership, the whole sense of I am this and all of these kinds of things. And so the contemplation of impermanence is ultimately said to be the contemplation. It overcomes the Asmi-man Anusaya. Asmi-man, Asmi-ayam, Mahana, Pray, the conceit, Anusaya, the underlying tendency. It overcomes the underlying tendency to the conceit, I am. So that is the power of such a simple contemplation. It's kind of fascinating. Anyway, let's move on to the other four Kundas.
What you think, Mandikens, is feeling permanent or impermanent. Impermanence, sir.
But if it is impermanent, is it suffering or happiness? It is suffering, sir. But if it is impermanent, suffering imperishable is a fit to be regarded. Thus, this is mine. I am this. This is myself. No, sir. Yeah, feelings are very impermanent, but still we grasp onto them. That's why we, there's a double suffering when you suffer. First of all, you lose your happiness that you thought was yours granted to be yours. Also, you suffer for the obvious reason that the feeling is suffering. There's a double problem. I don't know. Sometimes you will have noticed. It's kind of very obvious sometimes. You feel that suddenly, now I understand how it works. Now I've got my meditation, now I understand how meditation works.
You just have to let go there. And the next day, you can't do it. You think you understand how it works. You think that now you have achieved some kind of higher understanding of the path. And then you come back. You kind of take one step back again before you move forward. And this is this idea of, and then the moment you think you have understood, you tend to grasp on a little bit to that. You hold on to a little bit. And that's why it's always extra painful when you lose that happiness afterwards. I'm sure most of you have been there. I've been there many times anyway.
So if no one else then I make me feel very lonely, but that's okay. I can deal with that.
And so feelings are utterly unreliable. You get into Jana state. That is why people are so desperate often to get back to Samadhi later on, because they find that incredibly powerful bliss. And of course that can lead to problems afterwards. This is one of the few things that you find in the suttas, where the Buddha says that it's problematic, can be problematic with the Janas. That after you come out of them, you grasp onto the bliss. And the reason it is problematic is not because the grasping, but it's because you cannot get back into the Jana again. That is why it's problematic.
And that is very interesting because a different way of thinking about that from what you normally understand, where by just the attachment itself is considered a problem.
So lots of various kinds of feelings from the most ordinary one down to the more profound ones, and all of them have the same kind of issue obviously. So ultimately they're not self. There's a very nice discussion about how feeling cannot be self is found in the Mahaniddhana Suttadhi G-A-15, where they talk about what I specifically talks about, their feelings and how they cannot be not self. I think it's not Suttad. I think it's there. Then we have perceptions, are non-self. First of all, perceptions are impermanent, then because they are impermanent, they are suffering, because they are suffering and impermanent,
they should not be regarded as, this is mine, I am, this is mine, this is mine. So it's not self. Yeah, perceptions, similarly kind of thing again. You can see this some days, you kind of feel slightly different on some days. Some days you feel a certain way, another day you feel a bit differently. One day you get up in the morning, you don't, is this me? I can just feel quite like me today, or maybe some of the days you feel really so.
This feels like the real me, when your mind really comes together and you feel kind of happy and well. And you can see how you again, these are perceptions that kind of give rise to how you hold on to these things.
And again, as you meditate, as you deepen that mind, you would then grasp, tend to grasp on to those deep aspects of perception as you go along, ultimately taking again the jhanas themselves. And all the way along is the same problem, the problem holding on to these things. And you always get disappointed as you see this. So all of these things have the same issue to them. Then we have the choices, as Bantasudrata calls it, these are the Sankaras, and they are also impermanent, suffering and on self. And so what does it mean? That choices are impermanent. It's kind of a bit strange, right? Because you choose new things all the time. So of course they are impermanent in one way.
But I think what it means, I think it means two different things. It means first of all, choices are impermanent in the sense that you are changing what you enjoy in the world. You will choose new things. You think that you are kind of at one point you are attached to a certain house, if you live in a house. Later on you sell that house and you get attached to the new one. Your choice has changed what you are attached to change. And the same thing can happen in so many different ways. So for example, if you look at people, people get very attached obviously in relationships, but also to houses. But when you start to think about it, you have had how many lives in the past, where you have been in relationships, where you had a nice house or whatever, and you were attached.
Now it is irrelevant, right? But now instead we are attached to something else. Sometimes you do. So it is like when you start to look at in this kind of broader context, you see all those attachments in the past life. Two houses, two relationships, two belongings, two status, whatever it is. It is all gone. And it is meaningless now.
And so the attachments that you have right now in this life, in your next life, they will be meaningless. And when you start to think of it like that, the attachments seem kind of hollow. There is nothing there. Why do we attach to people? Why do we get into these relationships? When they are so empty here, there is nothing to hold on to. We had billions in the past. Now they are completely meaningless. And it is kind of a beautiful way of thinking about these ideas. Your choice is what you hold on to, is always changing, always moving on to something else.
So your choice is right now. Actually, they are far less solid, far less interesting than what we sometimes make them out to be here. So this is like the first way in which choices are impermanent. And I think that is kind of in its own right, quite interesting.
But then you have the idea, of course, that choice is impermanent. And this is what you hear from Ajahn Brahm all the time. You can obviously know this from your meditation as well, that the choice is all the Sankara as they die down in meditation. When your mind is more peaceful, it means less choice, less Sankara, less will, less intention going on, less effectively what it means. And so choices are impermanent, means that the will dies down, dies down, dies down, until it is completely gone.
And that is, of course, when you really understand impermanence of choices. And that is where it undermines the whole idea of choices. Sankara is being a self, because if it can cease completely, it cannot also be a self. Because at that point, you have no longer access to choices, and those things that you have not have access to cannot be a sense of self. So these are two ways in which Sankara's or choices are impermanent and unreliable. And I think both of them are, all of these are kind of kind of interesting here. And so, yeah. Okay, the last one, Vinyana, consciousness is non-self. Obviously the most profound of these. Consciousness is impermanent, it is suffering, and it is non-self. What does that mean?
Well, it means that consciousness is composed of six classes of consciousness. The talk in the suit is about the Vinyana Kaya. Yeah, the word Kaya again, which you often call the body, but here it just means a class. Classes of consciousness. And what that means, that there are six classes, means that they are completely separate. They have completely separate existences. They don't overlap with each other, right? So when there is one consciousness, the other one is not there. And so consciousness, in that sense, is impermanent. There is no underlying consciousness, there is always present. And so there is no underlying self that is always there. Of course, this is where it starts to get very profound, but that is the idea with this sort of, this acquisition that Buddha has here, this sort of Q&A session, to kind of start you to get think about these things. So when you come to that point, you are ready, you have the information is ready, and then you can actually take it further in here.
So that is the standard exposition that we see in the five of the five Khandas in the suit. The Buddha talks about them in terms of the three characteristics, and a very, very common way of talking about this. And then when you do this contemplation, then the Buddha says, seeing this, a learned, noble, disciple grows disillusioned with appearance, disillusioned with feeling, disillusioned with perception, disillusioned with choices, and disillusioned with consciousness. This illusion here is Nibbida, and I think we could probably use a stronger word, I would use a version. A version means that you are repelled by it, you don't want to turn away from it. It's like the famous symbol in the suit as if you have a feather, and if you put a feather towards a naked flame, the feather will tend to turn back.
In the same way the mind turns back from these things of the world. So it has a sense of aversion towards it. It's like, oh, can't unbear, not angry, but a sense of the unbearableness of the dukkha, so you turn away from it. So disillusioned, maybe, but I prefer kind of Ajahn Brahm's slightly stronger use of words. I think that is certainly just to five, at least from some suit. So you are disillusioned with the five khandas, because you are disillusioned, desire fades away, Virajati, yeah, the creating away of desire, when desire fades away, that means craving stops. You are freed, freedom in Buddhism is the freedom from craving, yeah. When they are freed, they know they are freed. They understand rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed.
What had to be done has been done. There is no return to any state of existence.
So that is the consequence of practicing this kind of contemplation all the way to the end, you become an Arahant. And now we have a whole section, the suit still goes on a little bit further. We have a whole section on similes, a metaphor for the Arahant. These are metaphors that may be a little bit difficult to understand in the present day, but we have a quick look at them and see what the Buddha has to say here. The Buddha says, such a mendicant is one who is called, one who has lifted the crossbar, one who has filled in the moat, one who has pulled up the pillar, one who is unbarred, and also a noble one with banner lowered and burden dropped, detached.
How has a mendicant raised the crossbar? It is when a mendicant has given up ignorance, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump obliterated, so it is unable to rise again in the future. That is how a mendicant has lifted the crossbar. So the point I think Madasu Jata makes here, I think it is obviously correct, is that all of these similes that we are dealing with here, they have some idea of being trapped. If you are, if you have a crossbar, a crossbar is something that is used to hold, stop you from going somewhere, from holding a door into place, they put a crossbar on the door. And so all of these things have to do with being entrapped, and now you have removed the entrapment, and that is really what these things are about.
And so I think that is exactly the point, and one of these entrapments is ignorance. Yeah, ignorance is precisely a crossbar, it stops you from being free and all these kinds of things, and then you lift the crossbar. Exactly why ignorance is a crossbar? Not sure. Yeah, not sure exactly why that is the case. There could be something cultural, or whatever, not sure about that. And how has a mendicant filled in the moat? Everyone knows what a moat is. A moat is like this channel you dig around something and you feel that it is water so people can't cross. It is when a mendicant has given up transmigrating through birds in future lives, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated, so it is unable to rise in the future. That is how mendicant has filled in the moat.
So again, you are trapped in samsara and you need to get out. The moat means that you can't get out. So when you have filled in the moat, then you can obviously leave. I guess that is the idea here. You are no longer confined in samsara existence inside this kind of castle. There is this castle on this island with a moat around it. You thought it was safe, but actually you were in prison all this time. Now you can let it all be behind and you can go again. Let's go to the end. I kind of the new potlitus policy here. And yeah, so all of these things have to do with entrapment in a certain way.
I don't know if you saw there was a kind of little magazine that was recently published in Sydney when I was in Brahms over there called Enlightened Times. That is the one exactly visual times. It has that story that Ajahn Brahm wrote a long time ago about Harry Han who was in prison. One day he finds this tunnel, ancient tunnel, that tunnel was done by Zak Yamuni. Zak Yamuni a long time ago. When he saw the tunnel, what did he think? He was like, yeah, good on you Zak Yamuni. We are taking this tunnel or something. It was a nice story. I would recommend you have a reader, but if you haven't read it already here. So this is a similar kind of idea of entrapment.
You find this kind of going through and through the Buddhist discourses and also the way Ajahn Brahm teaches. How has Amenek been pulled up the pillar? It is when Amenek has given up craving, cut it off at the root, made it like a pasta stump, obliterated it, so it's unable to arise in the future. That is how Amenek has pulled up the pillar here. And the idea here could be that the pillar is used to bind people or bind animals. They are like elephants or whatever. And if you pull it up, there's no longer that binding. It's no longer there, obviously. Amenek, how is Amenek un-bide?
It is when Amenek has given up the five lower fetters, cut them off at the root, made them like a pasta stump, obliterated them so that they're unable to arise in the future.
That is how Amenek is un-bide.
And I think that is a wrong translation. It's not un-bide. It is more like un-gated or un-dored. The door has been opened. The gate has been opened. That is really the meaning. The meaning is angala. It occurs in the Vinayapitika. And it's one of the words that I wrote a long note on because in the Vinayapitika, this is one of the ideas that Ajahn Brahm often talks about. The idea that when you read the Vinayya, you see words in the ordinary meaning. When you see them in the ordinary meaning, they're kind of easy to understand what they mean. But in the sutas, you've found the metaphorical meanings and meanings that are more abstract and more kind of theoretical.
So you start with the practical meaning and then you can understand the metaphors and the abstractions in the sutas. I think that is a very kind of... Ajahn Brahm has always made this point. I think it's an interesting point to make. And so Adasuduato needs to correct this one. And in fact, I wrote to him this afternoon because I noticed that this afternoon. And so now hopefully in the next version of Sita Central, he will have corrected this very serious mistake. He probably makes absolutely no difference with un-bought and dored. But you have to kind of stand on your principles. How is a mendicant a noble one with banner lowered and burdened dropped detached? It is when a mendicant has given up the conceit I am, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it so it's unable to rise in the future.
That is how a mendicant is a noble one with banner lowered and burdened dropped detached. This is kind of, I think, a fairly obvious what this means. If you have given up the conceit I am, you have lowered the banner. The banner is like saying who you are, right? I am here, the banner of me, the kind of how we kind of like to exist in the world. How we kind of express ourselves, we want to be somebody. That's kind of the banner that we hold up. But lowering the banner and then giving up the burden, the burden of course, in the suitors is the five pandas. So giving up the attachment to the five pandas also means giving up the sense of I am.
And then you don't have that banner anymore. And some of the things I find most inspiring is sometimes when you hear the stories of the Arahants, what they actually are like, how they are as people. It's always very kind of, I don't know, something very powerful about that image of the Arahants. And one of the image that always comes to my mind is Ajahn Brahm talks about his time in Thailand. And he would wander around and he would meet some of the greatest meditation masters. And one of the things he talks about is when he made Ajahn Tate. You probably have heard this story many times before, but I remember I was actually transcribing those talks, so they really kind of made an impact on me.
And when it comes to his monastery, and he walks into the hall, and Ajahn Tate is in the hall, but when Ajahn Brahm walks in, he doesn't see him and is about to go out again. And he says, wait a minute, wasn't there someone in there? And then he looks inside, and then he sees Ajahn Tate in the corner over there. And he realizes that the reason why he didn't see him is because he's not making anything out of himself. He kind of just fades into the woodwork, fades into the bricks, you can't see people because they have no interest in kind of being anyone or doing anything. They actually prefer just to fade away in this way. Something very beautiful about that.
The person who has incredible wisdom, has the ability to understand what human life really is about, but they don't care about being anyone. They're quite happy, actually much happier just to be by themselves and kind of fade into the woodwork. Okay, they are available if you can see them. If you're able to see them at the back of the hall, then they will be available for you. But you have to be sharp to be able to see them.
You have to understand a little bit about what it means to be in Arahanta. The banner is lowered. You fade into the woodwork. It's like, and you're very, very happy in that way. Okay, then the Buddha says, when a mendicant's mind was freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahma and the progenitor, that would be Prabhupāda.
How do you say this? Prabhupāda is not correct, Prabhupāda.
I'm getting my syllables kind of confused.
Prabhupāda.
Prabhupāda.
Prabhupāda in Sanskrit, so that's what I use.
Prabhupāda.
Prabhupāda.
Prabhupāda.
It literally means the Lord of the generation of the people. That's what it means. Prabhupāda. So, when these, and so these are kind of the highest gods, the highest beings in, according to the Buddhist universe, search as they may. They will not discover. This is the basis of that realized one's consciousness. Why is that? Because even in the present life that realized one is not found, I say. So, this is an interesting little phrase and it's difficult to know exactly what is meant by this. And some people have argued that what this refers to, the consciousness, the basis for the consciousness is not found. They will not discover the basis for consciousness.
Some people argue this means after the Arahant passed away here, because then there is no consciousness and so there is no basis for consciousness. They would say that in this life, because there is consciousness, there must be a basis for consciousness because all consciousness exists because it is supported by something, by namarupa. So, there is a basis. The alternative explanation is that this refers to the living Arahant. And the basis of consciousness here refers to that which consciousness leans on in this particular life. And the consciousness of an Arahant doesn't lean on anything. The Pali word here is nissitta. Nissitta means to rely on and lean on something.
And it is used in the sutas together with the word Upadhyatihi, which means it is a verbal form of Upadhana, which means to hold on to or cling on to. So, my personal preference is to understand this to mean that even in this particular life, the consciousness of the Arahant does not lean on anything. It is liberated from holding on to anything. And for that reason, the gods cannot see that which those Arahants actually lean on. But it is not the interpretation. It is not entirely clear. And I think when Vassunya might have a difference, it is not clear. So, he might have a different understanding, but it is slightly hard to really understand. Anyway, that is because even in the present life, the realized one is not found, I say.
So, even in the present life, this of course comes back to this very idea that even in the present life, you cannot point to anything who is the realized one. So, even in the present life, the target is the word here. There is nothing that this is the target. Even in the present life, everything is impermanent and unreliable. So, how can you say that something exists afterwards, even in this life? No one is there. So, this is the same argument as you find in the Yamakasuta. The Yamakasuta in the Kanda-Sanguta 2281 or something like that. It is five, maybe, makes this argument. In this present life, you cannot point to any particular person being there. You are not the form, you are not all of these things, you are not the combination of these things, nor are you anything outside of these things. So, if you don't exist now, what sense does it make to say that you exist afterwards?
This is the same kind of argument that you see here. It is a very powerful argument. The Yamakasuta is a very powerful one there. Then, the Buddha carries on him. I am going to finish the Sutra to the rest, so please bear with me, because otherwise we are going to be too long here. The Buddha says, though I state and assert this, certain ascetics and brahmines misrepresent me with false, hollow, lying, untruthful claims. The ascetic gautama is an exterminator. He advocates the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being. I have been falsely misrepresented as being what I am not, and saying what I do not say.
In the past, as today, what I describe is just suffering and the cessation of suffering. This being so, if others abuse, attack, harass, and trouble, the realized one, he doesn't get resentful, bitter, or emotionally exasperated. So, again, this idea that many people call the Buddha an annihilationist. I would again argue that that is a very important point. It means that it is very unlikely that he would have taught some kind of underlying reality or existence, because then you would not have that label an annihilationist. Every 140 was known. Actually, you find this in a number of places in the suttas where they complain about the Buddha in this way. And then he has this very famous statement, what I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering here.
There is an argument in that there is a small word in there in the Pali Eva. One of the questions that I have arisen is, does this mean what I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering, or does it mean what I describe is just suffering and the cessation of suffering here? These are two quite different ideas. If you say, I teach suffering and the cessation of it, sure. But if you say, I teach just suffering and the cessation of suffering, it is actually a much more powerful statement. And I think, and this was an argument, Bikubodi has argued that the just should be taken out, because it doesn't fit the context. And then Venable Sunnyo was the one who argued that actually no the just should be put back in again.
And he made a very powerful argument. And he really is into this kind of anatar discussions, this kind of his speciality. And I think that he is right. The just should actually put in there again. And sometimes you have to be very careful, because sometimes you get very powerful translator, just as Bikubodi. And when he makes that kind of argument, he actually changes his mind. It's very easy to be caught along with those ideas. And you have to really know your structure of the Pali and the grammar to really be able to see these things rightly. But it makes quite a large difference, right? Because if you Dutch teach suffering and the ending of suffering, and in relation, this is always in relation to the ideas of self and the ideas of permanence and this kind of thing. This is the relation here. If that is all you teach, it kind of kind of whittles down the dhamma to a very kind of clear idea of what the dhamma is about.
The dhamma is about a problem, suffering and the overcoming of a problem, the end of suffering. And that's really all that is about. And that makes very good sense to me here, in the context of annihilationism and permanence and these kind of views of the world. So I'm getting very technical now, but I think these things are really interesting and important. And unless we kind of bring out these little details of the dhamma and we bring them out properly, these are the kind of things that get lost over time. And as you do that, it dilutes the dhamma over time. And it makes it actually more and more problematic to retrieve the message later on.
So these little things are actually very important. And to make this argument, especially when you have a whole of people on the other side, making permanence, eternalist arguments, it's actually you have to be careful here. So the Buddha does not get, if other people harass, abuse and trouble with the target, he does not get resentful, bitter or emotionally exasperated. Or if others, this is still the Buddha speaking, if others honor, respect, revere and venerate him, he doesn't get thrilled, elated and emotionally excited. If they praise him, he just thinks. They do such things for me regarding what in the past was completely understood. So this is the idea that all there is are the five aggregates.
And when they praise you, they just praise in a particular constellation of these five aggregates. What are these five aggregates? They are conditioned phenomena. They come into existence through causing conditions in the past. So if you do something nice to somebody, it's just because of causing conditions. There's no need for you to take any kind of pride in that or to take the credit for that. Same thing if you've done something bad. If you've done something bad, forgive yourself for goodness sake. This is a conditioned response to your life. You don't mistake it. So you forgive yourself. It is just the five khandas. Once they have been understood, you understand the conditionality. You understand that the way that the khandas express themselves in the world, whether it's good or bad, is not really your problem.
It is because of causing conditions. And so if you get praise or blame, you shrug your shoulders. Just causing conditions in the world, expressing themselves in a certain way.
So we're coming towards the end. So many can. If others abuse, attack, harass and trouble you, don't make yourself resentful, bitter and emotionally exasperated. Or if others honor, revere, respect and venerate you, don't make yourself thrilled, elated or emotionally excited. If they praise you, just think. They do such things for us regarding what in the past was completely understood.
This is slightly strange because that sort of assumes everyone is narrow-hat there. You know, they should think this. And the version in Chinese characters is actually different here. And it has a more, probably a more acceptable reading than the Pali. The Pali is a bit stranger. And people have pointed this out. And the Pali one just says that, you should know, the one in Chinese that says that you should not hold on to, actually I think I have the commentary here. Yeah, one reflects that it is due to past deeds, that one gets abused, and being praised, one reflects that it is due to present knowledge or whatever elimination of defilements. So it's more like a natural way of reflecting about the conditions in the world, which makes sense.
So then comes the very end of this one. So many can give up what isn't yours. Giving it up will be for your long-lasting happiness and welfare. And what isn't yours? Appearance isn't yours. Give it up. Giving it up will be for your long-lasting welfare and happiness. Feelings, perception, choices and consciousness aren't yours. Giving them up will be for your long-lasting welfare and happiness. Yeah, giving things up in the sutas, giving things up always means giving up grasping and attachment. It doesn't mean that you obviously can't give them away. Five candles are going to be here until you die. But giving up means that. And that is not obvious, but that's how it is used in the sutas when you see how these are used in various contexts.
So what do you think, Mendekans? Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in the sutatas' grove, or burn them or do what they want with them. Would you think this person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us? No, sir. Why is that? Because to us that's neither a self nor belonging to self. In the same way, Mendekans, give up what isn't yours. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. And what isn't yours? Appearance, feelings, perception, choices and consciousness isn't yours. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. It's a nice simile again. The idea of the five khandas of a person being the same as the grass and the sticks and the branches and the leaves. Someone takes something away from this monastery. When you sweep the leaves in the morning, do you get upset because someone is sleeping?
Who leaves away? Probably not. Unless you have some serious issues. But unlikely that it will get upset. Because it's nothing to do with you. You're happy. You praise them for getting rid of the leaves. But if they get rid of you, that's a different story here. But here is the same thing. It's a nice idea, isn't it? That kind of gives you an idea of what it means to be in our hand. It gives you an idea of what it means to an area. You have this really kind of cool way of thinking about yourself.You have this really kind of cool way of thinking about yourself. You're not attached to yourself. Not attached to your own five khandas. It's kind of extraordinary. These are just things. They're just leaves. Like leaves on the ground. Okay. So we're now coming to the vajda. Very, very end of this. Thus, the teaching has been well explained by me, made clear, opened, illuminated, and stripped of patchwork.
So the idea here of stripped of patchwork, according to Manta Sujata. And I think that makes sense. It's the idea that even though the dhamma has many aspects and all things, it is a unified whole. And this is always the case with the dhamma because it is one awakening experience. And from that one picture of awakened experience comes the whole expression that you find in the sutas. In this teaching, there are mendicants who are perfected, who have ended the defilements, completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, lay down the burden, achieve their own goal, or achieve the true goal. Utterly ended the fetter of rebirth and are rightly freed through awakening. For them, there is no cycle of rebirths to be found.
So these are the arahansa. Just a couple of small minor points there, achieve their own goal, can also mean achieve the true goal. Suddhata is the Pali, and Saa can either mean yourself, or it can be suddh, which means the true. And I actually like the idea of a true goal because of course in Buddhism, the idea is that Buddhist teaching gives you a real goal, a real purpose. Whereas from a Buddhist point of view, any less to teaching only keeps you going in samsara existence. So I kind of like that idea. Ended the fetter of rebirth. I prefer the translation, ended the fetter to rebirth. Rebirth itself is not really the fetter. That is the result of the fetters. That would be my translation. I did write to Bikki Bode about that a long time ago, but he refused to change his translation.
Okay, I was a bit upset about that, but never mind it. In these teachings, the amandicans who have given up the five lower fetters, all of them are reborn spontaneously. They are extinguished there, not liable to return from that world. In this teaching, the amandicans who have been giving up the three fetters in weak and greed, hate, and illusion are once returners. All of them come back to this world once only, then make an end of suffering. In this teaching, the amandicans who have ended the three fetters, all of them are stream enters, not liable to be reborn in the underworld bound for awakening. In this teaching, the amandicans who are followers of the teaching, these are the dhamma nusadis, or followers by faith, sadha nusadis, all of them are bound for awakening.
The sadha nusadis, dhamma nusadis, these are the people who are bound to become stream mentors before they die. So you have reached some kind of level of insight that you know you're going to become a stream mentor before they die. This is actually found in the sutta as well. And then comes the very last kind of person who is even a little bit lesser than the sadha nusadis, dhamma nusari. Thus the teaching has been well explained by me, made clear, opened, illuminate, and stripped of patchwork. In these teachings, there are those who have a degree of faith and love for me. All of them are bound for heaven. So that is kind of a nice one. Sadha nusadis, and pema, pema, could also love, it could be translated maybe as affection maybe.
I don't know if affection or love, but maybe affection might work better for some people. And so if you have sufficient, it's kind of interesting, almost like Christianity there. If you have enough faith and affection for the God, for the Buddha, you go to a heavenly rebirth as a consequence. So maybe this is the closest we come to, kind of Christian ideas in the sutta. But I think it shows something about the power of faith. Faith is very powerful. And you see this in the sutta, in so many places, where the idea of faith gives rise to precisely that joy, precisely the happiness, that actually makes samadhi and meditation possible. Actually these are very, very powerful forces.
They are making that connection with the Buddha if one can. I think it's incredibly important. And it has all of these extra beneficial side effects as well. This is what the Buddha said, satisfy the mendicants approved with what the Buddha had said. So there you are. That is the Allah God Upa Masuta, the simile of the snake. And did you want to say anything, Radha, about what was it about again? The feeling of the more. The feeling of the more. Right, yeah. I was in a sense to me that it wasn't a galaxy, that it wasn't really the war thing because they were... Yeah. It's actually feeling with... So, don't you think I'm walking out in the same thing? That is a very good point, because that is actually not a point. But I think it must mean feeling it in with earth.
Because I think it is assumed that the mode has water in it. I think it's assumed already. I think a mode actually is something with water in it. So I think feeling it must actually mean, yeah, feeling it with earth. Yeah. But I agree with it. It's not entirely clear. It's a little bit vague. So... When you say that you're crazy, I want to... You need to be part of the mode that actually protects rather than to be... Well, this is the thing. I think the similes can be used in different ways, yeah? So it depends on how you use them. But I think in this case, it is because the sutra talks about the one who is freed in mind. We would touch it. You are freed from any barriers. Barriers are taken away, yeah? One of the words you find in the sutra is for the person who is freed as someone who is vima riada katersa.
And vima riada is like a boundary or a fence or something. That has been all been taken away. The mind is kind of unlimited. It is not longer blocked in any way, yeah?
So that's why you have all of these things that kind of usually block you and kind of hinder you and kind of stop you from going where you want. But you could reverse that similarly. I'm absolutely sure. You know, you can use these things in different ways depending on how you look at this. Yeah. Anyone else want to say anything about this? Can I ask you a question? Of course, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You said when med tater who wants to enter Jana, maybe he come out of Jana and then he, because he has to pass the jana, you can come back to Jana again. You said if you were in the supas, yes. I think it is in the Majima 137-138, one of those.
And I think what it specifically says is that the vignana goes after the happiness. Vignana and the society or something like that. The vignana or the consciousness follow after the happiness of the jana. And because it does that, you cannot re-enter the jana. And this is what you find is a very common experience for people who have good meditation. After when they get so excited about it, they can't go back in again.
It's kind of a very, very common experience. And so I think that is kind of what it is about. But it doesn't say that therefore you should not practice Jana. No. The problem is that it stops from getting Jana, yeah? So it should definitely practice Jana. So it is a very different way of talking about the danger of holding onto the happiness than what is normally, how it is normally talked about.
It is talked about as a hindrance to Jana, not as a reason for not practicing Jana. It's a completely different way of thinking about it. And so this is, you know, yeah. I think, I will look it up for you if I have a chance. If I do the number, yeah. That's good. Anyway, I just want to say anything here. This is like, you know, this is not, when is the lifetime? You have to hear the sutra. So everyone happy? Okay.
It's called the Call of the Day.
|