I vow to taste the truth of the Tathāgata's words. Good evening, everybody. Good evening. And nice to see everyone. Welcome to our six sessions, which is going to turn out to actually be five sessions. Greetings from the Majjhima Nikaya. We have numerous items of practical business to take care of before we start talking about this text. First of all, we have to pass out some stuff. But first of all, while I'm thinking of it, it turns out that I won't be able to make one of these classes. And since the end of the period butts right up against the practice period, when a new series of classes starts, we can't add a class at the end.

[01:04]

So we will meet, tonight's the 9th, right? The 9th, the 16th, the 23rd, but not the 30th. And then the 7th and the 13th of October. And I apologize for that, but I have to go down to Tassajara and start. I promised that I would go down for the start of the practice period down there. So I'll be gone that week. And another thing is, I want to send around this tablet. If everybody would just sign your name and your phone number, if you're not living in Green Gulch, and just say whether or not you're registered. If you're a visitor and you're not going to be going to the series, then you don't need to sign. But everybody who intends to be going to the whole series of classes, because just in case something should happen or for some reason another class is canceled, we can call you up and let you know.

[02:06]

Then, let's see, these are something, I'm sure. These are some, we're going to be, we're going to be handing out texts as we go along. So these are two. This is the one we're going to start on tonight, and this is the one we'll do after that. So everybody take one. And if there aren't enough, I would ask the Green Gulch residents to make sure that the non-residents get one, and then we can Xerox more for you. It's easy to do. There should be enough. I hope there's enough. So what we'll do in the class is do a close reading of the text.

[03:24]

We'll have the text with us, and maybe you will have read it in advance. I apologize for, I'm going to change my practice of not having the footnotes Xeroxed, but in these texts the footnotes are not Xeroxed, but next time let's Xerox the footnotes. I usually give you the information in the footnotes in my commentary, but you might as well have it yourself. So you will not find, it's maybe a little frustrating, you know, you can't look up the footnote. In many cases it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does. Aren't there two sets in each class? There's two different sets, yes. So in the end everybody should have two different texts. One is the Ala Gadupama Sutta, the simile of the snake. And what's the other one? I forgot already.

[04:25]

The greater exposition of action. Oh yeah, the greater exposition of action. So we'll start with the simile of the snake sutra, and then we'll go on to the greater exposition of action. So if, like I say, if there aren't enough to go around, it's better to short the resonance of Gringotts, because then we can easily Xerox them and get it to you. And also for purposes of tonight's class, you know, at least there's enough for everybody to look on to a text. Do you think you can give the name and the number of the suttas that you're going to... Yeah, sure, yeah. Do you already know which ones you're going to talk about? Oh, you mean all the... no, that's the problem. I'm sort of figuring it out as I go along. I also don't have a sense yet of how quickly we'll go, so I can't tell whether we'll polish off a sutta each class, which I doubt very much, or how long we'll spend on them, so that's why I'm not sure. So there's all of that. Then I want to...

[05:32]

Before we start talking about this sutta, the sutta on the simile of the snake, I would like to do three things. First of all, say a little bit about the study center curriculum in which this sutta fits, so that you see the whole picture of our study and where this fits in. Secondly, I would like to just say a word about the Pali Canon and how it fits into the whole system of Buddhist literature. And then third, I would like to talk a little bit about the always difficult relationship between the Pali Canon literature and our own tradition, because a lot of times whenever we study this stuff, many questions come up, which don't need to come up if you kind of keep apples and oranges kind of straight from one another.

[06:37]

So if I can remember what those three things are, I'll go one after another. First, I wanted to talk about the curriculum, mainly because within the last year we made a change in it, and I want to share the whole thing with you. Some of you may have heard this before, and I have a few copies of this brochure left. For anybody who's interested to learn more, you can take a copy of it. It points out that the Buddha was himself a great student of religion. He studied traditions before he himself went on his own quest, and he had an intellectual foundation for his own practice. And even though Zen seems like it's anti-study, from the earliest Zen in China to our present time,

[07:43]

teachers and students have been expressing their understanding through commentaries, original texts, lectures, and koans. Understanding that the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon, we can nevertheless see virtue in developing and mastering Buddhist languages and concepts. Such development can illuminate our path, and it can help us to communicate clearly with each other and with the world around us. That's good, huh? I like that. Dogen Zenji, founder of our Soto Zen tradition, was himself a great scholar and writer on the Dharma. Very unusual. Most Zen masters did not write. Their books were collections of talks and things, but Dogen actually wrote. And he emphasized study of the entire Buddha Dharma, not just Soto Zen. Consequently, since 1973, we've been offering classes in all aspects of Buddhism, not just Zen Buddhism. And the model for our study is based on the example of the Buddhist monastic educational systems developed in India, China, and Tibet.

[08:49]

By restoring the link between text study and actual religious practice, the study center is reviving the holistic attitude of these ancient educational systems and restoring to study the traditional purpose of benefiting the complete individual. So this is nice. I like to remember this in the beginning, before we start to study. So the curriculum... Oh, and also an important thing that's new now, that wasn't the case before, is that we now have a dean of the study center, which means that Michael Wenger, who lives and works in the city center, is available to talk to students about their study and give consultation and advice. So if anybody's interested in contacting him about your individual study plans and your overview of how you're studying texts in the Dharma, he's available for that, for people who are students of Zen Center. So the curriculum is... The thing is that Buddhism is a huge thing,

[09:52]

a huge amount of texts and things to study. And so how are you going to figure out what to study and what not to study? And how do these things all fit together? Because it's very confusing. In fact, in the history of Buddhism there was a lot of confusion in ancient times when huge, like particularly in China, when huge quantities of texts were pouring into China from Central Asia, often contradicting each other. The Chinese didn't know what to think, you know, what is this all about? And so the Chinese actually worked out various systems of ranking... not ranking, but fitting the texts together so that it all made sense and the contradictions were sort of worked out. And so, similarly, we have tried to do the same thing so that we could make a selection from within the vastness of Buddhism. Not to say that the things that we have not selected are not important. Anything, of course, is worthy of study, but just that these are the texts that we feel are most important

[10:55]

and that we want to make sure that a student who spends a long time studying at Zen Center will have studied these texts, at least, as a basic. Not that the texts are simple or easy, because some of them are very advanced and very difficult, but these are the ones that we feel are the most important. So they're divided into six different topics or six different areas. The first one is called Route 1, Early Buddhism and the Life of the Buddha. And under that first route there are a number of texts and the class that we're going to have now is under that first route. Usually there's a class, as it's always offered, called Life of the Buddha, and that's the introductory class to the whole curriculum. You study the life of the Buddha and his basic teachings, and then that introduces you to all of it. So this is not that class, but it's in that same route, because in that route of study, like I say, we study a text called Life of the Buddha According to the Pali Canon,

[11:58]

which is a collection of pieces taken from all through the canon about Buddha's life. And other things we include in that study. Route 2 is called Buddhist Psychology. And as everybody knows, or maybe doesn't know, Buddha was a great psychologist, really the first great psychologist. He actually had a very sophisticated, or at least he and his followers, had a very sophisticated and complicated map of the human psyche that they worked from. And so that's Route 2, that study of that psychology. And in that route we study three great texts, the Visuddhimagga, the Abhidharmakosha-bhasham, and the Vijnapti-matrata-siddhi, all of which are pretty advanced texts, difficult texts, and most of them are studied in seminar format. And they're big. The Abhidharmakosha-bhasham is four volumes, slowly picking our way through here and there.

[12:59]

It's quite fascinating, but also pretty difficult to understand. Route 3 is called Wisdom. And these are the teachings about emptiness. And there are many emptiness texts, and we have chosen the Heart Sutra, the Diamond Sutra, the Prajnaparamita Sutra in 8,000 lines, and Nagarjuna's Mula-madyamaka-karika, which is a more advanced text, usually studied in seminar. Route 4 is called Ethics and Compassion. And that's a study of the great Mahayana Sutras as well as the precepts, including the Avatamsaka Sutra, the Vimalakirti-nudesa Sutra, Lotus Sutra, Metta Sutra, Lion's Roar, the Lankavatara Sutra, and other texts as well. Route 5 is Zen. And in that route we study directly the Zen teachings. We study the Koan collections, the three great Koan collections,

[14:00]

Suzuki Roshi's teachings, as well as Platform Sutra, Ox-Herding Pictures, and, of course, Dogen, many texts of Dogen, including the great Shobo Genzo. And then we have a new route. All those five routes are traditional texts which are studied in close reading and translation. None of them are surveys. We will, in this class, read the original texts in translation. The sixth route is what we've added this year. The classes in this route are not necessarily text-based. In addition to traditional and contemporary readings, classes in this route may emphasize dialogue and personal exploration as well as guest speakers and experiential exercises. This is contemporary Buddhist practice. Classes will be organized around the following topics.

[15:01]

Women in Buddhism, Contemporary Buddhist Teachings, Buddhism and Ecology, Right Livelihood, Living with Dying, Buddhism and Western Psychology, Buddhism and Cultural Diversity, and Interfaith Dialogue. And we have had classes in these different areas. We acknowledge this as a very important piece of our study at this point. So this is actually really a lot. If you were to actually read all these texts, it would take you many, many years, and read them with understanding and appreciation even more. So it's a lot to study. But this is only a small part of the entire possibility in studying Buddhism scholastically. So I just wanted to share that with you so that you understand where these texts that we're going to study fit in. So that was one. Two is a little bit about, just very briefly, often when I give a class I give, in the beginning,

[16:03]

a lot of background about where these texts come from and when they were written, blah, blah, and all that stuff. But this time, I think just to say that Buddha taught for 45 years. He probably gave at least one talk every day. And he was working out how he could explain to people, in a way that would be beneficial, his own experience of his enlightenment. At first he thought it wouldn't be possible. Then he thought, well, why not try? Maybe there are some people who can understand. And so he worked it out as he went along. Sometimes he contradicted himself or changed his doctrines a little bit, but basically there was a through line. There were many parts to it. And he was not systematic exactly. Many of the discourses that he gave were, you know, from this angle, from this angle, from this angle. And the tradition is that he had a disciple named Ananda

[17:04]

who all of his life went with him and listened to his discourses and had a fantastic memory and remembered them all so that he could recite all the discourses that the Buddha ever gave. And after the Buddha passed away, the discourses were, they were very, you'll see when we read them, they were very repetitive and mnemonic devices were included in them so that people could understand and remember because it was an oral tradition. And after, so there were various people after a while who carried the oral traditions of various texts that were repeated and memorized. And then after some time, a few hundred years, there was an effort to get together and pull all that information and begin to write it down, and it was written down. And there were a number of different traditions, different sects after a few hundred years carried their own version of the Buddha's teachings,

[18:07]

and they differed somewhat. And one of the sects has come to, was written, the texts were written in Pali, and the text, the sect has come to be called today the Theravada sect, which means the school of the elders, the way of the elders. And those texts have been passed down to the present day in the Pali language, and that's what we're reading. So, now usually people say the texts of the Pali Canon are therefore the oldest texts of Buddhism, but that's somewhat debatable. Some of the Mahayana, so-called Mahayana texts are also pretty early. Some of these are a little bit later, but anyway, they're pretty early texts. There were many developments in the teaching as time went on, and steps were taken, doctrinal steps were taken beyond the original sense of what the teaching was for various reasons. And there were a number of schools that in many ways,

[19:12]

you could say disagreed with the Pali Canon or you could say interpreted the insights of the Pali Canon in a somewhat different way, with a somewhat different spirit. Those schools came to be called eventually Mahayana schools. Both the Pali Canon schools and the Mahayana schools were transmitted to China. Eventually, the Chinese received a tremendous amount of stuff, as I said a moment ago, and the Zen school was created as a reaction to the tremendous amount of material that came into China. The Zen school was a way of cutting through all that and getting down to this sort of basic point. So, Zen in the beginning seemed to be anti-scriptural for that reason, because it was a reaction to too much scripture. Although, it's clear that virtually all the early Zen teachers

[20:16]

were versed in all the doctrines and texts, and then beyond that, let go of it all in order to practice intensive meditation and have insight into the fundamental point of the teaching. Yes? As you were talking about that, I was thinking that also the influence of Taoism and Confucianism in China would have a tremendous influence on the way they interpreted these teachings. Yes, definitely. As it does in any culture, just like for us. Our cultural background and language has a tremendous effect on the way we interpret the teachings, too. Certainly, it was true in China. It's very different culturally from India, and so they viewed, in some important ways, Buddhism differently. So sometimes, some writers will say that Zen is a marriage of Taoism and Confucianism and Buddhism to create a new sort of Buddhism. And there were various approaches to Zen as well,

[21:18]

and there were Zen schools that, to a great extent, did jettison a lot of the texts, particularly these old ones. But the founder of our stream of Zen, Dogen, a 12th century Japanese master, didn't feel like that. He felt like Zen Buddhism did flow from the old texts and encouraged his students to study all of Buddhism, as it says in the brochure. But I thought it would be interesting. I have been involved in translating. When he was a student in China, Dogen had some intense meetings with his master and he kept notes. And he has a notebook from his days of study in China, which is called the Hokyoki. I forget what that is. Does anybody know what that means in English? Hokyoki. I forgot. It's a record of the Hokyo era.

[22:19]

Hokyo era? Is that what it is? Anyway, this has been translated a couple of times in English, but Kaz and I, as part of the new Dogen book, we're translating it. And there's a couple of parts in that notebook where Dogen specifically asks his teacher, how should we think about these texts? What should we think about that? We're supposed to be in Mahayana school. How are we supposed to view these texts? So I'll just read you a few pieces of it, just so you get a feeling for where Dogen stands on all this. So I ask, I mean Dogen, the wide road of the Buddhas and ancestors cannot be contained into a small space. So how can we limit it to something as small as the Zen school? And the teacher replied, to call the wide road of the Buddhas and ancestors the Zen school is thoughtless talk. The Zen school is a false name,

[23:20]

used by bald-headed idiots. And all sages from ancient times are aware of this. Haven't you read the Record of Monasteries by Sekhiman and Dogen? He says, no, I haven't. The master went on, it would be good for you to take a look at it. What the book says is true. Briefly, the great dharma of the world-honored one was transmitted to Mahakasyapa alone and was passed on heir by heir for twenty-eight generations, then five generations in China to Huineng. Today, I, Rujing, must hold the center of Buddha-dharma. In a million-saha world, there can be no one comparable. Yet it is true that those who lecture on the sutras and treatises and carry on the various schools' teachings are also family members of the Buddha-ancestors. Among them, some are more important than others depending on how close they are in the family. I ask that those who have become Buddha-ancestors' family members must still arouse bodhisikhi mind and visit true masters. But why would they throw away years of study

[24:23]

to join the assemblies of Buddha-ancestors like this one and practice day and night? So what he's saying here is that everybody has to receive this insight of the Zen school. But that doesn't mean that the people who have studied all these sutras and all that and haven't done that are not part of the family. They are part of the family, and we should honor them and respect them. But they have to also sit on the cushion and penetrate the truth the same as the rest of us. And Dogen said, why would they do that? Why would they study for all these years, all those sutras, and then why would they want to come and join the assembly of people practicing the way we practice? And this is an interesting answer. The Master said, In India and China, people often had to go beyond what they learned in order to change roles in the course of their advancement. It's like when someone stops being a counselor and advances to prime minister. Though he's no longer a counselor, he can still teach his descendants how to perform as a counselor. It's the same way in studying the way of Buddha ancestors.

[25:26]

Although someone becomes a prime minister because of his good work as a counselor, once he becomes a prime minister, he no longer acts like a counselor. He acts like a prime minister. Yet, while he was a counselor, he acted like a counselor, not like a prime minister. No matter what the role, all the activity is devoted to governing the nation and comforting the people. The mind of true dedication is one mind, not two. So, in other words, the people who study the sutras and don't sit on the cushion and understand are like the counselors. There's a role for a counselor. When you're a counselor, you teach the art of counseling. When you sit on the cushion and become a prime minister, then you're a prime minister and you forget about being a counselor. But we need counselors and prime ministers to rule the nation. That's the idea. So don't think that the counselors are bad or lesser than the prime ministers or not necessary. It's all necessary, but there's different roles. So, in other words, when you study the sutras,

[26:27]

just study the sutras. Don't try to compare them. You're a counselor, deal with being a counselor. Don't compare counselor work to prime minister work. When you're dealing with the prime minister training, train as a prime minister. Don't get mixed up. But we need it all. It all is necessary. Then there's another... Skipping. There's one little more part. Let's see. Dogen... Yeah. The other day, Dogen says, I was visiting at another monastery, Daguang, at Manhayuang, and I asked some questions there. And I asked the teacher there about these old sutras. And he said that the Buddha Ancestors' Way and the scriptural schools... The Buddha Ancestors' Way is the Zen school. He said that other teachers said that the Buddha Ancestral Way

[27:27]

and the scriptural school, like that, are like water and fire. They are as far apart as heaven and earth. He said that to agree with the scriptural school is to be far removed from the teachings of the ancestors. Can this be true? And the master answered, it is not only Daguang who makes such mistaken statements. Elders of monasteries here and there are also like this. If they don't understand the teaching of the scriptural schools, like this, how can they enter the ancestors' inner room? I said, the Buddhist teachings were originally compiled in two streams. The Mahayana scriptures were compiled by the bodhisattva of perfect wisdom, Manjushri, and the Hinayana scriptures, like these, were compiled by Ananda, Buddha's disciple. This being so, it is hard to see why Mahakasyapa, another disciple of the Hinayana, became the first ancestor entrusted with the Dharma treasury. Why not the bodhisattva Manjushri? Manjushri's perfect wisdom

[28:30]

is, after all, the source of all Buddhas, including Shakyamuni Buddha. So it would seem that he should be regarded as the first ancestor entrusted with the Dharma treasury. Can it be that the Buddha's treasury of the true Dharma eye, the inconceivable mind of Nirvana, is actually the Dharma of the Hinayana? What do you think of this? It's interesting, eh? So, the master replied, You are right. Manjushri's perfect wisdom is the source of all the Buddhas. Manjushri is the teacher of all the Buddhas. This is exactly why he was not the heir entrusted with the Dharma. If he had been a disciple of the Buddha, he would certainly have received the entrustment. Another point to think about is this. The tradition that Manjushri compiled the Mahayana sutras is only one tradition. It is not commonly accepted. And even if he did compile them,

[29:30]

it would appear that he did not know the Hinayana teachings, for his name never appears there. Most accept that Ananda compiled both the Mahayana and the Hinayana teachings because he was a person with exceptional listening and remembering abilities. This is why he assembled the discourses that the Buddha gave throughout his lifetime. As for Mahakasyapa, he was a senior monk while Buddha was alive and was recognized as the most senior and most skillful of teachers. That is why the Dharma treasury was entrusted to him. If the Dharma treasury had been entrusted to Manjushri, who was not a disciple of Buddha and did not study the Hinayana teachings, there would have been doubts about the wholeness of the Dharma. You should trust the wholeness of the Dharma of the Buddhists and do not doubt it. So, he is underscoring the wholeness of it, that we have to accept and contemplate the wholeness of it. And I say all this because every time we read these sutras, we always say, wait a minute, that does not sound right.

[30:31]

That does not sound like how we teach in Zen and so on and so on. It is true. There are a lot of ways in which our understanding seems to be quite different from the understanding of these sutras. But I think that we need to appreciate these sutras as they are. Maybe we need to do some interpretation from a Mahayanistic point of view, but we really need to think deeply about what these sutras are telling us. And see that if we really appreciate the Zen teaching, we need to appreciate these sutras too, even though in some cases we do not like it or they do not sound right or something like that. So anyway, that is the Banye way of introduction. So, now we are going to read this sutra on the simile of the snake. Alagadu Pamasutta

[31:33]

The Simile of the Snake So, this will be maybe our style here at least for a while. Maybe I will just read some of it and make a few comments on things that I thought about while I was studying. And then, maybe at some point if there are questions or comments, or if not, I will just stop at some point and say, what do you think of that? And then we will see what came up. And in that way, we will meander our way through the sutra. I do not feel in any hurry. I mean, we do not need to be too picky about these sutras. You know, I mean, belabor it too much, but on the other hand, we do not need to rush through and feel like we need to cover a certain amount of material. We will cover as much as we cover here. So, thus have I heard. On one occasion, the Blessed One was living at Savati

[32:35]

in Jada's Grove in Adipindaka's Park. It is a famous place. Buddha taught there a lot. Adipindaka was a person who really liked the Buddha a lot and gave him a grove. And the Buddha often went to that grove and taught. So that is where he was. Now, on that occasion, a pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Arita, formerly of the vulture killers. It feels like a little bit of a dig. I mean, I am sure it was true, you know, they are letting you know. I know this guy, he used to kill vultures for a living before he became a monk. So already, you know, you do not have like a terribly positive feeling about him. And as we go along, as we go along, you will see that he is not a hero in this text. So, Arita had a pernicious view

[33:36]

arose in him. And here, immediately we will see the kind of problem that we might not even think that his view, which you will see is so pernicious, we might not think so pernicious. Here is his pernicious view. As I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them. So the Buddha had taught at other times that there are certain things that are obstructions, particularly sense desire, attachment, so on and so on. And this is really referring mostly to sense desire, indulging in sense pleasures. The Buddha taught on many occasions that this was an obstruction. And he says, and I think that this is very sincere. He is not like

[34:37]

contradicting the Buddha. He really thinks that the Buddha did not teach that. He thinks that the Buddha taught that if you do indulge in sense desires, it is all right, it will not be an obstruction. And the reason why, although it does not say this in the text, the reason why he thinks that, he has a good reason for it actually, because the Buddha taught. The Buddha said, when I was studying and trying to get enlightened, I tried austerities. And I ate one grain of rice and this and that. You all know about the Buddha's story. And then he taught his disciples, that did not work. It is no good to, what is the word, mortify the flesh. Deny the flesh and mortify the flesh in being ascetic. My path is the middle path. I am not into, we do not all have to go out and starve ourselves and pretend we do not have bodies and dislike our bodies and so on.

[35:38]

The Buddha did teach that. He misunderstood it. And he thought it meant that, oh well, in that case, there is no problem with indulging in sensual activity. And that is what I heard the Buddha say, that there is no problem with indulging in sensual activity. Well, the other people heard him say that and they said, no, no, no, the Buddha did not teach that at all. The Buddha said, these things are our obstructions and you really have to be careful. And he said, no, I heard him say, you know, that to mortify the flesh is not what we are doing and there is nothing wrong with indulging sensuality. So, several bhikkhus heard him saying this and they went to him and they said, you know, like good communication skills, you know, they went directly to him first. They did not talk about it behind his back. They went directly to him and they said, friend Arita, is it true that such a pernicious view has arisen in you? What did I say? Pernicious what? View? Yeah. Pernicious view that such a pernicious view has arisen in you?

[36:39]

Maybe a little prejudgment there. But, you see, the thing is that the doctrine of the Buddha, the idea here is the doctrine of the Buddha is very clear. And one of the worst things you can do is misunderstand and have a bad view because if you have a bad view it has deep consequences for your behavior. So, it is really a bad thing. You do not want to have that view and you especially do not want to go around telling other people and encouraging them in that view. So, it is a really bad thing if you have a wrong view. And since the views of the Buddha are pretty clear we can tell this is a pernicious view and we cannot believe that you are saying this. But Arita is very innocent and very honest and says, even though they seem to be disapproving, he says, oh yes, yes, as I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them. But I think maybe we can say for the word engages this is a trick point. It is a very important point. I would say the word indulges rather than engages.

[37:42]

Do you see the difference? Because obviously everybody engages in sensual activity. If you eat, if you see something, if you hear something you are engaging in sensual activity. I do not think this means, he does not think that you are all, that you are, what he means is, because the Buddha, that is what the Buddha said, of course we all do these things but do not indulge it. Now the difference between indulging and engaging is a whole conversation but I understand him to be saying indulging. Yes. Also the difference between sensual and sensuous is a whole discussion. Yeah, yeah. Overtones of sexuality, yeah, yeah. Whether he is talking about sensual, you know, whether it is being the translation is accurately sensual or whether it is sensuous or whether it means sensual and sensuous Yeah, I take it to be, and you are right, it is not clear and there are times, I am sure this text could be read as he is talking specifically about sexuality

[38:43]

but I read it to be talking about all the senses not just sexuality and sense of touch. Yeah, I was just going to mention that I thought it was interesting that the commentary says he wants to abolish the rule that monks should be able to have sex and that is his point. Right. And I think that is kind of interesting that we are having this discussion here tonight and it is a topic at Zen Center. Yes. So... Yeah, I do not exactly believe that the commentary there. Yeah, in other words, I think, I am sure the text has been understood that way at times but I think it is broader than that myself. I think he is talking about the issue of what is our relationship to the sensual world. You know, the Buddha taught a middle way, right, non-indulgence, non-avoidance and non-indulgence and he did not hear that. He thinks that the Buddha thought that indulgence was fine. So that certainly

[39:46]

includes sexuality but it is not limited to sexuality. That is my interpretation although you are right, the commentary does say that. What about the distinction between sensual activities like eating food that tastes good, you know, purposely going to eat versus indulging sensual desires or, as I sometimes say, delighting in sensual desires, kind of feeding that, yearning for it. What about the difference between the action and the actual desire? Well, I think that this is the question. What did the Buddha recommend in terms of sensual activity and what did he not recommend? And this, you will see as we read the text. I think that is the question we need to hold in our minds. That is why I flagged this word engage and I say, myself, indulge. But you will see as we go along. Actually, in this book Cultivating the Mind of Love by Thich Nhat Hanh, there is a short commentary to this sutra where he discusses this point and he points out, and you will find

[40:48]

different views on this, but he points out in his commentary in relation to this point that the Buddha on several occasions and he cites them evidenced pleasure in the world of the senses. That the Buddha was not neutral or negative on that there were things that the Buddha was delighted with a beautiful sunset and things like that. So, this is, you know, a big issue in practice is how do you relate to the, on a gross level and on a subtle level, the sensual world in a way that doesn't bring up obstructions, attachments and suffering. And, as I say, again, Arita thinks that the Buddha did not caution anything in that regard, thinks that the Buddha said, you can, there's no problem here at all. So, he says that, yeah, I do feel that way. And then, these bhikkhus desiring to detach him from that pernicious view and the idea

[41:49]

is they're concerned about him. He's a brother monk. They know how bad it is for him to have a view that's incorrect. They want to talk him out of it, you know, disabuse him of his wrong view. So, they questioned him. They pressed him and cross-examined him. Friend Arita, do not say so. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not speak thus for in many discourses the Blessed One has stated how obstructive things are obstructions and how they are able to obstruct one who indulges in them. The Blessed One has stated how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and much despair and how great is the danger in them. With the simile of the skeleton and the simile of the piece of meat, of grass, torch, pit of coals, etc., with all these different similes which are probably culled from various sutras because the Buddha talked about them many, many, many, many times using different analogies. With all those things the Buddha

[42:49]

has stated clearly that sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and much despair and how great is the danger of them. We might say and I think we would all agree probably that to focus one's life on the material world as the purpose and main road of our lives is not workable, is not the way to take care of the whole person that we are. And in fact to get caught by the sensual world and sucked into that way of life would be cause suffering. And this is so on a gross level and also so on a very minute level in terms of our very acts of perception getting sucked in to desire in the physical world. Buddha taught that.

[43:51]

They told him over and over again. They tried to debate him or argue him in different ways but nevertheless he, the Bhikkhu Arita formerly of the vulture killers still obstinately adhered to that pernicious view and continued to insist upon it. He would not listen. So they tried their best. They couldn't talk him out of it. So they went to the Buddha and after properly paying homage to him they sat down at one side and told him all that had occurred. Venerable sir, since we could not detach the Bhikkhu Arita from, formerly of the vulture killers, letting the Buddha know in case the Buddha forgot that he was formerly of the vulture killers, we tried our best but now we come to you. You know, please help us out. Then the Blessed One addressed the certain Bhikkhu thus. Come Bhikkhu, tell the Bhikkhu Arita formerly of the vulture killers in my name that the teacher calls him. Yes, venerable sir,

[44:53]

he replied. And he went to the Bhikkhu Arita and told him, the teacher calls you a friend Arita. Yes, friend, he replied. And he went to the Blessed One. See, he didn't have any, he didn't think that he was contradicting the Buddha. He was just really convinced that he was, this is what the Buddha taught. So he wasn't uptight about going to the Buddha. You know, I mean imagine, you know, after all this debate and all these people, he was very, he just knew that he was right. And he didn't feel bad about it. He just was very willing to go. So he sat down. So the Buddha mustn't have been that intimidating. He didn't seem to mind. So the Blessed One then asked him, Arita, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you? As I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, these things, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them? Exactly so, Venerable Sir. That's interesting, isn't it? Well, the Buddha set him straight. Misguided man,

[45:54]

to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dharma in that way? Misguided man, in many discourses have I not stated how obstructive things are, obstructions, and how they are able to obstruct one who indulges in them? I have stated how sensual pleasures provide little gratification and much despair, and how great is the danger with the simile of the skeleton, the piece of meat, the grass torch, the pit of coals, the dream, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I have stated how sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering, despair. But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit, for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time. And again, this footnote here, 251, tells us that this same story appears other places in the canon, in the vinea, which is the rules of conduct.

[46:57]

And in the vinea it says that he was suspended from the order for holding this view. So, then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus, Bhikkhus, what do you think? Has this bhikkhu Arita formerly of the vulture killers kindled even a spark of wisdom in this dhamma and discipline? And they said, how could he, Venerable Sir? No, Venerable Sir. So then, he got it. He understood. He was really wrong. He understood. So he sat silent, dismayed, with shoulders drooping and head down, glum and without response. So then, knowing this, the Blessed One told him, misguided man, you will be recognized by your own pernicious view. I shall question the bhikkhus on this matter. So, as is often the case

[47:57]

in these sutras, this little incident and the misguided view of Arita is an occasion for the Buddha, once again, to speak on this topic. See? So the rest of the sutra is the Buddha now addressing this question and again teaching it. He must have figured, you know, he must have thought to himself, well, this guy Arita is a smart person and a good monk and he seemed to sincerely have misunderstood me. I better teach this again and more carefully so that people will understand better because the way I did it before was subject to misunderstanding. And so now he goes on to teach about that. And we're going to hear more about this issue of indulging versus, you know, what is the way that we have to understand in order to not be caught by the sensual world? Yeah? I was just, I was thinking he's very dejected and unhappy but probably does not yet think that he's wrong.

[48:57]

Otherwise, he wouldn't have been, he wouldn't have been ejected from the order. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. That's a good question. I don't know what, whether any more is said. There's probably more to it than this, you know, more to his story and what happens. And I don't actually know. But we, it does seem as if, well, yeah, we don't know whether he's feeling badly because he understands now that he has a wrong view or feeling badly because he's humiliated. He still holds the wrong view but he feels humiliated. We don't really know. Bhikkhus, do you understand the Dhamma taught by me as this Bhikkhu Arita formerly of the Vulture Killers does when he misrepresents us by his wrong grasp and injures himself and stores up much demerit? No, venerable sir. For in many discourses the Buddha, the Blessed One has stated that obstructive things are obstructions

[49:58]

and they are able to obstruct one who engages in them or indulges in them and et cetera. You know, they repeat the same thing. And the Buddha says, good, I'm glad that you understand for I have and he repeats the same thing, taught this. Bhikkhus, that one can indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perceptions of sensual desire, without thoughts of sensual desire, that is impossible. No, in other words, don't kid yourself into thinking that you can indulge in these things without getting caught. You will get caught and you're getting caught and getting caught means attachment will arise, a kind of desire will arise in you that will, what can we say, take you off center, lose your stability

[50:59]

and you will suffer. Because of that you'll suffer. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you can get away with it because it won't work. It's impossible. That's like, that right there seems to be the center of what you're talking about. Because in this sutra it sounds like they're saying to avoid sensual pleasures that you don't have sensual desire. Whereas in Zen practice my understanding is that we engage in sensual pleasures and when sensual desire comes up we just, we pay attention to it. We don't necessarily like go out and that's our only purpose is to engage in sensual pleasure but we do and they come up and the desire comes up and we watch it. Yes. Let's hold that. Okay. Let's keep reading and see what we can understand. Okay? This is what I was talking about in the beginning. There's, you know, differences. So what we have to do is see what we can appreciate. Because, you know, the rest of the text is going to say more about what does it, what's that all about?

[52:00]

Because, I don't know, you know, at this point, you know, it's not so clear. You could ask, well, okay, well, since the Buddha did not teach asceticism, since he didn't teach withdrawal from the senses, that seems to be one extreme, right? This seems to be the other extreme, indulging in sensuality. The Buddha taught the middle path but what is that? What's, what is that, what's the difference? How do we understand? Well, we can understand, it's pretty easy to understand the extreme of asceticism. That's fairly easy to understand. That has to do with aversion to the body and the futile attempt, it's basically a form of suicide. You stop eating, you stop, you know. So, that's easy to understand. But what the difference is between indulgence and a sensuality, a relationship to the physical sensual world, which is non-indulgent, so far, the Buddha has not explained that. He's just said that you have to be careful and that there is a difference. He said that. And if you think

[53:01]

there is no difference, you're really wrong. That much we know. But what the difference is and how it works out is not clear yet from the text and the issue is, can we find something out about the difference in the rest of the text? So, there's a very interesting twist that happens in the next section, which, I think, as I thought about this, I think it sort of flips the whole story upside down in this next paragraph. Here, Bhikkhus, some misguided people learn the Dharma. Discourses, stanzas, expositions, verses, exclamations, sayings, birth stories, marvels, and answers to questions. But, having learned the Dharma, they do not examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. They do not examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. They do not gain a reflective acceptance of them.

[54:01]

Instead, they learn the Dharma only for the sake of criticizing others and for winning in debates. And they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learn the Dharma, which is, of course, freedom, liberation, peacefulness, happiness, joy. They don't learn that. They just learn a whole bunch of verses and stanzas and they can win in debates and arguments, but they don't get the point. Those teachings, being wrongly grasped by them, conduce to their harm and suffering for a long time. Uh, let's see, where's the poem? Let's go on. I'm getting mixed up. Yeah. It's not here. it's in the next page. It's going to take us a while to get to the part I had in mind. Sorry. Okay, uh, so, that's understandable,

[55:05]

right? Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search of a snake, saw a large snake and grasped its coils or its tail. It would turn back on him and bite his hand or his arm or one of his limbs and because of that he would come to death or deadly suffering. Why? Because he didn't know how to hold a snake. So, here too, some misguided men learn the Dhamma, those teachings being wrongly grasped by them, conduce to their harm and suffering for a long time. On the contrary, some people learn the Dhamma, discourses, et cetera, and having learned it, they examine the meaning of the Dhamma examining the meaning, they gain reflective acceptance of them, they do not learn the Dhamma for the sake of criticizing others or for winning in debates and they experience the good for the sake of which they learned it. Those teachings

[56:06]

being rightly grasped by them, conduce to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Suppose a man needing a snake, why you would need a snake I'm not sure, seeking a snake, wandering in search of a snake, saw a large snake and caught it rightly with a cleft stick and having done so, grasped it rightly by the neck, then although the snake might wrap its coils around his hand or his arm or his limbs, still he would not come to death or deadly suffering because of that. Why? Because of his right grasp of the snake, these teachings being rightly grasped, blah, blah, blah. So in other words, by this analogy of the snake, we're getting a little bit toward the difference between, see there's two different things going on. One is Arita's relationship to sensuality, which is his wrong view. And the other is,

[57:06]

what's going on here, and you'll see in a little while, the Buddha is saying to the other monks, okay, you are criticizing Arita for his view and his relationship to sensuality. You don't have that problem. But you are winning. You were able to show Arita that he was wrong. You won the debate. You know the teachings. You do know the teachings and he didn't know them. So we're all sitting here complaining about him. But have you grasped the teachings for what they really mean or have you just learned them so that you could criticize Arita for his view? See? So Arita's problem with sensuality is maybe the same as your problem with the teachings themselves. Arita doesn't know how to pick up sensuality. He picks it up like a person who picks up a snake, something dangerous, not knowing how to do it.

[58:07]

And he gets bit by it. His view will lead him to that. And you pick up the teachings like that, maybe. Maybe you pick up the teachings. You're a good boy and a good girl and you follow the teachings but maybe you don't really understand their inner meaning and so for you the teachings are just as pernicious as sensuality is for Arita. There's a right way to pick up a snake. There's a right way to pick up sensuality and there's a right way to pick up the teachings themselves. So a lot of this text is not only about Arita's relationship to sensuality but the relationship that the rest of the monks have to the teaching. That's what... So the Buddha is wisely... Although he's being... It's interesting. Although he's being very clear about what the teaching is in relation to Arita's view, he's also not exactly applauding the other monks and nuns for holding another view

[59:09]

even though it's the correct view because they may not be holding it in a way that will prevent harmfulness. So this is the question. How do you pick up sensuality? If sensuality is a snake, it's a snake that we all have to pick up. How do you pick it up? And it's not violence, the good way to pick up a snake. It's not a violent way. It's not a fearful way. It's just you have the right equipment. You have a cleft stick. You put it on the snake's head. The snake can't get at you even though the snake coils itself around you. Sensuality gets you, but it can't bite you because you skillfully know how to work with it. That's the middle way. One extreme is kill the snake. The other extreme is pick the snake up and let it bite you and die. And the middle way is get a cleft stick,

[60:09]

know where the snake's head is, put the cleft stick down, and then if the snake coils all around you, it's not a problem. So that's what the Buddha is saying. And he's saying, and it's exactly the same with the teachings themselves. There's no difference, see? There's no difference between the teachings and sensuality in that regard. If you pick up the teachings foolishly, they can be just as pernicious as sensuality. So, you know, criticizing others for their breaking the precepts, for example, is itself breaking a precept of criticizing, a precept against criticizing others mindlessly or criticizing others without understanding. And then, to underscore the point, he gives the famous simile of the raft. Because I shall show you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say.

[61:13]

And they say, yes, we will. Suppose a man in the course of a journey saw a great expanse of water whose near shore was dangerous, but whose farther shore was safe and free from fear. But there was no ferry, water, bridge. Then he thought, there is this great expanse of water whose near shore is dangerous and whose far shore is not dangerous, no ferry, water, bridge. Suppose I collect grass, twigs, branches and leaves and bind them together into a raft and supported by the raft, make an effort, go safely to the other shore. And he does this. Then when he gets to the other shore, he might think thus, this raft has been very helpful to me since supported by it and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. Suppose now this raft, having been so helpful to me, I were to hoist it on my head or load it on my shoulder and carry it with me wherever I went. Now bhikkhus, what do you think?

[62:14]

Would that be a good idea? No. By doing what would that man... By doing what would that man be doing what should be done with the raft? Well, what he should do is he should say, this raft has been very helpful to me to get me across the water. Suppose I were to haul it onto the dry land or set it adrift in the water and then go wherever I want without having to carry this big heavy raft along with me. That's how you should do with the raft. So I have shown you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft being for the purpose of crossing over not for the purpose of carrying it around with you. Because when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft you should abandon even good states how much more so bad states. So now he's expanding this to not only include having a grasping relationship an unskillful relationship to sensuality

[63:14]

and to the words and letters of the teaching but also positive enlightened states of mind should not be grasped. And so we all are agreed that bad states should be let go of but even good states. And the footnote tells us that he's speaking specifically of meditation states and even insight into the truths should not be grasped and carried around with you like a raft. So, do you think that's far enough? I feel like I'm talking too much. Let's stop there and see what anybody has to say so far. Just, you know, this exposition and this development of it this sounds like a textbook. Yes, say more. This doesn't sound counterintuitive. No, no it doesn't.

[64:16]

Yeah, you mean because of the idea of letting go of views and letting go of states? That's right. And in fact, what Thich Nhat Hanh in his commentary to this sutra he brings it up in a book about Mahayana Buddhism and he says just that, he says that this sutra is a precursor, he feels, to the Diamond Sutra because of just that reason. Because the sutra, one of the Buddha's main points in the sutra is letting go of all views and all states and holding on to anything becomes like unskillfully holding a snake. They say that a lot though. I mean, it's not the only sutra. Yeah, they do. So I think that's one of the points is that all of the and I really believe it's true that all the key issues of the Mahayana are included in these old sutras. They're all there. They're just emphasized differently in different ways in different content.

[65:17]

The Mahayana sutras will take some things that are in these sutras and emphasize them in a really big way. But it's all there. And all of Zen is there too. Just like you say. Did I see your hand, Bob? It seems that the first analogy has to do with creating balance in one's life. And maybe Mahayana has to do with that and Hinayana has to do with maybe looking at exactly how to do it. And if our lives are out of balance then perhaps what we have to do is be reflective about it and look and see rather than discussing it with other people and comparing it and see where we feel things are a little bit over or there's not enough. Is everybody aware of Buddhism that there's a formula for that balance? Like one should have this practice, this practice, this practice, and this practice, and not this practice. Well, everybody is out of balance

[66:19]

in different ways because we all have different predispositions. So what for one person is a necessary practice to create balance for another person is poisonous, right? So Buddha taught a number of different things and different ways of practice for different occasions and that's why it's very helpful to have a teacher because then there's a personal relationship and there's a sense of working through what's appropriate and what's really useful for a person at this particular point and at that particular point and so on. So no, there is no... I mean, there is universal basic things but more or less it's a question of what one needs now for balance. One thing that I really struggle with constantly in my commitment to Buddhism is simply the lack of attention to the physical body in the balance of things.

[67:19]

You know, I practice yoga and it helps me sit but nowhere in our practice is yoga really included. That's just a personal introduction. Yeah. And I wonder why. Well... It just seems so logical. There are a lot of... When I first started studying Zen in a small place far from here, they used to do Aikido. That was part of the Zendo schedule. You know, they'd do Zazen and then right after Zazen, instead of service they would have Aikido. And there are a lot of Zen places that do have physical culture as part of the practice but it's just our particular branch of Zen emphasizes... We have, of course, a lot of physical stuff too only it's not yoga or Tai Chi it's work. For us it's work. It's a huge part of our practice and work is certainly mostly physical. You know, cooking and cleaning and working the fields and gardens and soji and that kind of stuff

[68:21]

is certainly physical and I actually think that that the teaching of respect for that kind of physical work is one of the main things that is taught in our school. So that's just the way we do it. In other schools of Zen they do it differently. Certainly many people who practice Zen in our school do. Do yoga or other forms of exercise as a part of their daily or weekly practice. And in our monastery we, in the last 10 or 15 years, include an exercise period as part of the schedule. So... Yeah, Charlie. Of course, Zazen is basically a physical activity and precision of the posture and mindfulness of the posture while sitting

[69:21]

and walking and breathing out seems very body-like. Absolutely, yeah. Serving and striking the bell and bowing and chanting, all those things are quite physical. Zazen itself is physical. Especially the way we emphasize Zazen with such an emphasis on posture. That's true. Of course. I really enjoy that about practice too. Yeah, it is. That's one of the things that impressed me a lot in the beginning. Because you think of spiritual practice as not being physical. And you can imagine that meditation is not physical. But particularly in our style of approach to meditation, it's very much that physical is emphasized across the board. Anything else? Just wondering more specifically in this analogy, what things the Buddha is referring to

[70:24]

as the raft. Is that coming up? Yeah, well I think it's coming up but we'll see more. It gets into what it is that we hold on to and what it is that we have to let go of. If I remember correctly, that's what the rest of the sutra is about. But I think he says it in the previous sentence, you should abandon even good states, how much more so bad states. In other words, anything, any form of grasping and carrying something around with us leads to suffering. Anything. External things. See, Arita has a view that is going to cause him to carry around like a raft the material and external and sensual world. And that's going to lead to suffering for him.

[71:24]

But if you carry around the teachings like a raft, that will lead to suffering for you. And even if you let go of the teachings but you carry around states, meditation states and insights which are not out of the book but out of your own experience and you carry those around like a raft, that will lead to suffering as well. So anything that you grasp and hold on to, whether it's a sensual world, the intellectual world of Dharma or the spiritual world of Dharma, anything will be a source of suffering. But he's going to detail this in the rest of the sutra. No more? Okay. Maybe we can do one more little section here. Because there are

[72:28]

six standpoints for views. What are the six? Here, an ordinary untaught person who has no regard for noble ones, meaning the Buddhists, the monks, nuns who devote themselves to study, and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma, who has no regard for true people and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma, regards material form thus, this is mine, this I am, this is myself. He regards feeling thus, this is mine, this I am, this is myself. He regards perception thus, this is mine, this I am, this is myself. He regards formations thus, he regards what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, sought, mentally pondered thus, this is mine, this I am, this is myself.

[73:28]

These are five of the six standpoints for views. These are, of course, the five skandhas, right? Form, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousness, without going into the definitions of them. Basically, the idea is that all of human experience from looking, from seeing something outside of the world to having feelings about it and awareness of it, perception and all that, all the stuff that arises in our minds moment after moment which we call human experience and the Buddha put them in these five categories. When you think this is me, this is mine, this is myself, this is a standpoint for a view. And this

[74:33]

standpoint for view is namely, this is self, this is the world, after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, I shall endure as long as eternity. This too he regards thus, this is mine, this I am, this is myself. And that's the sixth standpoint for views is, in other words, in my experience now, I am a self, there's me here, in all that I experience, and after I'm dead, somehow this me is going to go on to a greater reward and still be there. I have an eternal soul in me that's going to remain. These are the six standpoints for views. Bhikkhu is a well-taught noble disciple who has regard for noble ones and is skillful and disciplined in their dhamma, who has regard for true men. This is the converse of that. This person sees those same

[75:35]

things as not mine, not me, and so on and so on. Since he regards them thus, he is not agitated about what is non-existent. So there is experience, right? We know that there's experience of the eyes, the ears, and so on, consciousness. But when we feel that the experience of these things is me or mine, there's agitation, clinging, and agitation. When we just see the experience as experience and let it go, without saying it's me or it's mine, we will not be agitated about what is non-existent. What is non-existent is

[76:36]

this self, which is a notion projected onto the experience. A venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent? Maybe I'll stop there and see if that is clear enough. See if there's anything to say about that. Can you understand what he's saying? Now, can you see the relationship between that and what he said before? Because with Arita and his mistaken relationship to sensuality, the problem is embedded in Arita's view is an identification. A self is in there. The notion of a self

[77:38]

projected onto his experience is underlies, it's a view that underlies his mistaken relationship to sensuality. That's why he's going to get caught. So are the monks who identify self with the teaching itself. They're going to get caught. And the monks who are not identified with the teaching, not identified with sensuality, but are identified with their meditation states and their insights. So holding on, so now he's analyzing what is holding on. Holding on is projecting a self and an identity onto any experience. The grossest level of it is sensuality. The more subtle level is the intellectual level of the teachings. And a still more subtle level is the spiritual insight into the teaching. Once you project that these experiences, however true and real they are and subtle they are, are me,

[78:40]

I identify with them, I'm not free of them, I don't let them go. And the opposite of me is I let go. Because me is, the nature of me is holding on. The nature of not me is letting go. That's what he's saying there. So this issue, you know, I've often thought over the years, you know, that the issue of identity is so important. I mean, it's really the whole of Buddhism in a way, you know. And the subtlety of identity and projection of identity onto experience. So with sensuality, there's nothing wrong with sensuality. There's nothing wrong with the sensual world in all of its aspects. But, when we project me onto that sensual world, we get in trouble. And it's so persistent and so deep, our tendency to do that. And it's easy to fool yourself.

[79:43]

You see how subtle you can go with it. So this is what he's saying. He's now looking at, so all the rest of the sutra we can say is an analysis of what it means and what causes holding on. With the idea that holding on, whether it's by analogy with the raft or analogy with the snake, holding on is an unskillful way of living and leads to suffering. Later on in the sutra, when people say various things, he says, the only thing I ever taught is suffering and the end of suffering. It's the only thing that's important in all of this. The only reason why I care about any of this stuff about self and identity and all this is not because it's true, but because it's all about suffering and the end of suffering. He says that later. So, I think a couple more comments and I don't think we'll read any further tonight. I would encourage you to read the rest of the sutra and think about it in all its implications and maybe read the beginning

[80:45]

of the next sutra because we might get through this one into the next one by next week. A couple of comments over here and then you have a comment too. Let's take these three comments and then we'll end for tonight. Yes? The last sentence about what is non-existent. Yes, right. Yes, it does, right. Well, that's the thing. We get agitated about what is non-existent. Permanent soul, yes. Reincarnation Reincarnation is another matter. And not just Indian,

[81:52]

it's an idea in the West as well. The idea of an eternal essential person that lives on after the body is gone. He says that belief in that is another version of, or a refinement or a spiritualization of the view that this experience of my life right now is me. That's just a spiritualization of that same view. Well, I was also interested in this last line since he regards them thus. He is not agitated about what is non-existent and it brings up a new topic. Suddenly the issue is agitation. That seems to be the central issue. I'm wondering, where did that come from? Is that a contrast to peace of mind? Calm abiding?

[82:54]

I'm not sure how important agitation is here as a thought. My reading of this is more like caught up in or believes in or deals with or is concerned with. The main point is here is someone who is acting foolishly in relation to something that doesn't even exist. That's the point. This identity, we project identity onto experience causing us to grasp experience, causing us to suffer and it doesn't even exist. The thing that we're grasping doesn't even exist at all. And of course, agitation is part of it but the non-existent part is the operative part of the sentence. That's how I read it anyway. Don't get excited. I was just thinking

[84:00]

that it was talking about when you bring your self-consciousness into something that you're experiencing and it might be wonderful and then it's gone. So if you don't do that it just continues on. Then you really experience it. Sort of the second that you say while I'm here, isn't this wonderful? It's gone. Every meditator has that experience of entering into a very pure state of meditation and then saying, oh boy, this is fantastic and then boom, it's gone. Or, oh boy, how great I am. Yes, I think we can see. And then if you think of the things that make you suffer it's easy to see how the things that make you suffer are all blows to the ego.

[85:02]

Somebody insulted me, so I'm upset. I'm going around for days upset because somebody insulted me. Well, who's there to be insulted? It's just the words in the sky. Most of our suffering, most of our trouble comes from this identification with our own experience. Experience is there and I think that I feel that although sometimes when you read these old sutras you wouldn't know it, I think that the way that the Buddha was trying to teach us a way to live that would be enormously satisfying and happy and full of joy and pleasure by virtue of getting rid of all the anguish and suffering that we are constantly beset by because we don't get what we want and somebody's insulting us

[86:05]

and we think we're not good enough or something's not good enough or we identify with so many things in so many ways that our sense of self is so complicated. We identify with our family, we identify with our country, we identify with our dharma center or our teacher. So somebody was mad at my dharma center. No, I'm upset. I'm suffering. Somebody was mad at my child. I'm upset, etc., etc., etc. So all these identifications and misapprehensions of just the simple fact of experience arising like a miracle out of nowhere, wow, this whole world appears for no reason that we know of out of nowhere. I mean, look at all these things that are in front of us. Look at how nice this rug is. Wow, it's a beautiful rug. And it's gone. It's wonderful. And it's to be really appreciated and enjoyed. But if you the minute you identify with it and grasp it,

[87:06]

then you have a lot of problems. What if something should happen to this rug? I better get an insurance policy. I got a better job. And then somebody else is after the same job as me. I don't like them. You know, I have to do something to prevent them from getting the job. Oh, I have to go and do this and talk to them. Then they're mad at me, and so on. All these things that flow from our identification and our attachment. We can only let it go and just appreciate experience, including sensual experience, which is not different from any other kind of experience, without identification and grasping. So we need to disabuse ourselves of that and appreciate. And this is, I think, what you were talking about earlier, that in Zen practice we have a great respect for and appreciation of how deep this identification goes. And so, when we discover suffering arising in relationship to our approach to the world, we're not surprised. And we turn toward that suffering

[88:08]

and allow it to be there without picking it up and shaking it around and making more of it than we need to. That's basically, practically speaking, that's how we have to practice. Because if we were supposed to practice not having desires and unskillful approaches to reality, and that was what we were supposed to do, we wouldn't get anywhere, because we hardly ever do that. So we have to practice with where we really are at, which is, we do have desires and unskillful approaches which lead to suffering, so we have to be with that whole situation. And gradually, it dies down, it gets easier. Anyway, it's a little after nine, and I do want to end. And we'll start from number 18, is that right? Number 18, next time, next Tuesday. And hopefully, as we get into this,

[89:09]

I won't talk so much. What are we supposed to chant now? May our intention... [...]

[89:22]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ