Welcome everybody, I hope you can hear me, there were some problems with the program
but it seems to be working now.
Right, this is the 8th lecture in my course, Purification, Ethics and Karma in Early Body
Discourse.
First thing I'd like to mention is that the next lecture will only be on the 30th of June.
We have two holidays in between, so the next two weeks there will be only the discussion
on the blog.
Then another announcement I would like to make on behalf of the Center of Body Studies
of our University of Hamburg.
We have just managed to have a MA, to create an MA in Body Studies.
This is mainly the work of the head of our department, Professor Michael Zimmerman.
And to my knowledge, this is the first time that it is possible to get a Master of Art
in Body Studies at a German University.
This is an important recognition of Body Studies, and it will start in winter 2012.
And you can specialize, those who have a Bachelor and would like to get an MA in Body Studies,
could specialize in Indian, Tibetan, Chinese or Japanese Buddhism in a two years course.
Then another thing, when Dama Dasa on the blog had mentioned that when I paste in information
into the chat, giving the references, that for those who only listen to the audio files,
this is not visible obviously, and I hadn't thought of that.
So in future, whenever I give references, I will always make sure that I read them out
loud.
And those I gave last time, I just quickly go through them again, so that at least these
are available to everyone.
The four references I gave last time as part of my discussion in regard to Jhana's and
the blog, the description of the first Jhana in the Brahma Jhana sutra.
This is Digha Nikaya, Volume 1, page 37.
The reference that sound is a thorn to Jhana, this is Anguttara Nikaya, Volume 5, page 135.
The story of Venerable Moggallana, hearing sound while being in imperturbable concentration,
this is in the Vinaya, Volume 3, page 109.
And the contrast between Jhana and Buddhist conception of Karma in the Jiva Ksutta, this
is Majjhmani Kaya, Volume 1, page 372.
And the last one is that the precise fruition of Karma is things that are beyond being thought
out, the achinteyani, this is Anguttara Nikaya, Volume 2, page 80.
Next time I had said, I had given my point of view on a few of those controversies regarding
Jhana, the nature and entertainment of Jhana.
And there has been quite some discussion on the blog about this.
And I realized that there was one aspect that I did not cover last time, so I just like
to briefly take that up.
And this is the relationship between Jhana experience and body.
And I have here on the blackboard the description of the third Jhana, I read the first part.
With the fading away as well of rapture, among abides in equanimity and mindful and fully
aware, feeling pleasure, I have not translated the word, the part is Kayena, feeling pleasure
Kayena, he enters upon and abides in the third absorption, on account of which noble once
announced he has a pleasant abiding who has equanimity and is mindful.
The term Kayena, this is instrumental, has a specific meaning in Pai, it's an idiomatic
expression.
And we get the same instrumental Kayena, for example as Kayena Pusati to touch through
the body for the immaterial attainments.
This is the reference I pasted in and I will also say it aloud now.
Majimani Kaya, volume 1, page 477.
Now the immaterial attainments, all matter is gone, therefore there is no, not really
any chance to touch with the body.
And another reference in the same discourse a little bit later, Majimani Kaya, volume
1, page 480, speaks of Kayena Sachikaroti, this is to realize Kayena and what is realized
is the ultimate truth, nirvana, there is also not much to be done with the body in nirvana.
So we can understand that the expression Kayena, when it is used in this instrumental
form has a specific meaning and that means to experience something with one's whole being
or directly.
There's actually an excellent German translation that we can use which is Leiphaftik, Leiphaftik
Leiphaftik is still the German word for body but Leiphaftik doesn't give you necessarily
this feeling of something being done with the physical body but with one's whole being,
one's whole experience.
So the description of the third jhana, this feeling pleasure Kayena does not necessarily
mean that this pleasure is felt bodily.
It means that this pleasure is felt with one's whole being.
But then and here we continue, the Manfred on the blog had already pointed out that we
get this whole series of similes for the jhana and the text here is not so good, let me just
get it better here.
There's some problem with the PDF display, anyway.
He makes the pleasure divested of rapture, drench, steep, fill and pervade this Kayang.
This is again I have not translated and you can't see it there properly, I think I just
paste it in here below, maybe then you can see it better, just a second.
So it's here now in the chat.
Here we have Kayang, so the rapture pervades the Kayang, it's no longer the instrumental.
So that there is no part of this whole Kayas, also not the instrumental, unpervaded by the
pleasure divested of rapture.
That too is how a monk develops Kayagata Sating, this is mindfulness directed to the body.
So I think there can be no doubt that in this second part to which Manfred had already drawn
our attention, the physical body is meant.
This is no longer this idiomatic expression, this instrumental thing and the whole description
of the experience of the four jhanas comes in the Kayagata Sati Sutra, I have given the
reference here below, Majimani Kaya, Volume 3, page 92.
And this whole Sutra is about mindfulness of the body.
If the jhanas were not at all related to the body, it would be completely meaningless
to speak about them in that context.
However there are meditators and also meditation teachers who experience jhana as a purely
mental experience and who say that the body has disappeared, how do we match this with
this canonical description?
And my personal feeling is that there is not really a conflict between these two positions.
The reason I do not see a real conflict is that with the jhana experience, what we have
is an experience of unification.
The mark, the characteristic of the attainment of jhana is that everything becomes one, subject
and object become one.
In fact this is how one can tell if somebody has attained genuine jhana that whatever object
somebody has, the normal way that this happens is that the mind replaces an object like mindfulness
of breathing with the so-called nimitta, a light experience.
But this is not necessarily the only way of getting into jhana.
But the meditator, he or she will experience as if they are going into this light or as
if this light is engulfing them, going over them.
And the whole point of this is that they are entering an experience of unity.
Everything becomes one.
The subject, object, duality disappears.
And when everything becomes one, then mind and body also become one.
And then it is really again a matter of how you look at it.
If you are looking at it from one side, as this has become one, it looks as if it is
just mind.
And if you look at it from the other side, it's body.
You see what I mean is that there is not necessary, as far as I understand, there is not necessarily
a conflict between these two positions.
Although and that Manfred pointed out on the blog that the canonical descriptions very
clearly establish that the body is there.
But the way the body is experienced in jhana is different from the way it is normally experienced.
Precisely because of this unification and because of the depth of concentration.
And my point of bringing this up now was not only to conclude this little excursion
on jhana and what is the nature of jhana, but also to again come back to this point
that I already tried to make last time with this simile of me being in the water up to
my neck and the head outside of the water and then this difficulty of making this other
gentleman understand that I am not in the water, not out of the water.
There is always some, there is often we find there is a certain amount of grey area.
And here I would like to, and this is actually the main point that I am now getting at.
I would like us to have a short look at Indian logic.
You see we have been brought up, most of us from with this notion of Western logic that
there is just two alternatives, yes and no.
Now in Indian thought we have a fourfold logic.
This is something so puzzling that some philosophers even say that this is not logic at all.
I am not sure, to me it is quite logical.
This is the so called tetral lemma.
And as you can see here there are four different positions in the tetral lemma.
The first is something is, the second something is not.
This is what we know from Western logic.
Now comes a third and a fourth, the third is is and is not, and the fourth neither is
nor is not, rather curious no.
This tetral lemma is not something specifically Buddhist.
It seems to be generally known in ancient Indian thought.
In the suttas we often get this as a way of formulating the nature of a tathagata, thus
gone one, a term that stands for an arahant but mainly is used for, specifically for the
Buddha with a few passages still having this more general sense.
And we often get that the non-Buddhists approach Buddhist monks or even the Buddha and ask
how he formulates the nature of one who is fully awakened, the liberated one, the sage.
Someone say that after death he is or is not or is and is not or neither is nor is
not and the Buddha refuses all four alternatives because the premises of the question are wrong
according to him.
But this tetral lemma, this four-fold mode of predication is not only used in the suttas
by non-Buddhist but also by the Buddha himself.
And we find it especially among the fours of the Anguttara Nikaya, very often something
as sad like somebody might harm himself herself or might harm others or might harm himself
herself and others or neither harm him herself and not harm others.
This basic four-fold kind of thinking is also used by the Buddha.
And I personally find this extremely helpful as a way of approaching things.
You see when we clearly allow for these four different options then we get quite a different
world view.
At least this is what happened to me and to some with whom I shared this mode of thought.
We go beyond this very simple black and white distinction.
We see that there is black and there is white, yes.
But there's also black and white number three in our options, namely gray and different
shades of gray.
And there's also four, neither black nor white, all those beautiful colors.
Yellow, red, blue, whatever.
And so we see that if we approach situations with this four-fold logic I find it very helpful
specifically when we are faced with someone who has a view that is opposed to our own
view.
You see if I say Jhana is like this and then somebody else says no it's like that.
Then if I stand in this situation based on my perception of the black and white two type
of logic notion, either he is right or I'm right.
And because of that I get this real feeling I need to defend my position now.
I have to get at him, I have to smash him to make sure that his opinion is pulverized
so that my opinion is the only one that stands in the room and is right and correct.
I'm exaggerating a little bit but if we watch carefully when somebody contradicts us it's
very interesting.
You get this feeling of being really attacked and needing to defend.
But when we look at it from this four-fold logic position there's much more space.
There's no need to defend because maybe he's right, maybe we are both right.
Maybe we are both wrong.
It leaves a lot of openness and I don't need to immediately react.
I can leave some room there and I find that specifically helpful in order to see also
if the other person is actually receptive.
Because we find and here I speak specifically also about experience with other scholars
and I think it applies also in general.
With some scholars it's very beautiful, you can have a very open exchange and they put
their views in a very open manner like you see it seems to me like this and but perhaps
and it's very open and so one exchanges views and ideas and each learns from the other.
But then with some other scholars they put their viewers in a very strong manner.
It's like this I don't accept that and it's kind of it becomes so firmly established that
it's clear that there is no real ground for exchange.
There's if at all a discussion will happen it will just be a fight and the person holding
this view it's part of their identity.
View and a feeling of identity is something that goes very close together.
So I am the one who holds such and such a view and any topic coming up then I have
to manifest myself by putting my room view in the middle of the room.
This is Analia's view, this is what Analia has to say on this, this is what Analia thinks
about that.
There it is and that's my identity don't touch it I'm gonna fight for it.
I'm again exaggerating a little bit for the sake of entertainment but yeah we often find
here I have often find situations like that and when that happens it is pretty meaningless
to start a discussion because it's not gonna lead anywhere.
The other person is anyway gonna be full entrenched in their position and there's not gonna be
any exchange and so it's best to just accept that and say yeah fine I see it differently
but doesn't matter.
Yeah I find this and that is also what I was trying to do with the whole of the Jhana discussion
I was not so much wanting to push down my views down your throat but with a few instances
like this what I said today and also the siminy of the water just show that different opinions
need not be mutually exclusive.
Yeah that was the Tetra lemma.
Then there was still a question open from one of the suttas or maybe I should first
ask if there is any question on the Tetra lemma because to me this is a rather important
point that really helps to deal with situations of views being confronted with views of others
and having some less strong grasping at our own views.
This obviously does not mean that I'm just going to ignore anything that contradicts
my own views saying anyway I'll be right and this is not the point it's just the point
of helping us to stay less attached to our own views.
There is a question coming I think.
Any more question?
Okay then I continue.
Now we are back on the topic of karma and last time I gave an introduction with a few
passages and one passage has been discussed in the blog by several participants and that
was the I just read it again the passage on feelings from the siva kasuta.
I read it one more time.
Some feelings arise here originating from bile disorders, from flank disorders, from
wind disorders, from an imbalance of the three produced by change of climate, produced by
careless behavior, caused by assault, produced as the result of karma.
Therefore aesthetics and brahmins who hold such a view as this whatever a person experiences
whether it be pleasant or painful or neither pleasant nor painful all that is caused by
what was done in the past they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot what
is considered to be true in the world therefore I say that this is wrong on the part of those
aesthetics and brahmins.
Yeah the issue was about what is these feelings produced by careless behavior that was brought
up by several Laura de Bernard and Andrea Phelan.
Yeah so careless behavior is actually the translation coined by Bhikkhu Bodhi and the
actual term that we have there is visama pariharaja.
I would be quite difficult for me to give a proper translation of that term.
Visama is somehow uneven, disharmonious, somehow not quite right and pariharaja is something
that surrounds one or one is affected by the party text dictionary, party text society
dictionary translates visama pariharaja as being attacked by adversities and Bhikkhu
Bodhi's translation as careless behavior is based on the commentary in fact he says that
in a footnote to his translation and then the commentary goes into like careless behavior
and gives example of for example a snake or something getting bitten by a snake and
I just want to tell a little story that happened to me in Sri Lanka.
We had been going to visit a very outstanding monk Bhikkhu Nyanananda in he lives in a cave
and we had a very long discussion with him and he's very intense like you start discussing
dharma with him and the time flies so it had become dark and we didn't have a torch
and we were three of us so he asked one of the helpers there to get us down from the
cave and down the hill and it was a very very small path where normally only one person
can walk and so this helper with his torch and the three of us clearly crowding around
him crowding around him trying to go down this path and the other two were quite inspired
by the dharma they had heard and were like discussing but I had this feeling that I needed
to digest what I had heard and I just want to be quiet and so I was very kind of less
like quiet and keeping my eyes down in a kind of walking meditation mode and just as we
were walking down I saw that there was a viper and it was just lying across the path
and so in the last moment I just spread out my arms and I hit the others and stopped them
we were just standing in front of it and it was a podanga we call them in Sri Lanka is
deadly poisonous and they normal way how they bite is precisely one steps on them and this
little fella was lying exactly across the path it is impossible I think that not one
of us it's sure one of us would have stopped stepped on it and and that was just a typical
case I think where thanks to one of us not being careless our karma of getting bitten
by a snake did not come to fruition I'm not telling this because it happened to be me
that was just chance that that time I wasn't chattering next time I would have been chattering
myself but yeah my two friends they were completely quiet for the rest of our journey all the way
back to candy it's it really hits you when you when you're just one step before getting
bitten by a deadly poisonous snake and I think that's just a just a good example for the
importance of being careful and I think there's a there's a basic basic setup that because of our
karma of the past that we are now in this particular situation but that there is our
ability to to deal careful with that situation and then we avoid certain things I think it's
just simply like that and what I found a very important point made by Linda Grace about the
discourse in in in total about the meaning of this course this discourse she says I understood
the distinction in the example to be between something being the soul or primary result of
past karma ripening in the present kamavi paka versus some careless activity in the more immediate
present being a cause of or contributing factor to something else in the more immediate present
but the careless activity would still become yeah and in fact here in the quote I highlighted I
am put in bold that the the the position being criticized is what ever a person experiences
all that is caused by what was done in the past it's this this this everything is due to karma
view and other things are being excluded this is this is I think what is being criticized it is not
meant that carelessness or carefulness is something that that is not karma in itself or I think the
main point is that the passage is criticizing mono causality a mono causal view specifically
of karma instead we have a we have a net of conditions that leads to the present situation
karma is one of those but there's the situation is not determined and there are several things
that influence it and one of these is our carelessness or carefulness then the last thing
to be reviewed is our discourse on the simile of the grain of salt I just give the summary here
again some deeds can have different consequences just as a grain of salt turns a glass of water
salty but not the riveted ganges just as a poor thief of a goat is taken to task but not the rich
thief of a goat just as a poor depth is arrested for owing little but not a rich debtor even if he
owes much again this is not the image of this grain of salt is not this is the only way to
look at it and nothing else I think Manfred had already clarified that on the on the blog there
was one question by Dania Percy she asked with a paste it in here if a monastic breaks a precept
is the comic outcome worse than if the same action was committed by a layperson and I think
definitely yes that was the theme of the other discourse that we looked at before the heap of
wood or heap of fire discourse that these these very stark images better embrace a fire than
embrace a pretty young member of the other gender and better swallow a hot iron ball than eat food
offered by the faithful if you are not keeping morality it's bringing up precisely that you
see as a as a monk I have on my own undertaken certain precepts and I'm presenting myself to
the public as one who upholds these and people will respect me or support me precisely because
they think look this is a monk this he is a celibate and he's doing this this this so if if
I'm cheating in reality I'm doing all kind of naughty things this is this is coming in much much
worse than if I were to do the same things being a layperson and not making any claims and there's
another very useful somewhat longer comment by Linda Grace that I like to share with you because
I found it very very helpful she says I think sometimes conditioned ideas of good person bad
person reward punishment causality in simplistically linear terms etc can cloud our investigation and
understanding of karma for myself I find it helpful to see creating karma as a stepping stone stepping
into a process so to speak that has been set in motion and will have its inevitable consequences
resulting in happiness or suffering so I want to take as much good care as I am able to given my
awareness at any given time in terms of what I step into or set in motion or take up but also to see
that both the action and fruition whether immediate or fine to the future happen within a
matrix of conditions and that a variety of mental inclinations and intentions as well as other
physical and verbal actions are part of and constantly influencing that matrix not only will
unwholesome action eventually ripen but that action is also strengthening the underlying
unwholesome tendencies motivating it so it becomes like a feedback loop there's something missing
here and then it's also easier and more likely to repeat a similar action which deepens the current
of suffering so to speak I think that's a very nice description of this of the best way to understand
it as a like a flexible thing the discourses we are going to go through now are going to put
different highlights on different aspects of karma and none of them is just like this is the one
principle and we only look at this and forget about all the rest but they all kind of intervene
and combine to give us the main idea of what according to early Buddhist thought is happening
yeah so now getting into the next discourse this is Madhyama Agama number 12 discourse to
Vapa the parallel to the Vapa Sutti in the Anguttarnikaya this is discourse 195 among the
fours in the PTS edition volume 2 page 196 and in this discourse that we are going to look at now
we are going to meet one of the two chief disciples of the Buddha by the name of Mahamogallana when
Mahamogallana together with Venable Sariputta reckon the two chief disciples of the Buddha and
according to what we know from the Theravada commentary tradition the two had been friends
already before they went forth and they had been practicing under the same teacher somebody called
Sanjaya whom we also meet in the Brahmajala Sutti as one of six outstanding teachers
contemporary to the Buddha and in the Brahmajala Sutti he is portrayed as somewhat of a skeptic
perhaps not taking any position and then there's the story that when Mahamogallana put to one day
while he was walking in Rajka he met a monk one of the early monk disciples of the Buddha by the
name of Asaji and he asked him he was impressed by this monk and asked what was your teacher and
what is what is he teaching and he just got a single stanza and became a stream enter on hearing
this stanza and he went back and told Mahamogallana the stanza and Mahamogallana also became a stream
enter and so they both decided to leave their teacher Sanjaya and ordained under the Buddha
and the story actually goes that they took all the disciples of Sanjaya with him and Mahamogallana
is said to have attained to become an Arahant after one week and Sariputta after two weeks
when Mahamogallana apparently had some problem with drowsiness there is a discourse addressed
to him on drowsiness before he became an Arahant and he apparently also had some problem in clearly
recognizing the level of jhana he is in there's he gets instructions by the Buddha in this respect
and it is the same Mahamogallana that we met with the last time who according to the Vinaya had been
sitting in an inja samadhi an imperturbable concentration and apparently shortly emerging
from that attainment had been hearing sound of elephants and had not had this clarity of recognizing
that at the time of hearing he was actually not inside the fourth jhana and when Mahamogallana in
the suttas stands particularly for this power of concentration he is the master of supernatural
powers early buddhism believes that on developing concentration up to the fourth absorption it is
possible to develop all kinds of supernatural powers to levitate to walk on water dive into
the earth touch the earth and moon touch the sun and moon etc change one's shape and some of these
instances are actually already found in the early discourses so we cannot dismiss these
supernatural performances as something that was just added by later tradition although it is true
that the later the text the more supernatural phenomena we will get and eventually the Buddha
and the monks just keep flying from one place to the next but some of these
supernatural performance are already found in in the in the early discourses
and one of them is that Mahamogallana he offers to when there's a famine he offers to turn the
earth upside down there's supposedly a savory essence under the skin of the earth that they
live off and he's also said on one time there was a monastic building with some monks that were
not very mindful and so to to to to shake them up he is said to have shaken the whole building with
his great toe he does the same also with the palace of god the king of gods that he goes to
visit sakra or saka he also shakes that palace with his toe yeah and he is said to have passed
away before the buddha and the story that we get from the commentary of tradition is that he
was in the habit of visiting hells and reporting where how people were reborn in in the lower
realms and so he was also telling that the followers of non-buddhist religious tradition
when they got reborn in hell and so they are their disciples were not particularly happy about that
and out of revenge decided to send somebody to kill him and the story goes that he was able to
escape but eventually one time they got him and he was beaten up to death
yeah that is what the commentary and tradition gives us in terms of information about venerable
mama galana so now we come to the discourse itself i read again thus have i heard at one
time the buddha was staying among the sakhyans at capilabhatu in the niggurura park sakhyans is the
clan from which the buddhas himself comes so he is in his home country at that time after the
midday meal the venerable mama galana was sitting in the assembly hall together with the company of
monks for some purpose then a sakyan by the name of vapa a disciple of the niggantas niggantas are
the giants a disciple of the niggantas wandering around afternoon approached the venerable mama
galana and after exchanging greetings sat down to one side
and the venerable mama galana asked this visit tune about this matter what do you think vapa
here from monk is restrained in body speech and mind do you see any possible cause owing to which
unwholesome influxes might arise leading to future existence this the influxes we discussed
in the discourse on all the asavas and the point of this discussion that is now going to come
is about the different conceptions of these influxes these asavas in the buddhist and the
jaina tradition and in the anguttara parallel the way whenever mama galana describes this he adds
and i think that makes it more clear that the person he is speaking about is an arahant
is somebody who has eradicated ignorance so the question he is asking is what what is the
situation for the arahant and these influxes and vapa gives the reply according to the jaina
tradition view as it is being reported in buddhist discourse and i read again mama galana
if a monk is restrained in body speech and mind i do see a possible cause owing to which unwholesome
influxes might arise leading to future existence mama galana if someone has done unwholesome actions
in previous existence then owing to that unwholesome influxes will arise leading to future existence
so that is the view that vapa proposes now the buddha is according to the madhyama agama version
he has heard this conversation with his divine ear the divine ear is one of these supernatural
powers that according to early buddhist meditation theory one can develop based on the fourth
absorption and which allows one to hear sounds at a very far distance so the buddha joins them
and now he first establishes a basic principle of discussion he says then the blessed one said to
vapa the sakyan a disciple of the nigantas if you agree with what i say you should say yes
if you disagree you should say no and if you have any uncertainty you should ask me further thus
renanci and kotama how is this what is the meaning of this if you can accept what i have
just proposed i could discuss this matter with you so the buddha is kind of opening up
the room for questions but also asking him to either agree or disagree and if
vapa agrees with this basic principle of discussion then the buddha will continue and vapa agrees
and so the buddha explains suppose that a monk in the past gave rise to unwholesome bodily
activities unwholesome verbal activities unwholesome mental activities unwholesome activities based
on ignorance but at a later time he seizes unwholesome activities of all these four types
creating no new karma and having abundant old karma in this very life he attains the goal
and free from vexation remains permanently and unchangingly in this condition
which is spoken of as something to be seen by noble wisdom and to be known by noble wisdom
what do you think vapa for a monk who is restrained in body speech and mind in this way
do you see a possible cause owing to which unwholesome influxes might arise leading to future
existence and vapa admits he replies gautama if a monk is restrained in body speech and mind in
this way i see no possible cause owing to which unwholesome influxes might arise leading to future
existence the buddha continues vapa it is just like a shadow that exists in dependence on a tree
suppose that someone comes with a sharp aches and shops down the tree at its root cuts it into
pieces then breaks each piece into 10 or 100 fragments burns them in a fire so that they become
ash which is then blown away by strong wind or carried away by water what do you think vapa
that shadow existed in the dependence on the tree so once the cause of the shadow has been cut off
will the shadow disappear and not arise again vapa replied indeed gautama
vapa it should be understood in the same way in the case of a monk in whom ignorance has been
extinguished and knowledge has arisen with ignorance extinguished and knowledge arisen
when there arises the feeling of the body nearing its end he knows that there has arisen the feeling
of the body nearing its end when there arises the feeling of life nearing its end he knows
that there has arisen the feeling of life nearing its end and when the body breaks up and life ends
the lifespan having expired then all that is felt in this life will be exhausted and come to an end
it should be understood that it will end and become cool
vapa a monk whose mind has been rightly liberated like this attains six wholesome abodes
what are the six vapa on seeing a form with the eye such a monk is neither pleased nor displeased
he remains equanimous and unaffected with right mindfulness and right attentiveness
similarly on hearing a sound with the ear on smelling an odor with the nose on tasting a
flavor with a tongue on experiencing a touch with the body on cognizing a mental phenomenon with
the mind he is neither pleased nor displeased he remains equanimous and unaffected with right
mindfulness and right attentiveness the anguttara nikaya peril has a different sequence of these
textual pieces it first takes up the topic of the arahant and future existences
then it mentions the six abidings these six states of remaining equanimous and unaffected
to anything that happens at the sense doors and only then comes to the simile of cutting up a tree
as i had mentioned earlier this is the common occurrence in orally transmitted literature
that we get relatively similar text but somehow the sequence is jumbled and
yeah i don't have any particular argument for one sequence being better than the other
so we continue with the discourse the discourse concludes with wappa approving and he makes an
illustration of his former faith in the giants that is similar to raising a bad horse expecting
to get benefit from it and then he takes refuge with the buddha now buddhist discourse is not a
100 reliable source for the views held by others but i think therefore the main point that this
discourse gives us is not so much what precisely is the jaina point of view on the asavas i think
we can leave that as a secondary thing but the main point is from a buddhist perspective somebody
who has reached full awakening here and now in this very life is already beyond the influxes
he or she is not beyond karmic retribution a famous example is the anguli mala a story of
somebody who has been a murderer but was converted by the buddha became a monk became an arahant and
he was whatever karmic retribution for his former evil acts was still due to happen in the same life
he had to experience that but by becoming an arahant not being reborn he had cut off
the possibility to experience any retribution in future lives that is not the point here the point
here is that an an arahant has done with what is unwholesome that is gone the influxes are
eradicated once and for all and this point i think is important insofar as some buddhist traditions
develop later on the idea that there is an arahant who can fall away from his attainment
parihana dharma arahant and there are a number of passages that one could take from the early
discourses that would show that this is a later notion from the early buddhist viewpoint and this
is not only terravala this is what we get from the parinikayas and the chinese agamas etc an arahant
one who has become an arahant has has eradicated all unwholesomeness in the mind and there is no
falling back from that condition he or she might lose concentration attainments maybe they have
gotten some jhanas and they get sick and can't attain them anymore that's a different question
but as far as influxes are concerned that taints the ass or this is done and for good
yeah if there are questions then now is a good time otherwise i'm already getting the next
discourse i have to apologize for the pdf display i have not been able to sort out this problem
there is some reason as you can see here now the pdf is perfectly fine it says ma 13 but it
somehow matches this the the display here and the connect mixes these things up but
yeah i i hope you can live with that so i think there is one question coming i wait a little while
just this is a question from lynda galash just a question about the phrase in the text
when body breaks up and life ends is it of particular importance that the body first breaks
up and then life ends no that is just a standard expression kaya sabeda parangmarana is the pali
counterpart and they both refer to the same thing this is just the style of the discourses
this is actually good that you're mentioning that that i can comment on that we often get repetitive
phrases like this one kaya sabeda parangmarana it would be enough to justify marana when
the life ends or death or to say kaya sabeda the body breaks up but the the style of
oral literature is such that something is not said once but says two or three times
like you don't say it's beautiful say it's beautiful really lovely absolutely delightful
and enchanting and in a in a in a written document this looks a little odd but as i'm talking to you
if i just say it's beautiful but if i say it's beautiful what did i say absolutely delightful
i forgot what i said but if i if i use all these four terms the the point that i'm making now in
an oral situation talking to you becomes it sticks more in your mind and the same for later
transmission if i am learning a passage that has this what did i have beautiful delightfully
enchanting absolutely wonderful then even if i forget one of them i still have the other three
and the main point that is being said in the passage is not getting lost
so there is a there's a tendency of of of of repetition which is typically for for oral
literature for literature that is born in an oral context and that has been passing on in an oral
setting to make the same point repeatedly to make sure that that one gets it the person has passed
away but there's no intention to say that the body breaks up first at life ends after there's no
no statement about at what point life is precisely at its end the two are meant to be contemporary
so now we get into madhyama agama 13 excuse me discourse on tenets to be transcended
this is the parallel to the tita yatanani sutta this is the 61st discourse among the
threes of the angotaranikaya pilot x society volume one page 173
and i read again thus have i heard at one time the widow was staying at savati in jeta's grove
for not appendicus park that is the main setting of many discourses jeta's grove in savati
at that time the blessed one said to the monks there are three tenets to be transcended
tenets held by those of different affiliation different appellation different school different
doctrine you just notice what we're talking about different affiliation different appellation
different school different doctrine it's again this saying it four times make sure you really
got the message i continue reading which despite being well accepted firmly held and declared
to others by so-called wise men are not beneficial what are these three
the numbers are given by me here there are renunciants and brahmins who hold this view
and declare all that a person does is caused by what was done in previous lives
and the next one again there are renunciants and brahmins who hold this view and declare
all that a person does is caused and created by supreme divine being the creator god
and the third again there are renunciants and brahmins who hold this view and declare
all that a person does is without any cause or condition these are the three main views that the
buddha that this discourse is going to be discussing so the first is everything is because of the past
is a kind of karmic determinism the second is the affirmation of a creator god and the third
is the denial of causality so the discourse continues by describing how the buddha approaches
each of these renunciants and brahmins and he first asked them if they really hold this view
that's actually a very nice procedure we get in the discourses even when somebody is accused of
some offense a monk or a nun the the buddha will call them to his presence and first of all make
sure is that true have you really done this have you really said this there's always this awareness
that particularly in an oral setting what other people tell you so and so is done might not be
really what they have really done or what they have really said so there's always this step of
first of all hey did you really say that or did you really do that and then only the
punishment explanation counter-argument starts but in this case the these reclosing brahmins they say
yes yes this is our position so now the buddha questions them and here we are with the position
number one the position on comical determinism and the buddha says i say to them if that is so
venerable friends then you all endorse killing living beings taking what is not given sexual
misconduct false speech and so on up to wrong views this is an abbreviation of the ten karmapata
karmapata the ten unwholesome courses of action they comprise these three physical actions killing
stealing sexual misconduct four types of unbeneficial speech and three final times is greed
ill will and having wrong views continue with the suttan why is that
because all of that is caused by what was done in previous lives
venbo friends if the view that all is caused by what was done in previous lives were true
then it would follow logically that all that one does or does not takes place without desire without
effort so the position he's basically taking is that if everything is caused by the past and i
have no responsibility i kill i steal and i well i had to you see it's it's all because of the past
view number two
if that is so this is the view on a creator god if that is so when we're friends and we get the
same argument then all you all endorse killing living beings take what is not given sexual
misconduct false speech and so on up to wrong views why because all of that is caused and
created by a supreme divine being when we're friends if the view that all is caused and created
by supreme divine being were true then it would follow logically that all that one does or does
not takes place without desire without effort so the same same argument is used also against the
idea of a creator god and then point view number three the view that there are no causes and no
conditions if that is so venbo friends then you all endorse killing living beings etc
why because all of that is without any causes or conditions when we're friends if the view that all
is without any cause or condition were true then it would follow logically that all that one does
or does not takes place without desire without effort so here if there are no causes and conditions
then i'm also not able to assume then there is no responsibility for my killing etc
and i think for view one and view three the case is very clear for view two
i think it works only if we have the conception of a creator god that is all powerful and completely
in control but there are notions of a supreme divine being that creates living beings but then
lets them act according to their own wishes and responsibilities and such view of a creator god
would not be the one that is being targeted here yeah the formulation in the anguttara nikaya
parallel of this argument is similar but has a somewhat different wording and the anguttara
nikaya concludes each refutation by the buddha by telling that the buddha tells these renunciants
you cannot if the view you hold were true you cannot even be properly called renunciants because
just as you are not responsible for killing you are also not responsible for being a true renunciant
all that a person does let me just go back here
yeah another small difference is that when he discusses all these views in the
madhyama agama he calls them as not beneficial and in the anguttara nikaya it said that
these views establish the notion of non-action akhirya and i think that is the argument that
he is making in all these three cases holding these three types of views one is not inspired
to take action one does not take responsibility and this is basically why he wants to criticize
them and now he presents his own teaching as a contrast the dharma i teach to you which i have
known and realized by myself cannot be refuted cannot be defiled cannot be prevailed over by
any renunciant brahmin god mara brahma or anyone else in the world the six sense bases the six
elements he's going to explain this now in the anguttara nikaya also the four noble truths are
mentioned in this announcement and as we come to them later that makes sense and the anguttara
pal also mentions the 18 mental explorations we can leave these aside they are based on the six sense
bases so i continue with the discourse because of the combination of the six elements there is
rebirth from a mother's womb the six elements are the earth water fire air wind i'm sorry earth
water fire wind the four material elements space and consciousness consciousness here stands for
the whole mental aspect of a living being it's a consciousness vinyana has several different
roles sometimes it's only one of the aggregates but at times it stands for the whole of the mind
of a living being so these elements the material elements space and consciousness combined this
they are the basic ingredients for a living being because of their existence
there's rebirth from a mother's womb because of the six elements there are the six sense bases
i might have mentioned them already that they are beside buddhism considers mind as a six sense
alongside the five physical sense bases and because of the six sense bases there is contact
and because of contact there is feeling some of you might know that we are getting here a little
bit into dependent arising monks one who is feeling will be able to know dukkha as it really is
know the arising of dukkha know the cessation of dukkha and know the path to the cessation of dukkha
as it really is here we get into the four noble truths
what is knowing dukkha as it really is it is this birth is dukkha old age is dukkha
disease is dukkha death is dukkha association with what is disliked is dukkha
dissociation from what is liked is dukkha not getting what one wants is dukkha in brief the
five aggregates of clinging are dukkha this is called knowing dukkha as it really is this is the
first of the four noble truths now we get the second what is knowing the arising of dukkha as
it really is it is craving for and clinging to future existence with the light and desire seeking
after this and that state of existence this is called knowing the rising of dukkha as it really
is i just note that the second noble truth formulation in agama discourses does not mention
the three types of craving that we get usually in the same definition in Pali discourses
craving karma bhava and vibhavatana the craving for sensuality for becoming or existence and for
non-becoming or non-existence the next the third what is knowing the cessation of dukkha as it
really is it is the cutting off without remainder abandoning disgorging fading away cessation
stopping and disappearance of this craving for and clinging to future existence with delight and
desire seeking after this and that state of existence this is called knowing the cessation
of dukkha as it really is what is knowing the path to the cessation of dukkha as it really is
it is the noble eightfold path right view and so on up to right concentration these eight
this is called knowing the path to the cessation of dukkha as it really is
monks you should know dukkha as it really is you should cut off the arising of dukkha
you should realize the cessation of dukkha and you should cultivate the path to the cessation
of dukkha if a monk knows dukkha as it really is cuts off the arising of dukkha realizes the
cessation of dukkha and cultivates the path to the cessation of dukkha then that monk having
abandoned all influxes having loosened all fetters is able to write attentiveness to attain the end
of dukkha this is what the buddha said having heard the buddha's words the monks were delighted
and remembered them well yeah in the anguttara nikaya parallel the discussion of the arising
and cessation of dukkha instead presents the 12 links of dependent arising this is just a different
mode of presentation the vulnerable truths are one of the two main topics of next year's course
therefore i'm i'm not going to say anything more on them though i have quite a few things to see on
them there's a little bait to get you into my course next year and another thing from the
comparative perspective that this final injunction monks you should know dukkha as it really is
is also not found in the anguttara so the main points of this discourse is to criticize three
views karmic determinism then the idea of an almighty creator god and the denial of causality
and instead present insight into the vulnerable truths as the buddha's teaching and as the
appropriate kind of perspective yeah if there are no if there are questions then please feel
free to ask them otherwise i would go on to the next discourse just maybe briefly summarize that
this the the the vision of the four noble truths is different from these other the the view the
right view of the vulnerable truth is different from these other three viewers inasmuch
as it basically presents an analytical approach that can even be used to buddhist views themselves
i think the basic point behind the four noble truths now i'm starting to talk about what i
shouldn't be talking about uh is that we see we take responsibility for our dukkha by seeing that
the we are contributing to that situation through our own craving so it is a kind of
a psychoanalysis of views or a medicine to be applied a medical perspective in fact the
the basic pattern of the four truth is based on a medical scheme of diagnosis
to be applied to views instead of making proposals of the type everything is due to past life or
there is a almighty creator god who is having everything under his control or there's no causes
or conditions yeah i find it difficult not to get into the four noble truths they're so interesting
but i i think i should keep that for next year next year's course will be on the other hunt and
the four truths so we will get a lot of chance to discuss
the significance of the four noble truths at that time
yeah so the next discourse we are getting into is madhyama argument number 14
it's a discourse given to rahula this is the parallel to the ambalatika rahulu bhada sutta
madhyamani kaya 61 in the pts edition volume number one page 414
rahula is the only son of the buddha and tradition says that he was born
on the day on which his father left the household life
and other traditions differ with this a little bit doesn't matter the story is that the buddha
after his awakening he came to visit his hometown and his former wife sent rahula with the message
that he should ask his father for his inheritance for his heritage and the buddha got the boy
ordained which um yeah the father of the buddha then said to have made a plea that in future
please don't don't ordain these young kids without getting permission from the parents
and um the discourse we are meeting uh venable rahula now according to the
commentary tradition he is seven years old at this time and he is as we're going to say
see shortly he's going to get an injunction against falsehood
and there is a story behind this that we do not have in the palli commentary tradition
but it is found in the vinaya of the mola savastivaya tradition the vinaya vibhanga
and also in a work called maha pranya paramita shastra or upadisa shastra
so these two works uh tell us that young rahula who was still a young boy uh was sometimes
fooling around a little bit we could say so when visitors were coming and asking for the buddha
he was giving them the wrong information if he was in one place he would tell him or he's in the
or he's in the other place and then have uh have his fun on seeing them walk all the way to the
other place and not meeting the buddha or uh the other of these two texts says that when the buddha
was there he would tell the people no he's not there or when he's not there he would tell me
he's there just go and then have a laugh when he sees them not meeting the buddha and
according to these works then this this this appears to be the background why the buddha is
now giving him an admonishment that even this this joke fun making speaking of falsehood for fun is
something that is a rather brave issue according to buddhist analysis so i read the discourse
thus have i heard at one time the buddha was staying at rajka in the bamboo grove the squirrel
sanctuary at that time the benera rahula was also staying at rajka in the hot spring grove
discourse continues with the buddha going begging in the morning course for his arms round and then
comes back to visit rahula and as is custom in those ancient things they were walking bare
for it the feets are dirty so ral it's a it's a customary gesture that when somebody arrives
you bring him some water so they can wash their feet before they sit down on the seat because
otherwise sitting down cross-legged on the seat the dirty feet will make everything dirty so he's
washed his feet and then he sits on the seat that the rahula has prepared for him just some cloth
put out for him the buddha now i continue with the discourse get some similes now one then
the blessed one took the water vessel and having poured out the water until only a little was left
asked rahula did you see me taking this water vessel and pouring out the water until only a
little was left rahula replied yes i saw it bless her the buddha told rahula in the same
way the practice of those who knowingly speak falsehood without embarrassment or regret
without shame or scruple is of little worth i say rahula there is no evil they would not do
therefore rahula you should train yourself like this even in jest i shall not speak falsehood
now we get a second simile the blessed one again took the water vessel containing a little water
and having completely discarded the water asked rahula now again did you see me take this water
vessel containing a little water and completely discard the water rahula replied yes i saw it
rahula replied yes i saw it blessed one the buddha told rahula in the same way
the practice of those who knowingly speak falsehood is completely discovered i don't
give the full passage here says every time the same thing after these similes
then the third simile the blessed one again took the empty water vessel tipped it over on the
ground and asked rahula now again did you see me take the empty water vessel and tip it over on
the ground rahula replied yes i saw it blessed one the buddha told rahula in the same way
the practice of those who knowingly speak falsehood is tipped over
and the fourth simile the blessed one again took the tipped water vessel and having turned it bottom
up asked rahula did you see me again take the toppled water vessel and turn it bottom up
rahula replied yes i saw it blessed one the buddha told rahula in the same way
the practice of those who knowingly speak falsehood is turned bottom up
yeah the water similes in the parallel in the magimani kaya parallel magimani kaya 61 are a little
different we have the little water left in the vessel the discarded water and the vessel upside
down but we do not have a counterpart to the empty vessel
yeah i find let me just see the little water makes sense there is too little for washing
the thrown away water also makes sense because you can't use it and the tipped over jug also
but the empty vessel uh in that in that in that context the buddha sitting down having just washed
his feet and using just what he has there as a very practical illustration to this young boy to
illustrate something in the empty vessel as such is is not as useless it still gives an illustration
of the vainness and holiness of the life of a monk or even a young monk who speaks falsehood
anyway i'm not wanting to take position i'm just saying i mean the other three
really strike me as as fitting the context very well now we get another simile
rahula it is just as if a king had a great elephant who when going into battle uses his forefeed
his hindfeed his tail shoulders back flanks neck head ears and tusks everything except his trunk
which he keeps protected seeing this the elephant trainer would think in this way
the king's great elephant still cherishes his life why so because when going into battle
the king's great elephant uses everything except his trunk which he keeps protected
rahula if when going into battle the king's great elephant uses also his trunk if he uses
everything then on seeing this the elephant trainer would think in this way the king's elephant no
longer cherishes his life rahula if the king's great elephant when going into battle uses
everything then rahula i say that there is no evil that the king's great elephant would not do
according to the pali commentary the point of this passage is that the elephant is no longer
scared of his whole life and is therefore able to defeat the enemy i continue with the madhyam
discourse so too rahula those who knowingly speak falsehood without embarrassment or regret
without shame or scruple rahula i say that there is no evil they would not do
therefore rahula you should train yourself like this even in jest i shall not speak falsehood
we get some verses here not found in the pali version
he who transgresses this one law against speaking falsehood not fearing the next world
there is no evil he would not do better to swallow an iron ball burning hot like fire
than to transgress the precepts while accepting the offerings of the faithful
you might remember this similarly from our discourse on the heap of wood or heap of fire
if you fear dukkha not even wishing to think of it whether secretly or openly perform no evil deed
an unwholesome deed already done or being done can never be escaped one cannot hide from its result
yet the first two of these stanzas are found in the pali dhammapada collection dhammapada 176 and 308
having uttered these verses the buddha asked rahula further what do you think rahula
for what purpose do people use a mirror the man of a rahula replied blessed one
they wish to examine their face to see if it is clean or not
similarly rahula if you are about to perform a bodily action then examine that bodily action
i am about to perform a bodily action is this bodily action pure or impure am i doing it for
myself or another rahula if on examining it you know i am about to perform a bodily action
and that bodily action is pure either for myself or for others it is unwholesome as dukkha as its
fruit and will result in the experience of dukkha then rahula you should abandon that
bodily action that you are about to perform as you might have noticed there are some very
stark contradiction here bodily action that is pure and unwholesome i have written on this in
that paper on the madhyama aagha which you can download on the olad web page i think it's
unquestionably totally clear that this is just a translation error
the reading should be that body action is impure it is unwholesome as dukkha as its fruit
i'm not going to discuss this anymore because we are running out of time but there's just a very
obvious error in the chinese version we have found several quotes of this passage all of them agree
with the padi version so the two versions agree in recommending reflection for the three times of
action the bodily verbal and mental if we leave out this translation or translation it would be
a translation error before doing something with the body of speech check if it's pure and if it's
impure don't do it while we are doing something acting or speaking check again and if it's impure
stop right on the spot only continue if it's pure and after it's over still reflect again
if it's impure then as a monastic we should confess it if it's pure we can rejoice in it
in the case of mental action if we are involved in some thoughts or fantasies and we realize we
are getting into that check again don't do it if it's impure if we while it's happening again check
and stop it if it's impure and if we realize we gotten into it and it has been impure then we are
ashamed of it if it's pure we rejoice in it ashamed or abandoned
and the point of being pure both versions explain that this means that this is
wholesome skillful and it has pleasant comic results
yeah i think i still go through the rest if you give me five minutes more nimi next time we
cut five minutes short because it would be a shame to drop off the rest of the discourse for next time
rahulan whatever renunciants and brahmins in the past have in the future will in the present do
purify their bodily verbal and mental actions all of them repeatedly examine and repeatedly
purify their bodily verbal and mental actions in this way rahulan you should train yourself like
this i too shall repeatedly examine and repeatedly purify my bodily verbal and mental actions in this
way and here we get again the madhyama agama gives us some verses by the buddha bodily action verbal
action mental action rahula with a wholesome or unwholesome by nature you should constantly
examine them knowingly to speak falsehood do not do it rahula shave and hair you live of others
how could you speak falsehood overturning the law of renunciants empty without truthfulness
such as speaking falsehood with mouth unrestrained therefore not to speak falsehood or son of the
rightly awakened one this is the law of renunciants thus you should train or rahula prosperity and
happiness all around safety and fearlessness rahula to attain that do not harm others
this is what the buddha said and having heard the buddha's words the whenever rahula and the
other monks were delighted and remembered them well yeah and here just i have put again the main
points the illustration of falsehood with little like little water left that cannot be used for
anything anymore like discarded water the vessel tipped over the vessel upside down in the madhyama
agama the empty one in the madhyamani kaya and the reckless elephant and then we get this
simile of the mirror which illustrates the need to reflect on bodily verbal and mental action
before during and after yeah that's it for today what i had to offer you i've been going through
three discourses this time there's some time for you to digest and discuss all this the next lecture
will only be on the 30th of june we have two holidays in between i like to mention that again
but then on the from the 30th on what we will continue without further breaks
so thank you very much for your attention and i hope that one or the other of the things that
i have been presenting to you today have been of some interest if not for me at least for the
beautiful similes and the teachings that we have been looking at so wish you a nice time until we
meet again