So, welcome everybody. I hope you are able to hear me and see me and also see that, to
the end here, if you can't see it the only way you can tell me that things are not working
as true is the chat function. So anything that doesn't appear, you have to stop typing
for me. It's not working. Okay, this is the first lecture. It's in my 2012 course on
the Arahant Antifold Truth in the Buddhist Discourse. What we will be doing is reading
through chapter 3 and chapter 4 of the Magyamat Rama. Maybe not whole of chapter 4, depending
on how we proceed. And what we do is we take up anything that comes along our way, but
at the same time, we have a special focus. And the special focus this year is on the
conception of the Arahant, and on the four novities or four twists in eligibility. And
the general introduction on the Magyamat Rama collection has such, I will not be giving
today. I have been given such a general introduction last year. So if you like to have some background
on this collection, it would be good if you could have a look at lecture one of last year.
This can be accessed on the same webpage where you also registered. All the lectures from the
past are available as audio files. And it is during the first part of the first lecture from last year
that I give some more ideas on the Magyamat Rama collection as such. Now we have quite a number
of new students in the course. And I just briefly like to explain how the whole thing works.
Now that we are doing the first part of the lecture, I take up the discussion that the participants
have been having on the blog. Last year, this has been very limited and very interesting.
And for me personally, it's the most enjoyable part of the whole thing to see how the participants
question and find answers. So normally during the first part of the lecture, I take up the comments
that I found particularly meaningful or where I should feel I could add something. And during the
second part of the lecture, then I present the new material. Now obviously today there hasn't been
any blog discussion in past lectures. So today we will follow a different sequence. We start first
with my lectures. And after that we have a guest lecture. And I think I'm not going to tell you
please give me the guest lecture because you will get so excited that you won't listen to learning
right now. So just now there is something better to come. Now you still stay with me for some time.
And we're going to look at our first discourse. So we are in the Magyama Arghama, third chapter, first
discourse. This is Magyama Arghama, 21, which has a power among the two of the underrepresented
Magyama. The main topic that we are dealing with this discourse is the idea of patterns and the
relationship to non-retroing. Non-retroing is the third of the four stages of awakening recognized
in early Buddhism. And as you will be hearing more, excuse me, as you will be hearing more on the
stages of awakening later on during the guest lecture. For the time being I'll just stay with the text
and don't tell you any more. So I just start reading. In just a second I want to check, can you hear me?
Can somebody tell me if you are able to hear me? Because I have the impression that the tape is not
registering. Can somebody just type in the chat and tell me if you are able to hear me?
Ah, good, good. Okay, thank you. Yeah, because some of the audio, like I have that video recording,
I have an audio running and the audio doesn't seem to be registering anything. No, I can't hear it
for the time being. Just have to continue. At least you can hear me. That's reassuring. And the sound
is not good. Maybe I move the mic a little up. I don't like this video. Okay, I start reading
this question. This is Benoit Saripota speaking. One of the friends, there truly are two categories
of people to be found in the world. Which two? They are those who are non-retroing. Who have internal
fetters and who will not be reborn into this human realm. And they are those who are not non-retroingers.
Who have external fetters and who will be reborn into this human realm. So this is the basic distinction
I got. The non-retroiner who still has internal fetters and the one who is not a non-retroiner and who has
external fetters. Now there are more detailed explanation of the first one. Suppose someone
observes the training in the presets without transgression or compromise. Without blemish or
defect. The practices in this way abundantly, who becomes impediments and is praised by the worthy
ones for being well cultivated and well endowed in the training. You feel the chance and
disenchantment regarding sensual desires in dispassion and in abandoning sensual desires.
And he attains a peaceful liberation of the mind. So we get three basic levels described
here. The first is simple maintain of moral conduct. Then the practitioner goes beyond
sensuality and then she is able to develop concentration and peaceful liberation of the
mind and absorption. So such a practitioner and I continue with the discourse. With the
breath of the body at death, he passes beyond the gods that feed and rest through and is
born among the mind-made gods. Such a person then performs is called a non-retroiner who has
internal fetters and who will not be reborn into this shilling realm. So the idea of the
gods that feed and rest through is simply meant to tell us that this practitioner is born
in a very high celestial realm where the gods are made of mind, mind-made. Now we get the
second case. And as I am moving up and down the PDF, in case you are not able to see this
map up and down, then again you have to turn it through the chat function. I continue reading
from the distance. In support, someone observes the training in the precepts and irons against
breaking the code of rules and skillfully consults his component in accordance with
proper conduct. The trains and the precepts in his realm seem a great danger in the slightest
transgression and being a pre-principated. Such a person, one of the friends, is called
one who is not a non-retroiner, who has external fetters and who will still be reborn into this
shilling realm. So the basic distinction that the Magyama Agama Discourses presented to us here
is between morality as such, maintaining the precept as such, which is the second case,
and using this as a basis to develop dispassion and then to develop concentration in order
to reach non-retroiner. Now, if we look at the un-retro-nikaya corner line, we find that here
we have quite a different location. We have three different places. One is internally fettered,
and that is somebody observes moral conduct, is reborn in harm, and then returns this world. Then
somebody is externally fettered, again moral conduct, he or she reaches a liberation of the mind,
is reborn in harm, and does not return to this world. And then, the third place, also somebody
who is externally fettered, again the development of morality, the development of dispassion.
The person is reborn in harm and does not return to this world. Now, if we compare those two
versions, and he's dying in a difficulty because he's not very important to make out of this,
the difference is quite pronounced. You see, we have two cases in the Magyama Agama and they
seem to be quite simple. Coming up is three cases in the Pali version, and when we just
pick the discourse, we don't really, it's not immediately evident what this being internally
fettered or externally fettered means. When the commentary explains internally fettered refers to
somebody who is fettered to the sensual realm, that is the human realm and the lower
heavenly realm, and somebody who is externally fettered is fettered to the material and the
immaterial realm. These are the celestial realms that correspond to the attainment of absorption
and the immaterial attainment. On that commentary explanation, we are certainly able to make
some sense out of the presentation in the Pali version. How this relates to the Magyama
Agama, which of the two is the more original convincing? I seem to don't know. This is one
of those cases where we style the two versions and we just have to kind of let them stand side
by side and leave it at that. We are then in both versions, however, we have a similar
progression of ideas, where there is some gods and they come and they tell the Buddha about the
teaching that Venerable Sarikut has just given. And on being told about this teaching, the Buddha
then visits Sarikutta and approves of the exposition that Venerable Sarikutta has given and then
he makes this statement here. I'll read it out from the Chinese. Sarikutta, those gods of even
minds are able to stand together on the tip of an hour, twenty, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty
or sixty of them without obstructing one another. Sarikutta, it was more after being born into their
heavenly realm. It was while still in the human realm, that is in a former life, that those gods of even
mind cultivated a good mind extensively and quickly and thereby acquired the ability to stand
together on the tip of an hour, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty or sixty of them without obstructing
one another. Therefore, Sarikutta, one should cultivate tranquility, tranquility of the sense
faculties, tranquility of the mind and tranquility in one's physical, verbal and mental actions.
You have a question about how many angels are able to stand on the tip of them. All is something that
apparently was not only of interest to me, either Christians but also to Buddhists. I am not entirely
sure what we should make out of this. My personal take would be to take it as a reference to a belief
existing already in ancient India on certain words and their abilities and that the real point is not part
of one and two that you see on the screen but part of three. How these gods were able to get to these abilities.
Overly in part of two, we are told it was not that they did that in some way when they were already
important but that their abilities, whatever meaning, the things of them were acquired in the form of life
in the human world. And these devas are called even-minded, that is, Pali would be some of them.
And that is actually, I think, to be a topic for us. These devas were able to reach these abilities because
they had practiced even-minded, they had developed tranquility, they had developed concentration.
And the last paragraph tells us how. It tells us the cultivated tranquility of the sense properties of the mind
and in their actions. So I think the real point is to show us that the development of
the concentration of tranquility is not something that just comes about like this you said in the question
when it happens but rather tranquility is something that in order to express itself in the action
meditation sitting has to be a flavor that pervades the whole world. If there is tranquility in one's
physical, verbal and mental actions, or let us just start with the physical actions. If there is tranquility in the physical actions
you are not sure this has an effect on the mind. If there is more of a tranquility in the verbal actions
you will also see this has an effect on the mind. And then tranquility of the sense properties.
It's not being distracted with the healing up and down but being centered. All of these stipulate those basic requirements of training
that enable us then when we sit on the meditation person to experience tranquility. So the main points that I think we can
gather from this discourse are suggesting you are certainly free to add or correct me. First of all, morality,
keeping the precepts, ethical behavior, this is the very foundation of the practice and it should certainly never be underestimated
but or nevertheless only morality is not enough. It should lead on to dispassion. And dispassion is then what leads
to mental tranquility and concentration. And such tranquility is something that can be developed or should be developed
I should say at all levels. From everyday bodily and verbal activities all the way up to the famous peaceful
liberations of the mind where the mind is quite literally liberated temporarily because of the attainment of concentration
of the inner peace of the correct mind. Here at this point I will stop breathing to allow for any question or comment
you might be having. I should add that the Magyama, Adama, and the Aditya Ramakai discourse both have a similar conclusion.
They say that non-Buddhist practitioners are at a loss because they don't get to hear such teachings. So we are lucky to be able to get to such teachings.
At least in that aspect the two virgins agreed.
So watch me, I'm just saying that whenever Buddhism is of dispassion here, that is such a beautiful word in having.
One of the questions, Giraga, dispassion basically is this idea of not being running after sensual pleasures, of becoming increasingly independent to the thing of the need of input through the senses that is pleasurable.
So dispassion actually is based on the realization that true happiness can only be found in the mind itself.
So instead of trying to find it outside through the senses, seeing a beautiful object tasting a pleasant taste of whatever it is, we realize that that which gives us happiness is anywhere in the mind.
And the evaluation of other objects as pleasurable leads us to be dependent on them. But real happiness can be found in the mind itself during concentration.
And so the attractions of the outer world lose their attraction, their faith away. And this is actually the second meaning of the term dispassion, Giraga.
Giraga has these two nuances of meaning. One is the dispassion, not having passion, but rather, rather.
And the other one is a magically color, the discoloring, the feeling. The so-called beauties of the outer world lose their colorful attraction because the mind has found a point of reference within you that no longer needs that.
There is a question about Tai Tai Yong-hui. My internet connection is very poor. How can this video be downloaded?
Yeah, you can't download the video, but you can try to listen to it again on the old apps. I can't help much with that. I'm sorry.
What is Dijang, Bantu, and the scriptures of gods? How would you define them?
That's a good question. I think if we want to take the early Buddhist scriptures seriously for the way they represent early Buddhism, we have to accept that gods, the existence of supernatural beings was an integral part of the early Buddhist teachings.
It is not necessary for anyone in the modern world who wishes to follow the Buddhist form of practice to accept or believe in gods. This is certainly not the case.
It is perfectly fine for anybody who says that I haven't seen any of these gods. You tell me what you like about these gods, but until they come here and say hello, I'm not going to believe it.
That is perfectly fine. Gods are not part of the belief system that Buddhism says you have to believe this and otherwise you can't affect us.
But if we want to fully understand and appreciate the teachings of early Buddhism within the historical context, then I think we have to accept the fact that as far as this picture allows us to judge, gods were an integral part of the view of the world in which the Buddha and his disciples lived.
We get numerous discourses to be there, traveling to heaven to visit this or that god and gods coming down to earth to give the latest news and to have the discussions.
So these are as far as we're able to tell, meant to be really existing supernatural beings. This is the way the text presents them to us. Good question.
So there's the next question. I don't clap. So the question might arise across the canon as to whether internally thought it or externally thought it is a better phrase for anagamas or sattatagamas.
Yeah. Well, the teaching in the Anguttal Unifier, this goes on internally thought it and externally thought it is one that I am not fully clear on.
The idea of distinguishing that between sensual when and material makes some sense without wanting to say that the Magyama Agama must be the correct one. I find the very simple teaching in the Magyama Agama speaks much more to me.
It is very simple. And if you go back to the point here again that we have, you see, there's one and he practices morality and disenchantment or dispassion and he attains concentration and so he's able to become a monotone.
And there's another one who just practices the precepts, which is very good, but he will definitely be able in this human realm.
Detecting is a very simple teaching and it relates very much to the point that you make, because the one who has not developed the concentration could, we suppose at most, be a once returner, one who does return to this world.
But I do not want to go into the question of whether we need absorption or not for screen entry or once return, we discussed that in quiet detail during the last lecture, but it's a good question.
You know, thanks for asking that question. Anyway, it seems like my connection isn't very good either. Can you get around also meaning permanence?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That is in fact the second sense of fading away.
Something that fades away is the, it is the second, impermanence means it comes and goes and fading away is just going away, it's disappearing, it is fading away.
And the two are interconnected, because precisely because things are impermanent, precisely because they are fading away, we use our passion for them, we become dispassionate.
Those are drawn. Are there any contradiction between the Magyamal and the Ambutranika? Good question.
Let me put it like this, there are no contradictions that I can solve. Sometimes we have the phrase that one version says something that simply makes less sense than the other.
This is one of the rare cases, and I would have loved not to have this as the first one to confront it, but I can't change the order of the discourses.
This is one of those where we just stand there and see the one and see the other, and by the present moment, I simply don't know.
Maybe on the block, somebody more intelligently will solve the whole thing and give us an explanation and say, ah, sure, I know it all the way, it must be like this, but at present I have to commit ignorance.
And I can only say there's two different presentations here. This can easily happen during oral transmission, and both of them make some sense.
Martin Gallagher is unable to hear anything.
Yeah, as the others are able to hear, I'm not quite sure what I could do to solve that.
Mr. Brown, do you think gods belong to culture rather than to dharma? Are they metaphoric perhaps?
Yeah, I...
They are definitely part of the ancient Indian culture, you're right.
And as I try to say also, they are not an essential integral aspect of the dharma.
They are sometimes also metaphoric, you're right, because there is another god called Mara, kind of the Buddhist devil, but he's a very sweet guy.
They're not territorial, like somebody who is very frightened, who is more like a fool, kind of making stupid things and then making a fool of himself.
And the same word, Mara, is sometimes also used metaphorically, very clearly. So there's a double way.
Sometimes this Mara is an actual god who walks in, flies in, whatever, and meets the Buddha and talks with the Buddha and says this and that, and other times it's just used metaphorically.
So we have both sides, side by side. It's good that you mentioned that, and I was able to compliment a little bit what I said about that.
It can sometimes be metaphorical in some, but we should not think that all gods are merely a metaphor in their individuals.
Mariusz Kropowski, where could I find the full text of Madhyama Agama? Yeah, the Madhyama Agama is a present being translated by myself and a team of translators.
And the text that we are working with now is so far unpublished.
It is probable that the first volume of this translation will be coming out next year, and then you could buy it from Numata.
But at present, the text is not available, and I can also not give you the text because it's copyright.
Still, he is asking whether the audio will be available for download this year.
The audio will be available in a few hours, and the audio, if it works, the thing is, I have the impression it's not working.
You see, you have this monkey who is not very good with technical issues.
At least the video seems to be working, so the video will definitely be there, and maybe from the video I can make a copy of the audio.
Oh, wonderful. So many questions. Thank you very much. I think at this point, we are slowly coming to a conclusion of our discussion.
The audio quality is not that easy, but at least somebody can hear me.
And we leave for the next discourse, for the next session, because there is almost an hour with the guest lecture.
And now I think I have to tell you who is going to give the guest lecture.
It's Biko Bodhi. I'm so happy about this. He kindly agreed to give us an introductory lecture on the other hand.
I think Biko Bodhi doesn't need much introduction, but most of you would have come across him because of his wonderful translations.
Manjumanikaya, Samitanikaya, and the Anguetanikaya is finished, I heard, soon coming out, and also his study of the commentaries in several publications.
And Biko Bodhi has a PhD in philosophy in 1972 from Claremont Rabbit School, and the same year he went forth as a member.
There will be more information on him on the blog. I'll be creating two blogs this time, one short blog for whatever, for the discussion on the one discourse that I presented we may be having, and one blog for discussion, Biko Bodhi presents us.
I'm not sure if he has the time, but it is possible, at least, that he will visit the blog and answer himself.
So, yeah. So, this is what I heard. Now, there is one more question that Mariusz Kropowski, Bantudu, by God, means devas. Yes, definitely.
God is the English term, devas is the time term. So, at this point, I think I'll switch over to Biko Bodhi, and thank you all for your attention, for the nice questions, and enjoy Biko Bodhi's talk on the Arahus.