Welcome everybody, this is the 10th lecture in my course Purification, Ethics and Karma
in Early Bodies Discourse, few announcements again, last time some had a problem of accessing
this live session in connect, also some had a problem of accessing the video in the whole
art on the webpage or in posting messages on the blog, with all these problems I am
unfortunately fairly helpless, I have myself spent a number of hours trying to figure
out all these technical issues so that I can barely handle presenting the material and
I am simply not able to do anything about this type of technical problems, I think in
each case it would be good if you could contact the support team, this is also for them to
know what kind of problems we have with all these new software so that in the future they
can improve or get updates or whatever, I think there is a comment by Andrew coming
so I wait for that, well maybe I continue and whenever Andrew is ready then I turn to
what he is saying but basically with these technical problems I am not able to do much,
so today I will start reviewing first of all the Magyama Agma 15 that we looked at last time,
there were these two statements that they are right at the beginning, if a person does
an action intentionally then he will have to experience its result either in this life or in
the next life I say and the second statement if a person does an action unintentionally then he
will not have to experience the result I say and there was a question about this second statement
in the blog, there is no picture, oh gosh, can you see me now, what about the sound,
what about the sound, no is it any better, I just keep on talking, oh gosh,
I will just check again on preferences, so I am trying now, I have changed something with the audio
setup, is it any better now, it is getting better, oh good, so can we continue with this kind of,
well I can't change the picture of that foolish monk in front of you, but it is with the audio,
okay, thank you for letting me know, there is one more comment apparently, okay, I throw out the chat and I start my
announcement again where I was saying that I am not good at technical things as you just saw, I am not a complete failure,
anyhow there were some problems, some people had last time accessing the live connect session, some had problems
accessing the video on the website and some had problems posting message on the blog and in all these
cases I am not able to be of much help because I don't know much about these technical issues,
so it is good if you can write to the support team letting them know that there are problems,
it is not only for your own benefit or of the other participants of this course,
but also so that these people know what are the type of problems we experience with this kind of
software, so they can maybe hopefully improve things for future courses. Okay now I turn to my
review of Madhyama Agama 15, if at any point of my presentation the tone doesn't become clear,
then please let me know, I read out a statement that was there at the beginning of Madhyama Agama 15,
if a person does an action intentionally then he will have to experience its result,
either in this life or in the next life I say, if a person does an action unintentionally
then he will not have to experience the result I say. There was a question on the blog regarding
the implication or the meaning of this statement and what the point is about doing an action
unintentionally and I thought that was a good question and we got a very good answer by Darshana
Makavita, he gave a very nice example, he says I tried to put a bag into a wreck in a bus and I
hit a person on the head, my intention was to put the bag into the wreck which I did, but some other
action happened also which was not intended, so that is exactly the point, sometimes something
we do it's not our intention and that is an action done unintentionally and since Darshana
had no intention to hit that other person on the head then he will not get any comical retribution
for the intention of hurting another person, if he was very careless when putting that bag up
onto the wreck then he will have to be the comical retribution for being careless maybe,
but sometimes these things can even happen without being careless, so then there's no
comical retribution for him to be experienced by this action and Linda Grace felt that she had a
comment on this part, she said it seems odd in terms of its placement in this sutta because
while the first sentence is then illustrated in terms of the 10 courses of unwholesome action,
the second sentence is not further illustrated, I thought about that but it seems to me
that the whole point is that with this second sentence action that is done unintentionally
is just set aside, that that's not an issue because the whole point that we will be getting
after is about comical retribution, so I feel the statement says look if you do something
intentionally you will have to experience its results only if there's no intention on your part
then there's no result, so that second part sets it aside, the first part says look if you do
something intentionally there will be a result this life or the next life and then the whole
discourse works through what the implications of this statement are,
then there was another statement in the discourse after we get the description of the development of
the brahma viharas, the diviner boats of loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and
equanimity, I read the statement again, if the learned noble disciple whose mind is now immeasurable
and well cultivated, had earlier been negligent because of bad friends and had done unwholesome
actions, then he will no longer be led along by them, they cannot corrupt him and will not accompany
him further, this is a little cryptic also in the Pali counterpart, I think there are several
layers of meaning there, the main point I assume from the perspective of tradition is that
by developing the brahma viharas one creates such a powerful karma that the next rebirth is
definitely going to be in the brahma world, if the brahma viharas are fully developed up to jhana
level of absorption and so if somebody has done some unwholesome deeds in the present life who
would normally take retribution in the next life, he or she can kind of counterbalance that
by developing the brahma viharas and thereby going beyond the fruition of this karma in the next life
and I would personally add that we could also interpret it in a more immediate sense
for those of us who do not believe in this idea of rebirth, that even in the present situation
if I am an anger type, somebody who has had a lot of angry reactions in the past and therefore has
a way of reacting with anger in the present, then the results of this tendency can be counterbalanced
by the development of the brahma viharas and just take the first one to make things easy, if I keep
on practicing loving kindness that changes my perception of others, what earlier irritated me
and causes me to react with anger, now is a challenge to my matter, it doesn't irritate me
in the first place so much and my reaction to that is that I practice loving kindness,
so the whole way how my behavior pattern has been shaped by my own past actions of anger
and irritation is getting changed in the present and I'm no longer led along by them, I'm no longer
corrupted by them, I'm no longer accompanied by this type of anger but this is my personal
interpretation according to tradition and what I assume the commentary tradition would hold though
I did not look it up on this particular point is that the issue is about rebirth in the brahma world
and the same appears to be also the point in the parallel Pali passage which more explicitly speaks
of the past deeds that have been done with one's physical body, when the brahma viharas are
developed and rebirth in the brahma world is attained one goes beyond the physical realm
the so-called sense realm one gets a fine material body and any karma that is related
or is to be experienced by having a physical body will not be able to affect somebody who is
developed in rebirth in this higher realm however rebirth in the brahma world would not settle the
issue for good from an early buddhist perspective what is really required is to become an arahant
and here we have the statement in the madhyama agama version there you might remember there
was this simile about the young boy or girl and then this statement monks you should think like
this formally I was negligent and did unwholesome deeds let all their results be experienced now
not in the next life one who practices liberation of the mind through loving kindness in this way
immeasurable and well cultivated will definitely attain the fruit of non-returning or else attain
that which is still higher so I think the point of this injunction let all my kamic results be
experienced now not in the next life I understand this to be an aspiration for becoming an arahant
in the present life I think I told you already about the story about Anguly Mala murderer
he had killed quite a number of victims according to the story we are told and kind of somewhat
bizarre story apparently he had been told that he has to kill so and so many people by his teacher
and this whole massive killing that he had done the kamic retribution for that could only affect
him in his present life because after he met the buddha he stopped killing became a Buddhist monk
developed his practice became an arahant as an arahant he was not going to have any future life
therefore all the kamic retribution for killing that was pending to have its results when he was
going to be reborn and he would have been reborn in hell for what he did all that becomes defunct
because it doesn't get any more an occasion to come to fruition and I mean we could understand
this formally I was negligent and did unwholesome deeds in the sense of referring to his present
lifetime in the case of Anguly Mala we could also go further back if we wish one of the discourses
on Anguly Mala I believe it's the ekotarika agama version it gives us also a record of what he did
in the past that caused him to get into the situation of in his present life being commanded
to kill others so there's always a precedent but actually this is not of such a central concern
for us whether we did something so on so many lives ago whether it's done in the present life
I mean the main point is that according to early Buddhist karma theory which is one of the central
topics we are discussing at present any intentionally done action has a result we saw before
with the simile of the piece of salt that result depends on the overall development of the person
throwing the piece of salt in the cup of water in a river has a different effect on the drinkability
of the water and there is a way of cutting things completely off there is a temporary escape by
developing the brahma viharas and making sure one is reborn the next life in the brahma world
that stops the karma from having fruition in the next life but it doesn't get completely beyond
the range of this karma and there is the way of cutting things off for good which is by becoming
an arahant or by becoming a non-returner non-returner will be reborn in a higher heavenly realm
where these certain commas also cannot take fruition
at this point I would invite any kind of question in regard to Madhyama Agama 15 but I have said so far
nobody typing no questions
oh yeah here's again the summary of the main teachings of Madhyama Agama 15 I don't think
we need to go through that
yeah I turned to the other discourse we discussed last time the discourse to the kalamas
this has not received so much attention on the blog but I would still like to discuss that
quite in detail because I think there's a rather strong difference and it's important
for us to explore that a little more I think so in the Madhyama Agama version we have in both
discourses we have this situation that the kalamas come to the Buddha and they tell him look there's
all these spiritual teachers we may call them and they have this view and the other one has the
opposite view and so in the Madhyama Agama version the Buddha tells them kalamas do not doubt why
when there is doubt hesitation arises in the Anguttra Nikaya version he says exactly the opposite
he says this is enough for you to be perplexed it is enough for you to have doubt
doubt has arisen in you in regard to a perplexing manner matter I'm sorry so here he actually
encourages that doubt he says you are quite right to be doubting about this this is a doubtful issue
and in the Anguttra Nikaya version then we get this listing of different grounds for knowledge
not found in the Madhyama Agama and then this very famous statement I read out again for you
when you know for yourself these things are unwholesome these things are blameable these
things are sendured by the wise these things if undertaken and practiced lead to harm and suffering
then you should abandon them I stop because there's a question how about other versions
is there the same omission with the kalamas or we are in the unfortunate situation of having only
two versions we only so far known who knows someday there might be some Sanskrit fragment
cropping up from someplace in Afghanistan hopefully but I am only aware of two versions
the Pali and the Chinese and these are the two we have unfortunately among those discourse
is preserved for us in Tibetan translation there is no extract of the kalamas utta
yeah I'm afraid I wish we had another version this passage has been bugging me
for a little while but I can't help it the interesting thing is that the exactly the same
difference recurs in relation to another discourse which we will turn to next week this is the
Patalia sutta we have discourse in the Samyotanikaya well not necessary for me to give you the
information we will look at it next week at Samyotanikaya discourse 13 the section 42 and
the Madhyama Agama perilous number 20 the same situation this Patalia as we will see next week
he comes to the Buddha he is perplexed by the views by some other teachers and in the Madhyama
Agama version the Buddha replies do not let doubt arise in you whereas in the Samyotanikaya version
we get exactly the same statement as in the Anguttara Nikaya it is enough for you to be
perplexed it is enough for you to have doubt doubt has a reason in you in regard to a perplexing
matter so this this basic difference is not a difference restricted to one discourse but we
see there as a there's a we have the same issue with another otherwise unrelated discourse
yeah one thing
Manfred asked may there be a cultural omission because the Chinese think about authorities so
Buddhism did not get into conflict with the powers that be this is a possible explanation
it's a it's a rather strong querying of authority and a different perspective on the significance
of doubt however I need to before I continue examining this rather crucial difference
I need to make one point regarding the Pali Kalamasuta and the way I think it should be understood
you see often the Kalamasuta is quoted as a beautiful title the Buddha's chart of free inquiry
basically telling us that we shouldn't accept anything from others I'm exaggerating a little
bit anything has to be grounded on our own experience and that is the true testing stone
for whatever teachings we receive I have my reservations about this type of interpretation
because if we look closely at the Kalamasuta and also at the other sutta I mentioned the
Patalyasuta we find that the issue at stake is matters of morality in both instances those who
come and visit the Buddha are non-Buddhists they are non-Buddhists they are confused by different
views proposed by various teachers and they ask the Buddha what is the situation so what the Buddha
is expounding to them is just about ethics he's not teaching them about the Four Noble Truth
there's not the Eightfold Noble Path or anything of this deeper Buddhist teachings usually given
to those who have embarked on the path of practice under the Buddha who have recognized the Buddha as
their teacher so what this chart of free inquiry is about I think is about the basics of ethical
conduct in fact we get ethics and we get the development of the Brahmādihāras
that's a question by Manfred in any case it is out of style the Buddha often asks monks do you
believe or do you know yeah I'm not fully understanding the point you're making Manfred
I'm you might mean the difference between accepting something on belief and accepting
something on one's own knowledge if that is the case I'm kind of going towards that but I am I
wanted to first clarify the significance of the Kalamasuta because I feel sometimes it's being
over interpreted the Chinese versions are you you are you are still referring to the the difference
between the two versions yeah yeah my own feeling is that I have more confidence in the Pali version
than the Chinese because as you pointed out there would be reasons for changing such a statement
and also as I will shortly try to show there is another discourse which confirms this kind of
position and there it's also found in the Madhyama Agama version
anyway coming back to the point that I was trying to make just on the on the Pali version of the
Kalamasuta is that the basics principles of ethical conduct ethics being one of the themes
we are discussing at present are directly verifiable this is the basic message
and we get a synthesis what I read for you we can know for ourselves that things are unwholesome
because they afflict us and others and that is the basic measuring rod given there but now coming
back to what if I understood him correctly Manfred was also referring to the difference
in perspective that we have been getting between the Pali tradition and the Madhyama Agama
there is another discourse the Vimang Sakasuta that is Majimani Kaya discourse number 47
and this discourse has a power in the Madhyama Agama 186 this is so far away that will take a
couple of years for us to get there so I thought I might already take a look at it now and this
discourse in my own view is even more powerful in the range of free investigation it allows because
here according to this discourse the Buddha himself invites the prospective disciple to
thoroughly scrutinize him in every possible respect in view of the position of a teacher
so-called guru in quotation marks in ancient India this is this is this is highly remarkable
and the investigation that this discourse proposes goes through four different steps
that I would like to briefly present to you the first is searching for impurities by empirical
observation a prospective disciple of the Buddha who does not have telepathic powers
and therefore is not able to directly gorge the mind of another person such a disciple should
check the purity of the Buddha of his future teacher of his teacher who claims to be awakened
he should closely observe the behavior of the teacher how he acts how he speaks what he does
in order to see if there's any type of behavior that is not in accordance with the claim that
this teacher makes to be fully awakened so the Buddha is here according to this discourse
opening up himself for the most scrutinizing investigation of his conduct in every possible
respect when the prospective disciple has come to the conclusion this supposedly a fully awakened
teacher is really absolutely pure in his ethical conduct in every respect the next step the number
two is scrutiny of the attitude of the teacher these are just my headings they are not like
this in the sutra here now the next step is that the prospective disciple should check how is this
teacher handling the role of being a teacher how is he handling fame and having become an object
of worship and honor the main point is to see if the teacher is given in to the attraction of being
an important and famous person if he is attached to his role as a teacher or to her role if that's
a female teacher this investigation concluded by finding out that this teacher is not attached to
his role as a teacher as a next step a direct questioning of the teacher at this point the
prospective disciple is told you go directly to the teacher and ask him hey are you seriously
fully awakened are you really are you totally pure is there any impurity in you i find this the most
almost outrageous aspect of this investigation it's a direct challenging the teacher
it's not meant to be a challenge it's meant to be an investigation but in view of the respect that
ancient indian tradition accords to the teacher i find this really challenging
now when the teacher has been checked in all these aspects checked for observable impurities
checking the attitude of the teacher to his role and directly asking the teacher
then comes the point to place faith or confidence in him sadha sufficient confidence for giving the
teaching of this person a try and the true confidence in the teacher however comes only
into place when the disciple has reached personal verification step number four in the scheme i
present here when the disciple has followed the path laid out by this teacher and has personally
come to realization then only at this point the faith is something that is rooted in personal
experience and become unshakeable and i think the thorough scrutiny thorough testing that these
four steps present shows clearly the importance that was given to free inquiry in buddhist thought
i
have you tried three entire you would not get an answer yeah i'm not saying that this is the way
modern day teachers are handling their position as a teacher i am only saying that according to
the discourses that we have at our position this is how the founder of buddhism the buddha
presumably allowed his own prospective disciple to investigate him how far this is being put into
practice is a matter that i better not comment on i think what this presentation shows us i think
and i think it also to some extent supports the reading of the pali kalamasuta and the pali
patalyasuta is that doubt in the sense of initial questioning and investigation has its place in
buddhism doubt is not all times and every time something bad but certainly doubt is one of the
five hindrances hindrances to deeper meditation and doubt is a fetter that will be overcome by
stream entry in fact we had a reference to this earlier when we discussed the stages of purification
you might remember there was one purification by overcoming doubt so doubt has its rightful place
in the initial parts of the path but eventually it's something that will be left behind
and so besides this obviously positive role given to doubt in the passages that we looked at so far
there are also negative evaluations of doubt there are a few similes i just briefly mentioned
one is doubt is comparable to staying at the junction of a forked path and this is samyutani
kaya volume three page 108 we don't know which way to go we need somebody else to tell us
doubt in the teacher in the teachings and in the community is reckoned a mental barrenness
chitukila something that makes the mind dry
and in a series of similes for the different hindrances
i'm just giving one reference did i say the other reference for the chitukila maji manikaya volume 101
and now diga nikaya volume one page 73
this overcoming the hindrance of doubt is similar to safely crossing a dangerous desert
this image of desert and the mental barrenness give us the same kind of imagery of a
of a difficult dry kind of journey and we get another simile a series of similes for the
hindrances where somebody's taking a bowl full of water to look at the reflection of his own face
and so when this bowl of water is placed in a dark room and the water itself is muddy and dirty
then one is not able to see the reflection of one's own face and the same happens when doubt
is in the mind now i want to briefly turn to what i find a rather interesting and significant
passage on doubt as a hindrance in particular in relation to concentration meditation this is the
opag nkilesu sutta maji manikaya 128 and its parallel magyama agama 72 the discourse is a
rather long discourse but this describes i think lens lens cousins already said that and i agree
with him that this is one of the canonical passages that clearly point to the nimitta
the light experience that leads into absorption meditation be that as it may it definitely
describes a series of opag nkilesu s of finer defilements or more subtle defilements that need
to be overcome in order to get into jhana into absorption meditation and the interesting thing
is that the series sets in without mentioning the first two hindrances sensual desire and
ill will or aversion and i would interpret that to mean that the point of passage
in the progress towards deepening concentration that this discourse is dealing with is precisely
when inner visions light and the nimitta arises when the mind moves from the normally experienced
world of the outer sense doors to an inner world of purely mental experiences and visions
and so in describing these different hindrances the first mention is doubt
and the pali version says it is the buddha himself speaking to a group of monks telling
him about his own overcoming of these hindrances as a way of teaching them how they should do the
same he says doubt arose in me on account of doubt my concentration fell away but the manyama
alama version gives us a little more explicit and longer passage what in the world does not exist
can i see can i come to know that in my mind this doubt arose because of this doubt my concentration
was lost i find this manyama algama longer passage very useful because it describes to my
mind exactly what happens when somebody is deepening concentration and this from the normal
perspective of the world unreal world of inner visions and purely mental experiences begins to
open up and there is this this uncertainty am i seeing something that does not exist what is really
happening here and this is precisely the type of doubt that makes difficulty in stabilizing
concentration there's a remark here by manfred doubt in mind skepticism versus inquiry mind
thirst for truth knowledge the last one can go along with sadhda faith yeah yeah thank you
fact that fits very well with what i wanted to say next i wanted to go from doubt as a
obstruction as a hindrance to concentration meditation to doubt in relation to insight
hadvi if you are writing something for me it's not coming through
i just see you're typing but nothing is arriving here
there's a
presentation in the discourses that has this concept of nutriment nutriment nourishing
something that nourishes or that denourishes a certain mental condition or factor and so we
are told the nutriment for doubt or that which nourishes doubt is ayunoshio manasikara
i translate this little freely as unwise attention now and this is directed to the
distinction between what is wholesome and unwholesome or if you wish skillful and unskillful kusala and
akusala now interestingly the nutriment or nourishment for the pojanga the awakening factor
dhamavichaya investigation of dhammas is yuniso manasikara wise attention to the same topic to
what the distinction between what is wholesome and unwholesome so you see the same what nourishes
doubt is the not nourishing of investigation of dhammas what nourishes investigation of
dhammas is the not nourishing or the depleting of nourishment of doubt i think this is very
significant because it makes a very important point which i believe if i understood manfred
correctly he was already making in his comment now in buddhism according to early buddhist
meditation theory if i may so call it faith is not what is required to overcome doubt
but rather investigation this is exactly what the kalama sutta tells us this is what the
vimansa sutta tells us this is also relevant to this upakilesa sutta it's an investigation of
these new experiences by which one will overcome doubt and the final culmination of overcoming
doubt is stream entry when someone has undertaken such a thorough investigation of reality
that the first experience of nirvana takes place and with that experience
doubt about what is wholesome and what is unwholesome what is skillful and what is unskillful
is gone forever
at this point again i would like to invite any questions or comments
yeah then there was just another brief point
about four assurances
that we were getting at the end of madhyama agama 16 we are now back after a little excursion into
the vimansaka and upakilesa sutta we are now back with our madhyama agama discourse
the third assurance in the madhyama agama was whatever i have done i have certainly done
no evil and i recollect no evil in the anguttara version a little tricky passage in the pali which
i have tried my own limited ability in translating if by merely acting merely in brackets evil is
done at least in brackets i am not intending evil for anyone uh well i can give you the pali
have it just here for anybody to correct my translation
the point i understand this passage to make is related to a belief held among some of the
contemporaries of the buddha in ancient india who were thinking that action in itself is something
that creates evil there was the belief for example that by moving in any way i'm inevitably
going to harm other living beings and the concept of living beings in some tradition even includes
like the elements earth water fire and air so it's basically impossible for me to do anything
without harming and even speaking as a problem in any word i say is going to create evil and so
basically the notion then came that one should not speak one should be completely silent
and one should not move and ideally even not do undertake any type of action at all
uh buddhism clearly disagrees with these kind of notions and ideas and instead emphasizes the
importance of intention but again this teaching given here is not to buddhist but to those outside
of buddhism and so the point i think that is being made is here that even if action in itself
already creates evil according to the view of these other brahmins and recluses it can't be
helped but at least i'm not intending to do evil i'm not wanting anybody to get harmed that much i
can at least be sure and then i don't remember offhand but i believe the fourth assurance is then
if actions do not create evil by themselves then i'm i'm safe on both accounts that is
my intentions are pure and my acting yeah that was my review of the two discourses that we
discussed last time here again for you the main points of the second discourse
so unless there's some question i would then like to continue with the next one
in the list machima agama 17
the discourse to gamani
thus have i heard um sorry machima agama 17 parallel to samyukta nikaya
42 six this is in the fourth volume page 311 of the pts edition so here we go thus have i heard
at one time the buddha was staying at nalanda in parvarticus mongo grove at that time
and the seer asita devala had a son named gamani who was of majestic complexion and built
radiant and bright just before dawn gamani approached the place where the buddha was
paid homage at the buddhist feed and stood to one side
remark something seems to have gone wrong here in the chinese version and the reference to this
gamani in the palli version we just have asi bandhaka puta the son of asi bandhaka and this
is clearly a human being but here the bringing in of asita devala is surprising and then this sun
is described as having a majestic complexion radiant and bright etc this is the standard
description of a deva and not of a human being so there is something that has i think gone wrong
here with the with the chinese version i continue reading gamani the son of asita devala said blessed
one brahmin's arrogantly claim that they serve various gods and that they can at will cause
beings to reach a good realm of existence after death to be reborn in a heavenly realm
the blessed one is the king of dharma may the blessed one cause people to reach a good realm
of existence after death to be reborn in a heavenly realm the blessed one said now gamani
i shall ask you something answer according to your understanding what do you think gamani
if in a village there are men and women who are lazy and indolent and who behave in evil ways
undertaking the ten unawesome courses of action killing living beings taking what is not given
sexual misconduct false speech and so on up to wrong view
at the time of their death crowds of people come placing their palms together praising and
imploring saying you men and women who have been lazy and indolent and have behaved in evil ways
because of this conditioned by this after the breaking up of the body at death
you shall reach a good realm of existence and be reborn in a heavenly realm
gamani those men and women who have been lazy and indolent and have behaved in evil ways
on being urged when near death by those crowds of people will they because of this conditioned by
this after the breaking up of the body at death reach a good realm of existence and be reborn
in a heavenly realm gamani replied no blessed one the blessed one praised him saying very good
gamani why so that those men and women should reach a good realm of existence and be reborn
in a heavenly realm this is not possible just a remark my the abbreviation is my own i am just
abbreviating the text to make it not so boring when i read it out all to you i continue now
there comes a simile suppose gamani that there were a deep lake full of water located not far
from a village and a man were to throw a large heavy rock into it if a crowd of people came along
placing their palms together praising and imploring and said rock may you float up come out
what do you think gamani on being urged by that crowd of people who come placing their palms
together praising and imploring because of this conditioned by this would that large heavy rock
come out gamani replied no blessed one so it is gamani those men and women etc that they should
reach a good realm of existence and be reborn in a heavenly realm this is not possible and why not
these 10 unwholesome causes of action are black and have black results by nature they
incline downward certainly leading to a bad realm of existence remark the indication that
these unwholesome causes of actions are black is not found in the parley parallel i continue
what do you think gamani if in a village there are men and women who are diligent and energetic
and practice the sublime dharma undertaking the 10 wholesome causes of action and at the time of
their death crowds of people come placing their palms together praising and imploring them saying
you men and women after the breaking up of the body at death you shall reach a bad realm of
existence be reborn in hell what do you think gamani those men and women who have been diligent
and energetic and have practiced the sublime dharma undertaking the 10 wholesome causes of
action on being urged by the crowds of people will they because of this conditioned by this after
the breaking up of the body at death reach a bad realm of existence and be reborn in hell
gamani replied no blessed one the bullet praises him says that these are white actions and then
comes out with a simile gamani suppose there were a deep lake full of water located not far from a
village and a man were to throw into the water a jar full of ghee and oil and then break it
so that fragments of the jar sank downward while the ghee and oil floated upward
gamani it is the same with those men and women who have been diligent and energetic and have
practiced the sublime dharma undertaking the 10 wholesome causes of action etc at the time of
their death the body which is cross matter composed of the four elements was born of father
and mother nourished and raised independence on food is of a nature to break up of a nature to
cease of a nature to be dispersed after death it will be pecked at by ravens or eaten by tigers and
wolves or burned or buried or finally become ashes and dust a remark again this passage
description of the body its nature and its falling apart is not found in the samyatanikaya parallel
the same is also for what comes later on about uplift and the eightfold noble path
which i will read to you now however their mind their mental faculty and their consciousness
having been constantly pervaded by faith diligent much learning generosity and wisdom
because of this conditioned by this by nature they will ascend to be reborn in a good realm of
existence gamani those who kill living beings if they refrain from killing and abandoned killing
then they are on the path of uplift the path of ascent and progress the path to a good realm of
existence gamani those who take what is not given who engage in sexual misconduct for speech and so
on up to those who have wrong view if they abstain from wrong view and acquire right view
then they are on the path of uplift the path of ascent and progress the path to a good realm of
existence moreover gamani there's another path of uplift another path of ascend and progress
another path to a good realm of existence what gamani is this other path of uplift
it is the eightfold noble path right view and so on up to right concentration these eight
gamani this too is a path of uplift the path of ascend and progress a path to a good realm of
existence this is what the buddha said having heard the buddha's words gamani and the monks
were delighted and remembered them well as i said this later part of the discourse is different in
the samyutta nikaya version this whole notion of the path of uplift and also the reference to the
eightfold noble path is not found and it differs also in the conclusion as here the visitor to
the buddha whose name as asi bhanda kaputa takes refuge nevertheless the main points of the discourse
is similar in both versions we have the main statement that rebirth in hell or heaven depends
on one's own conduct and not on prayers by others and this is compared to a stone thrown in water
will sink to the bottom and oil thrown in water will rise to the surface this completes my
presentation of this discourse and now there is room for any question or comment
manfred wiesberger says mind mental faculty consciousness will ascend sounds a lot like a soul
i am not sure about that the early buddhism clearly recognizes that there is something
that is reborn and that is usually referred to as consciousness the consciousness that will be
reborn and it is only criticized if one says that precisely the same consciousness is being reborn
but consciousness as a flow we get in the digani kaya the vinyana sota that goes from one life to
the other and we also have in the magimani kaya somewhere the expression the sangvatnika vinyana
that is actually in a ninja sapayasutta magimani kaya 106 if i am not quoting wrongly from memory
and also found in the tibetan parallel um i think um soul or self-artman
uh is being denied in buddhism only in sofa as it is unchanging and has the intrinsic quality of
control but the anata or not soul teaching do not deny the existence of an impermanent
and changing flux of mental phenomena a continuity of mind or mental states or consciousness
which continues throughout life and from one life to the other and we need to distinguish
this notion of impermanence and flux from later tradition later in the commentarial
tradition of terawat and other schools where impermanence becomes a momentary disappearance
this is not the teaching on impermanence found in the early discourses where we have
um
i can't now tell you often where that is somewhere in the anguttara nikaya
um arising is designated a passing away is designated and a tittas
an other wiseness of that which persists that is when something changes it arises
it is there for some time as a changing as a process and then it disappears again so the
difficulty of explaining continuity and rebirth arises only with the later uh notion of
impermanence that everything as the immediately disappears as soon as something appears
immediately it has it is gone again but that is not the view we get in the in the early discourses
i think manfred has again caught me out by asking the question just to get a long explanation
would mind mental faculty conscience here signify the same thing or three different things
when we have the same also sometimes in pali we get this chitta mano vinyana these three terms
and sometimes they are presented as synonyms but on their own they have slightly different flavor
vinyana on its own is consciousness through the six sense doors and mano is the sixth sense door
the intellect the thinking and reasoning mind chitta is the heart the seat of emotion mind as
an emotional state so these are overlapping terms that can be used as synonyms but can also be seen
as showing different aspects of the mind at the moment of passing away and being reborn in the
pali discourses the term usually used as vinyana the consciousness we don't get the mind mano being
reborn or the chitta being reborn it's the vinyana that is being reborn and in this context
vinyana does not stand for the fifth aggregate only but for the entirety of mind
there are other questions please
so then we come to the other discourses that i wanted to look at today
we have another two discourses for next time that fits the situation well
was there a question by robert i saw some typing but maybe you're just giving secret messages to
each other i shouldn't be noticing that no but i just continue and see until something appears
so we are now getting into the discourse to see how madhyamana agama number 18 and the parallel to
a discourse found among the eights of the anguttarnikaya the 12th
of these and this is volume 4 page 179 of the pts edition thus have i heard
at one time the buddha was staying at visali in the gabled hall near the monkey lake
at that time many lychavis from visali had come together in the assembly hall frequently speaking
in praise of the buddha the dharma and the community of monks at that time senior minister
siha a disciple of the nagantas was also in the assembly just a remark the nagantas is another
term for the giants i continue then senior minister siha had the wish to visit the buddha
and pay homage to him senior minister siha went first to the place of the nagantas and told the
nagantas whenever sirs i wish to go and visit the recluse gautama then the nagantas reprimanded siha
saying you should not wish to visit the recluse gautama why the recluse gautama's doctrine is
based on inaction and he proclaims to people a teaching of inaction siha to visit someone who
asserts a doctrine of inaction is inauspicious and it is also inauspicious to pay homage to him
the discourse continues by repeating that the same happens again and then a third occasion
i continue reading the discourse on the third occasion senior minister siha without asking
leave of the nagantas approached the buddha having exchanged greetings he sat down to one side and
said i have heard thus the recluse gautama's doctrine is based on inaction and he proclaims
to people a teaching of inaction gautama if someone speaks thus the recluse gautama's doctrine
is based on inaction is that person not misrepresenting the recluse gautama the blessed
one replied siha if someone speaks thus the recluse gautama's doctrine is based on inaction
and he proclaims to people a teaching of inaction he does not misrepresent the recluse gautama why is
that i have given numbers here to make it easier these are obviously not found in the original
so the first argument siha there's a way in which according to the true dharma one would not
misrepresent me in saying the recluse gautama's doctrine is based on inaction and he proclaims
to people a teaching of inaction again siha there's another way in which according to the
true dharma one would not misrepresent me in saying the recluse gautama's doctrine is based
on action and he proclaims to people a doctrine of action then we get the same for a teaching based
on annihilation based on abhorrence based on dharma and vinaya based on asceticism based on
not entering a womb to be reborn and based on attaining peace and he proclaims to people a
teaching of attaining peace i have just put down the anguttara nikaya parallels for you
just a small remark i keep on seeing that ah that's okay
that's a remark by robert so i'll take that first before good looking at this parallel
the discourse mentioned two ascending paths one path was via the ten ways of ethical behavior
the other via the eightfold noble path the ten facets of ethical behavior are all quite basic
apart from right view which is never fully right until one reaches enlightenment when is the right
view enough to be ethical the eightfold noble path is only developed when one reaches enlightenment
hence this is a much longer way upward yeah that's an interesting question and something
that resonates a little bit with the comment that darshana maka vita or question that darshana maka
vita made on the blog already i think we we should not take it that right view is a complete
impossibility before the first level of awakening stream entry has been attained rather there's a
gradual development and as long as one has the intention of keeping the right perspective
then for all those of us who have not yet become streamer that is perfectly enough i think
and i personally find for this purpose uh the more relevant formulation of right view
to be the one that works by way of the four noble truths not the one that we saw last time
where i also mentioned that i have some difficulties in understanding the formulation of
affirming or denial of the efficacy of sacrifice the reference to uh spontaneous and risen beings
rather i think the point is simply that as a guiding principle for one's own life one looks
at any kind of situation of conflict or dukkha in quotation marks uh by taking up responsibility
taking up responsibly i mean that whatever dukkha happens there's always a part of me that
contributes to that so instead of blaming my wife my husband my teacher my student
my family my country my government my whatsoever and the first thing we should be looking for is
my own contribution by way of craving to the present experience of dukkha and seeing that
there is a way out of me out of that situation for me simply by giving up that craving
that is a very practical form of right view that is something that
can be undertaken by anybody before he or she has become a stream-enterer
and in this way it is a very clear way leading upward
and it is also verifiable in one's own experience that this makes the whole difference
when i small little story i think i have time for that when i came first to Sri Lanka my own
purpose was to meet venom and yana ponika and on the airport i was told that a few days before
that he had just passed away so i managed nevertheless to go to the forest hermitage and
my own fortune was that at that time bikubodi had to go away and so he left me there alone
so i sat in the seat of venom and yana ponika kind of thinking that the person i wanted to meet had
been sitting there not too long ago but unfortunately i have been too late to meet him in person and
sitting on his chair in front of his desk my attention was drawn to a small piece of paper that
he apparently had on top of where he was doing his writing work and it was in german and it just
said something like i don't remember precisely but something like what you're doing now is it
leading to duko or away from it just a very very short kind of thing and that really struck me
you might say that no need for any kind of supernatural explanation that he was still
there and drawing my attention to that i think we can just simply say that i connected to his
energy and then i saw that please but it has been a very very practical and and simple way of putting
into operation by view it's just very simple what i'm doing now is it leading to duko or leading
away from it and we can put in brackets leading to duko for myself and others or leading away
from the brackets for myself and others and that makes things very simple i think thank you for the
question coming back to my comparative study of the madhyama agama and the anguttara discourse
so we have a slightly different listing here the anguttara nikaya also works through annihilation
in action annihilation abhorrence the fourth is different it has nihilism
and i think there's a problem with the chinese translation here because nihilism actually is
vinayko or someone who go to more vinayaya damang this seity so the vinayaya can easily be misread
as vinaya and there we get the dhamma vinaya and there we have the number four in the chinese the
base on dhamma and vinaya so i think the difference here is based on a misunderstanding
of the iniko regional on the side of the chinese translators quite probable
okay now the discourse moves through these aspects more in detail
seah what is the way in which according to the true dharma one would not misrepresent me in saying
the recluse gautama's doctrine is based on inaction and he proclaims to people a teaching of inaction
seah i proclaim that evil bodily actions are not to be done evil verbal and mental actions are not
to be done seah the countless unhorsement defiled states of this kind which are the
basis of future existence which result in dukkha and vexation and are the cause of birth old age
sickness and death i proclaim that all of these are not to be done this seah is the way in which
according to the true dharma one would not misrepresent me in saying the recluse gautama's
doctrine is based on inaction and he proclaims to people a teaching of inaction
seah what is the way in which according to the true dharma one would not misrepresent me in saying
the recluse gautama's doctrine is based on action and he proclaims to people a teaching of action
seah i proclaim that good bodily actions are to be done that good verbal and mental actions are
to be done etc we get the same type of exposition then for the topics of annihilation and abhorrence
the fourth then is the dharma vinaya where as i said i have the suspicion that the
chinese translators misunderstood a term in the indian original see how i teach the dharma
and vinaya for the sake of abandoning sensual desire i declare the dharma and vinaya for the
sake of abandoning hatred and ignorance the next one is based on asceticism and the buddha
proclaims to people a teaching of asceticism here we get a very long description that i'm
now going to read to you which is not found in the anguttara nikaya parallel and even this
long description that i will now read to you i have considerably abbreviated it
it gives us various types of ascetic practices
excuse me that apparently were undertaken in in ancient india we get similar descriptions
elsewhere in the Pali discourses see how i'm reading the discourse now there are recluses
and brahmins who go naked and unclothed who will not eat food from a house where there's a pregnant
woman or who eat one mouthful and are content with one mouthful or who eat only the arms they
obtain at a single house and are contained with what they obtain at a single house or who go to
secluded places and live off what they find in seclusion eating roots or fruits or fallen fruits
or who wear complete hides or who keep their hair disheveled or who tear out their hair
or who stand continuously abstaining from sitting or who worship fire keeping it burning continuously
in my presentation of this passage i have given only one example of each type that discourse
actually gives a lot of different variations of each of these different types of ascetic practices
like the house where there is a pregnant woman then they will not eat from a house where there
is a dog without from this and that type of house there's a whole list every time i continue with
the discourse in these ways they experience untold dukkha in the practice of self-modification
seah there is such asceticism i do not deny it but seah such asceticism is lowly action
leading to dukkha leading to distress a practice of whirlings it is not the noble path
seah for the tathagata free from attachment and fully awakened the method of asceticism
consists in knowing defilements abandoning them causing them to cease completely rooting
them out and cutting them off so that they would never arise again seah this is the way in which
according to the true dharma one would not misrepresent me in saying the rigorous gautama's
doctrine is based on asceticism and he proclaims to people a teaching of asceticism
next comes point six based on not entering a womb to be reborn seah the tathagata free from
attachment and fully awakened through higher knowledge abundant future rebirth in a womb
caused future rebirth to cease completely rooted it out and cut it off so that it will not arise
again for this reason i will not again enter a womb seah this is the way in which according
to the true dharma one would not misrepresent me in saying the rigorous gautama's doctrine is based
on not entering a womb to be reborn and he proclaims to people a teaching on not entering a womb
and the seventh based on attaining peace the passage that comes is not found in the anguttara nikaya
seah i attained fully this summit of the holy life for the sake of which a Klansman shaves off
hair and beard dons the yellow robe leaves home out of faith and goes forth to practice the path
in this very life i have personally attained understanding and awakening and i dwell having
personally realized it i know as it really is birth is ended the holy life has been established
what was to be done has been done there will not be another existence remark even though this is
not found in the anguttara nikaya parallel this is however a standard description
that we will also find in other contexts in the Pali discourses
i continue with the magyama agama version
having attained peace myself i bring peace to other monks nuns laymen and laywomen having
brought peace to them i bring liberation from birth to other living beings who are subject to
birth subject to old age subject to disease subject to death i bring liberation from sorrow
sadness and defilements to other beings who are subject to sorrow sadness and defilements seah
this is the way in which according to the true dharma one would not misrepresent me in saying
the recluse kotama's doctrine is based on attaining peace and he proclaims to people a teaching of
peace
seah now takes refuge and asked to be accepted as a lay follower and this is again i give this
from the magyama agama version blessed one just as a person who raises a bad horse expecting to
get benefit from it only tires himself and gets no benefit blessed one i was like this
those foolish nigantas lack right knowledge they do not know for themselves not recognizing the
fertile field of the buddhist teaching and not examining for myself i long revered them made
offerings and paid them homage expecting to get benefit from it but i only suffered in vain
blessed one for a certain time i don't go for refuge etc blessed one i was formally ignorant
whatever faith and respect i had for those foolish nigantas has today been cut off why
because i was deceived blessed one for a third time i now go for refuge
this is what the buddhist said having heard the buddhist words senior ministers seah and the
monks were delighted and remembered them well the anguttani kayapal has a rather substantial
difference in this final part after he has seah has taken refuge and he doesn't do it by
he is a general in the pali version and he doesn't do it with this
calling the nigantas foolish i think if i remember correctly
anyhow there's a whole different story that happens in the pali version now
the buddha tells seah that he should reflect very carefully on what he's doing
and general seah is very pleased to find that the buddha advises him in this way instead of using
his conversion for propaganda purposes and when he their own expresses for a second time that he
takes refuge the buddha tells him that he should nevertheless continue supporting the giants the
nigantas with arms as he had done earlier now seah is even more pleased because he had heard
the rumor that the buddha was telling people that only he and his disciples should be given arms not
others and now he finds that the buddha is actually encouraging him to continue supporting
the giants even though seah has changed his discipleship or affiliation to buddhism then
the buddha gives him a gradual instruction and seah becomes a stream enter now as you already
noticed this whole episode is not found in the madhyama agama version at all we have another
instance of this whole passage that is a giant follower who is converted who takes refuge is
told reflect carefully takes refuge again is told to continue supporting the giants gets
gradual instruction and becomes a stream entry stream enterer in the upali sutta madhyamanikaya
56 and in this case we also have the fairly similar passage in the madhyama agama version
this parallelism gives the impression that this passage originally belongs to the upali sutta
and in the case of the seah sutta it has been added to the palli version if this hypothesis
should be correct then this addition happened at an early stage in the transmission of the palli
discourse because now the seah sutta is found not only among the eights of the anguttaranikaya
but also in the vinaya so we have same two times the same story
whatever may be the last word on the hypothesis that the anguttaranikaya version of the seah
sutta has incorporated this whole part the story continues seah invites the buddha and the monks
for a meal and when he gets some fresh meat for the meal it's a pavatamansa the giants who have
found out that he has left their faults start making a rumor in the roads of the city saying
that an animal has been killed specifically for the sake to provide food to the buddha and his monks
and in the vinaya version of this story this then leads up to a rule that monastics should not partake
of meat when they know or suspect that the animal is killed on purpose for them which was not the
case with the meat that seah got and i just take this as an occasion doing the final five minutes
of today's lecture to go a little bit more on to the issue of meat consumption because even though
this is not found in the madhyama agama version it is found in the palli discourse now the main
point about consumption of meat by monastics is that as a monk or a nun in the ancient times
goes begging out on the road of the town they are going have to accept whatever is given to them
nevertheless excuse me the jivaka sutta gives and the vinaya ruling makes an exception to that
and that is if one suspects that an animal has been specifically killed to provide meat for one
itself then one is allowed to refuse it and one is also allowed to refuse meat if it is from some
kind of wild animal like elephant meat or lion meat etc the reason there is not ethical it's just that
if these wild animals supposedly are able to smell that one has eaten the meat of one of their
species then it's more probable that they will attack one when one lives alone in the forest
now the same jivaka sutta also examines the case of what happens when somebody offers meat
that has been specifically slaughtered for this meal offering to a monastic and it points out
that in such a case the lay person who does that incurs demerit untimered on five occasions
and i've listed them down here first of all when that person says bring that animal to be slaughtered
the second when the animal is actually suffering fear most animals know what is going to happen
to them you can see that if you go to slaughterhouses animals are frantic
third when he is giving the order now kill the animal fourth when the animal is actually being
killed and fifth when he is offering this meat of the animal slaughtered on purpose for giving
meal to a disciple of the tatagata when he offers it it's the fifth instant of demerit
what about a lay person's own consumption of meat
there's a important discourse here that describes threefold purity in regard to abstention from
killing the veludvareya sutta and i just read this passage to you the noble disciple reflects
i am one who wants to live who does not want to die if someone were to take my life
that would not be agreeable and acceptable to me now if i were to take the life of another
of one who wants to live who does not want to die that would not be agreeable and acceptable
to the other what is disagreeable and unacceptable to me is disagreeable and unacceptable to the other
too how can i inflict upon another what is disagreeable and unacceptable to me having
reflected in this way he abstains himself from killing establishes others in abstaining from
killing and praises abstinence from killing thus his bodily conduct is purified in three respects
besides the golden rule what i do not want others to do to me i should not do to others
i find very significant this three-fold purification that is mentioned here
sometimes we get the argument that consumption of meat and fish is quite okay for a buddhist
lay follower because as long as one does not kill the animal oneself one is absolved from any breach
of the training rule to abstain from killing but i think this does not really work if we look at it
from the perspective of this discourse you see even just buying meat without doing the killing
oneself it is obviously stronger if one kills oneself but buying meat just buying meat in in
the butcher's shop or in the supermarket it you are failing to fulfill this three-fold purity
and there is also a logic to that i mean the butcher keeps killing as long as he's able to
sell the meat so if somebody buys meat by that very act of buying he or she is directly encouraging
the killing instead of encouraging abstinence from killing anyway that was just a sidelight on
meat eating and the way how according to my view the canonical position regarding the issue of
vegetarianism would be but this is a much debated issue so i just present my view and i do not want
to intend you to have to accept this wholesale we are coming to the end now it's already 7 45
i still owe you five minutes from i don't know how many weeks ago the main point that madhyama agama 18
makes is a reinterpretation of concepts like non-action annihilation and asceticism
yeah i think that was all i had to say today and i thank you very much for your attention and
i look forward to seeing you again next week at what will be the last session in this series of
talks but i'm definitely going to continue next year goodbye and have a nice time