Zoom Talk MN 142 with Delson Armstrong -The Exposition of Offerings

- Looking good. - All right, should I get started? - All right, let's get started. Today I'm going to be reading from Majjhima Nikaya 142. This is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta, that is, the exposition of offerings. Mahapajapati Gautami took a new pair of clothes and went to the Blessed One. Mahapajapati Gautami is the maternal aunt of the Buddha. After the Bodhisatta's mother passed away, Mahapajapati took care of him at the time. She was his maternal aunt, but she was also his stepmother.

After paying homage to him, she sat down at one side and said to the Blessed One, "Venerable Sir, this new pair of clothes has been spun by me, woven by me, especially for the Blessed One. Venerable Sir, let the Blessed One accept it from me out of compassion." When this was said, the Blessed One told her, "Give it to the Sangha, Gautami. Be honored."

A second time and a third time, she said to the Blessed One, "Venerable Sir, accept it from me out of compassion." A second time and the third time, the Blessed One told her, "Give it to the Sangha, Gautami. When you give it to the Sangha, both I and the Sangha will be honored." Then the Venerable Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Venerable Sir, let the Blessed One accept this new pair of clothes from Mahapajapati Gautami. Mahapajapati Gautami has been very helpful to the Blessed One, Venerable Sir. As his mother's sister, she was his nurse, his foster mother, the one who gave him milk."

"She suckled the Blessed One when his own mother died. The Blessed One, too, has been very helpful to Mahapajapati Gautami, Venerable Sir. It is owing to the Blessed One that Mahapajapati Gautami has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. It is owing to the Blessed One that Mahapajapati Gautami abstains from killing living beings, from taking what is not given, from misconduct in sensual pleasures, from false speech, and from wine, liquor, and intoxicants, which are the basis of negligence. She maintains her precepts. About the cessation of suffering, and about the way leading to the cessation of suffering. The Blessed One has been very helpful to Mahapajapati Gautami."

So this indicates that at this time, based on what Ananda is saying, Mahapajapati Gautami was a stream enter, because these are the five factors of the stream enter. That is to say, they have complete conviction in the Buddha, in the Dhamma, and in the Sangha. They maintain their precepts, and they are wholesome in thought, in words, and in deeds.

And when they do break a precept, it would be a minor precept, they immediately make a confession or make a determination that they will not break that precept again. The most important part of this is that she has no doubt about the four noble truths. So this is one way to understand how somebody might be a stream enter. Of course there's the other three, the other two fetters along with that. That is the belief of the personality view, the belief in a personal self that goes away, and the fetter of clinging to rites and rituals, with the belief that they will lead to well.

In other words, by having that conviction in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, that in itself is a great thing. As soon as you come to that realization, it is indeed difficult to repay the teacher or the Sangha for what they have provided you. Because what they have provided you is, along with the other factors of stream entry, the understanding of the Dhamma to some extent, with the possibility of no more reverts in the lower realms. And that is a wonderful thing. That is a huge thing. And all you can do is repay the Sangha with whatever you want to offer them, with that generosity.

That attitude of generosity is really also imbued with the attitude of gratitude. In other words, once you understand the scope of why it is important to give to the Sangha, then you understand how it affects your own practice. When you give to the Sangha, when you give to anybody with a wholesome intention, when you give to somebody with an attitude of gratitude, without any expectation, with generosity, without having any expectation of any kind of reward, that in itself is a reward. That in itself is uplifting to the mind. If you think about the times when you have been generous to somebody just because it felt good, you immediately have an uplifted mind. And this is one of the recollections you can do for your meditation practice.

Number one, you have the precepts which you continue to maintain. But number two, you think about all the times you've been generous. That generosity immediately brings a wholesome intention to the mind. It brings clarity to the mind, and that provides a perfect situation for your mind to experience the meditation. And so he goes on to say, wine, liquor, and intoxicants.

One gives a gift to a Paccekabuddha. A Paccekabuddha is a solitary Buddha. It's one who becomes self-enlightened, one who becomes aware of the Dhamma and fully realized, but does not go on to teach. He doesn't have the interest, inclination, or capacity to teach. This is the second kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an arahant disciple of the Tathagata. This is the third kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of arahantship. This is the fourth kind of offering. So here one is the arahant with fruition and the other is the arahant with path.

One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of stream entry. And so that again is stream enterer with path and stream enterer with fruition. This is the tenth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one outside the dispensation who is free from lust for sensual pleasures. This is the eleventh kind of personal offering. This could be any other kind of ascetic or any kind of monk outside of the Dhamma, outside of Buddhism. And even if you give them an offering, you give it with gratitude, you give it with generosity, and that's still considered to be an effective offering. It says here, who is free from lust for sensual pleasures.

So that is to say that even if it is somebody who is outside of the Buddha's dispensation, they have a certain level of wisdom, they still have a certain level of understanding, which leads them to no longer attach and cling to sensual pleasures. They might be doing their own thing in terms of religious or spiritual efforts, but they are on the way to trying to get away from attaching to spiritual, attaching to sensual pleasures. So it's still a valid offering to give. One gives a gift to a virtuous, ordinary person. This is the twelfth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an immoral ordinary person. That's interesting. One gives a gift to an immoral ordinary person.

This is the thirteenth kind of personal offering. So even if somebody is immoral, maybe you don't know it, but if somebody is immoral and you still give with generosity, you still give with the attitude of gratitude, that still uplifts your mind. The whole point here is how do you intend, or what is your intention when you give, whether it's food or clothing or shelter or medicines or anything. Maybe it's just giving a ride to somebody who needs a ride to the train station or to the airport.

Maybe it's just somebody who needs a smile. It doesn't matter if the person is moral or immoral. What matters is you remain in a wholesome state of mind. And as easy as giving away your smile, you immediately uplift the other person with that smile. So actually both yourself and the other person are uplifted for that moment. One gives a gift to an animal.

This is the fourteenth kind of personal offering. So you can give to a pet, you can give to a dog or a cat or an animal you see on the way, to ducks, to squirrels, whatever it might be. And giving to living beings provides an uplifted mind, an uplifted mind. Herein, Ananda, by giving a gift to an animal, the offering may be expected to repay a hundredfold. What that really means, and this is according to the commentary, is when you give to an animal, just by sharing your food with a dog or a cat or a pet, or whatever it might be, that offering may be expected to repay a hundredfold. That means that for the next hundred existences, or at some point, a hundred different existences, you are expected to have an uplifted state of being.

By giving a gift to an immoral, ordinary person, the offering may be expected to repay a thousandfold. By giving a gift to a virtuous, ordinary person, so you can do the math on that one, it may be expected to repay incalculably, immeasurably. In other words, there is a hierarchy in terms of how you give and who you give to. And eventually, when you give to the other attainers, whether it's a stream-enterer, whether it's a sakadagami, there is a level of fruition of that giving. So it would give more fruit to give to a stream-enterer or to a sakadagami or to an anagami than to a sakadagami, or to an arahant than to an anagami, and of course to a paccekabuddha or a Buddha, but we don't have those nowadays. Besides, you don't really know who that attainer is, whether they have stream entry or not, whether they have sakadagami or not, whether they're an anagami or not, whether they're an arahant or not. Regardless, you still give, and as the Buddha was saying earlier, when you give to the Sangha, you honour him and the Sangha.

So whenever you give to a monastic, you're not giving it just specifically to that particular monastic. You are offering this as a way of repayment for the benefits that you received from the Dhamma through the Sangha and through the Buddha. So when you offer something to the Sangha or to a monastic, you're actually offering it to that monastic who represents the entire Sangha. They will accept it gladly on behalf of the Sangha, but they don't accept it for themselves. It's not something that is personal in that sense. It is for the entire Sangha. What then should be said about giving to a stream-enterer? What should be said about giving a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of once-returning, to a once-returner, to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of non-returning?

return, to a non-returner, to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of arahantship, to an arahant, to a paccekabuddha, what should be said about giving a gift to a Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened? Now he gets into a different category, different kinds of offerings. He says there are seven kinds of offerings made to the Sangha, Ananda. One gives a gift to the Sangha of both bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, headed by the Buddha.

This is the first kind of offering made to the Sangha. This is interesting. So he says, or rather the text says bhikkhus and bhikkhunis. But a little historical perspective on this. monastic and at this point in time she is a lay person who wants to offer these clots to the buddha so it seems to suggest then that this addition of the bhikkhunis came out came about later just to give clarification that it is for the bhikkhus and for the bhikkhunis even though the bhikkhuni the the idea of bhikkhunis didn't yet come into being until Mahapajapati and other women are with her requested that they go they be allowed to go forth so then he says one gives a gift to a sangha of both bhikkhus and bhikkhunis after the tatagat has attained final nirvana so in other words there is the offering that's given when a buddha is still around it's given to both the sangha of is still around and their second type is when he has continued on into or passed on into parinibbana and so after the buddha the sangha still lives on

And so it is right to still offer to the Sangha even after the Buddha has passed on. Here's another one: one gives a gift to a Sangha of bhikkhus. This is the third kind of offering made to the Sangha. One gives a gift to a Sangha of bhikkhunis. So, separately, one to the male monastics and separately one to the female monastics. This is the fourth kind of offering made to the Sangha.

One gives a gift saying, appoint so many bhikkhus and bhikkhunis for me from the Sangha. This is the fifth kind of offering made to the Sangha. One gives a gift saying, appoint so many bhikkhus for me from the Sangha. This is the sixth kind of offering made to the Sangha. One gives a gift saying, appoint so many bhikkhunis for me from the Sangha.

This is the seventh kind of offering made to the Sangha. In future times, Ananda, there will be members of the clan who are yellow-necks, immoral, of evil character. Even then, I say, an offering made to the Sangha is incalculable, immeasurable. And I say that in no way is a gift to a person individually ever more fruitful than an offering made to the Sangha. So let's break that down.

In future times, Ananda, there will be members of the clan who are yellow-necks, immoral, of evil character. So these are people who aren't part of the Sangha, but they wear the yellow robes and they roam about begging for alms and things like that. You see that around some parts of Asia, specifically in some parts of India. And they might be of evil character in the sense that they don't really follow the precepts and they'll be immoral.

But then people will give gifts to them for the sake of the Sangha. Even then, because of your pure, wholesome intention, that purifies the whole process. And so there is an intention of the giver that purifies and uplifts the mind, even if the recipient is unwholesome, even if the recipient is immoral and of not such a great character. And then he says, and I say that in no way is a gift to a person individually ever more fruitful than an offering made to the Sangha.

in other words even if you give to an arahat with fruition and you're giving it something to them personally you're saying that this is for you specifically that's not any more fruitful than giving something that is meant for the entire sangha even if that sangha doesn't have even a stream entry doesn't have even one stream entry because you're offering something collectively to the sangha for their benefit Rather than having it given individually to somebody with the idea that this will benefit just one person, it makes more sense in terms of giving it to a collective group or giving it to that Sangha that will benefit even much more.

There are another four kinds of purification of offering. What for? There is the offering that is purified by the giver, not by the receiver. There is the offering that is purified neither by the giver nor by the receiver. There is the offering that is purified both by the giver and by the receiver. Now the Buddha is going to go into how these four come to be. He says, here, the giver is virtuous, of good character, and the receiver is immoral, of evil character. Thus, the offering is purified by the giver, not by the receiver.

And how is the offering purified by the receiver, not by the giver? Here, the giver is immoral, of evil character, and the receiver is virtuous, of good character. And how is the offering purified neither by the giver nor by the receiver? Here the giver is virtuous, of good character, and the receiver is virtuous, of good character. Thus the offering is purified both by the giver and by the receiver.

These are the four kinds of purification of offering. So here the understanding should be that when you give, give with a wholesome intention, give with the mind purified by the precepts. Give with a mind that is purified by good behaviour, by good character, because that purifies the offering. Even if the recipient might be of immoral character, might not be taking the precepts, might be breaking the precepts, whatever that might be, the offering is still valid, because it's been purified by somebody with wholesome intentions who continues to maintain the precepts. So before you give, it's important to understand your intention: that you will maintain the precepts, have a wholesome intention, and then give.

Before we finish this off, I wanted to share an interesting story. Now, this isn't from the Dhamma, but it's an interesting story nonetheless. It's a story from actually the Upanishads, interestingly enough. I'll just read it, and you get a sense of the ancient Indian ethos at the time of the Buddha and before, of what it meant to give and to be generous. Once, all the descendants of Prajapati, that is Brahma, that's the Mahabrahma, the devas, the men and the asuras, lived with him for some time as students. One day the devas approached Prajapati and said, teach us. In reply, he uttered one syllable: da.

And then he asked, have you understood? Yes, we have understood. You said to us da, which means, in Sanskrit, to be self-controlled. The instruction given to the devas is this: it's a wondrous place, being in the heavens, and you can get carried away with pleasures. You might be partying all night and all day long, and things like that. But the way to having more peace of mind and a more wholesome intention is to be self-controlled, be mindful, and regulate the kinds of pleasures that you're experiencing.

Then the humans went to Prajapati and said, teach us. And he said to them the same syllable, da. And he asked them, have you understood? And they said, yes, we have understood. To us, you are saying datta. Datta is another word meaning being generous. And he said, yes, you have understood. But what's interesting here is that for the devas, the instruction is to be self-controlled, to have some level of regulation.

And for the humans, those who are on the human plane, the way to a mind that is peaceful, a mind that is wholesome, is to be generous, to give, and to give with a heart that is purified by the precepts, that has no expectation of reward, because the reward itself is the uplifted mind that arises from that generosity, from that dana. Then finally he says the same thing to the asuras, and they say, what? And he asks, what have you understood? And they say dayadhvam, which means compassion. The way out of the asura realm is to develop compassion, to develop loving-kindness. So that was an interesting story from there, but it gives some clarity on the importance

of generosity, the importance of dana. And when you give with a heart that is purified by the precepts, it purifies that offering and it purifies and further uplifts the mind so that it is stabilized enough for collectedness, which then gives rise to a better samadhi practice, better experience of the jhanas, which gives better clarity and ultimately gives rise to panna, insight, and ultimately the experience of nibbana. The first few steps towards nibbana is maintaining a virtuous mindset and being generous. That is what the Blessed One said when the sublime one had said that the teacher said further. Now he's speaking in verse. He says: when a virtuous person to an immoral person gives with trusting heart a gift righteously obtained, placing faith. Righteously obtained means that it's something that you have.

You haven't stolen it. You haven't gotten it out of immoral means. Action is great. The receiver's virtue purifies the offering. So even if an immoral person is giving, if the person who is receiving is of an uplifted mind, is of a wholesome nature, the nature of their mind will purify that offering. When an immoral person to an immoral person gives with untrusting heart a gift unrighteously obtained, nor places faith that the fruit of action is great, neither virtue purifies the offering. So basically, even in that process of giving, if it's given from one immoral person to the other, neither is really uplifted by it.

And so when they accept a gift, they're not accepting from that sense of a person. They're not accepting from a sense of a being. But rather, that gift in itself, is purified. That gift or that offering is purified just for the sake that it is an arahant providing to another arahant. However, they don't have any expectations anyway. They won't have an intention that may this gift provide me benefit because there is no more coming to being for them. There is no sense of being for them. They have destroyed all idea of a personhood. They have destroyed all idea of a self that is affected by that. And so their mind is continuously uplifted. And so even when they're giving to another arahant, there's nothing going on except that it is a great gift.

It is a wonderful gift because both people are not only virtuous, but they have completely destroyed the taints and fetters. And that therefore super purifies, if you will, that gift. That is the end of the sutta. Does anybody have any questions? Listen, I have one question. Yes. A lay person gives dana to a noble person, means noble person because the noble person knows the value of dana, of more effect, it will have more effect, it was told in the sutta. For the reason he had practiced to the ultimate level, he would gain more better merits. So in such a situation, immoral person, how he will get more benefits when compared, entire sutta says he will get more benefits. It says immoral person gets more benefits at one instance. Um, if I understand correctly, uh, you're saying that how is it that the immoral person would benefit from giving to somebody who is moral? Is that your question, or to another noble disciple?

Yes. At one stage it was told like that, the other instance, the noble person, because he knows the value of dana, dana means merits or anything, and he will get more merits. Who will get more merits, whether immoral person or a noble person giving dana? Who will get more merits? Okay, let me make sure I understand the question correctly. So if a lay person, somebody who has a wholesome intention, gives to a noble one, that is to say, either a monastic or in this case, somebody who has an attainment, if they're both virtuous, obviously, then that purifies the gift, that purifies the offering. And that person is uplifted. But in the case of one who might be immoral or of not such a great character, and they give to somebody who is a monastic, that gift is still purified by that monastic or by that noble one or that person who has the attainment, because that person, the receiver's mind is uplifted.

But I will go a step further and say, because of the fact that they gave to a noble disciple, because of the fact that they gave to somebody, the very act of giving, which is the intention of giving. Even if the person was not virtuous, it will purify their mind at some point or another. That's still some kind of karmic action at play. Even if they're giving to somebody who, the receiver, who is of a noble mind, one who is uplifted, at some point or another, it will purify their mind. At some point or another, it will uplift their mind. What has to be understood here is that when the giver is of an impure mind, they are not the ones that are purifying the offering.

The offering or the gift is purified by the receiver with that pure mind. There only for the receiver. More merits will be there for the receiver if the noble person knows the value. Okay. Well, according to the sutta, it's saying that there are levels of merit depending upon who you give to. So that seems to align with what you're saying. Or what you're saying seems to align with what the sutta is. More merits are there for the noble person.

More merits are there for the noble person. Well, yes, because he is more virtuous and also he knows the value of the donor. Okay, I see what you're saying. That's what I want to convey. Okay. Well, I think here, when somebody receives with gratitude or when a noble person receives, the importance of the merit is rarely with the giver more than the receiver in this case, because the receiver, if it's a noble disciple, if it's a monastic, they're receiving on behalf of the sangha, and so the merit that has been generated from giving to the sangha rarely goes to the receiver because all they're doing is repaying the debt of Dhamma to them. Thank you. That is okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Delson?

Yes. What sprang to mind for me at the moment is, every time that I, because my wife and I have just had a baby, so coming to listen to a talk involves me asking a question, or can I go and listen to this talk? So every time my wife says, of course, no problem. That's a form of dharma, isn't it, in some ways? She's given me the gift of access to dharma. Giving you permission to listen? Yes, yes. Well, giving me permission to leave her to look after the baby, I guess, but she's given me permission. She's given me permission, in some ways, isn't she, to listen to dharma? Is that correct? Yeah. She has basically said go ahead and listen to the dharma, and she has an uplifted mind because of that, and you have an uplifted mind because of that. Okay, that in itself is the reward, really, an uplifted mind. And then once you have that uplifted mind, you can use that for further practice.

Thank you. Through giving comes to full effect? Right. That's basically it. So when the gift is purified, it's not like it's purifying the gift itself, but it's purifying the mind, whether it's of the receiver or of the giver. So in other words, if the receiver is of a pure mind, has wholesome intentions, it purifies that person. But it also purifies the giver in some way because the action of giving itself, the intention of giving itself, will ultimately uplift their mind at some point or another. So the very act of giving or the very act of receiving. So if somebody is of an immoral nature and they give to somebody who is of an immoral nature as well, neither of them have an uplifted mind.

So it doesn't really purify it. But if any one of those two or both are of an uplifted mind or of a pure mind, then when they say that the offering is purified, about purification or further purification of the mind. Okay, thank you. Hello, Delson. Hello. If there's a small local temple or hermitage that only has one monk and you give a gift, are you giving to the sangha or are you giving to that one monk who's there?

You're giving to the sangha. A monastic is a representation of the sangha. So when you give, you give with the idea that you're giving to the sangha, even if it benefits that monastic personally, where it's mentioned that one should be giving with both hands. But of course, in these modern days, one writes a check or one uses PayPal or whatever.

I've always been wondering about how that effect would be maybe less than being able to give with one's own hands? That's a good question. And I'll say, from my experience in Asia, I think this is one thing, it's a cultural thing. It's a sign of respect. Like when I was in Cambodia, one of the things is when they give money to anybody, they give it with both hands. So in any case, they give it with both hands, or they'll give it like this as a sign of respect.

So it's really more of showing the reverence, that you say, "Here is my dana, and please accept it on behalf of the sangha," when you're giving to a monastic. Or even if you're offering it to another person, you give it with both hands. And so it's just representing, that action is representing your intention, which is wholesome. So whenever you give with PayPal or Bitcoin or whatever it might be, if your intention is wholesome, that's really what, at least that's how I understand it. Hello, if I may, I have another question that's not related to dana. Sure.

It's about, thank you. It's about joy in the third ayatana, or in the second? Yes, you're talking about infinite consciousness. Yes. Most of the time it's translated as empathetic joy. You also use that, but I wonder if that empathetic comes not so much from the suttas, other traditions or maybe philosophies behind that, and if it's really empathetic joy or if it's just joy. I had this discussion just today in a meeting with a twin friend, and we wondered what's more correct, just only joy or empathetic joy.

I had this discussion with Bhante as well while I've been here, and this is how I would clarify it, which actually just means it is sometimes sympathetic joy or sometimes empathetic joy. But I would say when you are dealing with people, when you are out and about in your daily life, that empathetic joy is the joy you experience when somebody has a wholesome celebration, like some kind of wholesome success. When somebody graduates or somebody gets married, you immediately feel happy for them. You feel joyful for them. Or somebody has given birth to a baby, and you feel happy for them. So within, let's say, day-to-day life, that experience of joy is just being happy for that person.

But the quality of that joy within the meditation is just that content joy. It is joy, but it's, in my experience, a softer kind of joy than you would experience, let's say, with piti, which is a little more energetic and bubbly. So the rendering of the word depends a bit on whether one is in that formal, meditative state or in daily life.

Because the reason is it's kind of difficult to say, well, who are you being happy for while you're in that experience of mudita? And that's understandable. If it helps to be able to be joyful by thinking about a person, then that's kind of empathetic joy. have the quality of the joy rather than just trying to figure out how to find that joy. Having the joy in itself is more than enough.

Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Nelson? Yes. Sir, giving to a Vipassana center, is it like giving to the Sangha? Yes. It's still giving to the Sangha because, well, if they're monastics, yes, exactly. No, a Vipassana center where lay people come to do courses, Vipassana courses, meditation courses, are they Sangha for the time they remain at the center? Are the fruits the same as giving to the Sangha monastics? I would say no. You're just giving to lay people.

I have a doubt. Can I ask? I have a doubt. The first question, Sujata gave food to Buddha. He accrued more merits when compared to her. That's what my contention. The same thing is told in the Upanishads also. That is why I'm referring again. Buddha is more virtuous, and she gave dana, and the dana value is known to Buddha more when compared to the person who is giving.

This is what is referred to in one of the Upanishads, instead of Sangha. The question is, did the Buddha receive the merit or did Sujata receive the merit? Buddha received, Buddha knows the value of dana, that is why he got the enlightenment upwards. This is what is mentioned in one of the Upanishads. Okay, I see you are talking about the Upanishads. Maybe I made a mistake by bringing up the Upanishads, because outside of that whole understanding of the Upanishads, their understanding of Buddhism is a different view. They have a view of atman and brahman. The reason I brought up the Upanishads was because it's a nice story from ancient India about the value of generosity, but that doesn't validate the fact that the Upanishads have any kind of say within Buddhism, because it's a completely different philosophy. It's a completely different viewpoint. But the idea that the Buddha was the one who received the merit, I don't think that makes sense. It's Sujata who received the merit. Yes, thank you. I had a question.

Would you have some suggestions about recollecting generosity, especially in the context of children? Because that would interest me very much. In the context of children, how do you mean? My son to bed often, we try to do these like metta exercises of sending love bubbles and things like that. I wonder if you have any suggestions of doing something similar with generosity, where we recollect generous thoughts or things that we've done during the day, something like that. Among those lines, I think that's a wonderful practice, because it really uplifts the mind. When you think about it, that's really why you do the precepts, that's really why you are generous one. It really naturally uplifts the mind. But it can be a great gateway to loving kindness for yourself and for others.

When you think about things that you're grateful for, when you think about the things that you've done in the past that are wholesome, or when you think about the times you were generous and it uplifts the mind, it's a great igniter for loving kindness, and then continuing that loving kindness in your practice. Thank you. I'm not sure I was raising my hand, but I wanted to ask you one question. Let's put it to you this way.

people have nowhere to go they're deathly poor very very poor and they have no support you know the government has nothing for them and if one of them was to help another one and they were hindu um you know isn't this giving itself isn't the giving itself and helping to each other isn't that an uplifted act oh absolutely yes is there some kind of purification going on when someone steps out of line from the way people are being treated and helps another person in some place like that, you know, and there's also a terrible, terrible situation with a lack of housing right now in many, many people on the street, definitely, definitely poor, you know, and so when someone makes an effort that they don't normally make in the community to help another one, they have enough food, you see things like that.

So I can't see where both of the people are from an immoral background, and both of them are definitely poor, and they do this act of giving itself to each other that becomes an uplifted act, and there's purification involved in that to some extent. Maybe you can say the lowest extent on the rack if you want to, but they're both getting very happy, you know, and the other thing I want to... I think it's about the... Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead, go ahead. It's really about the act of giving itself, definitely. But if somebody was poor and still was giving, that act itself is being an act of generosity to somebody. Whatever little you can give, that still uplifts the mind.

So my contention there is if it's between two immoral people, the act of giving itself will come to fruition at some point in time, but it doesn't necessarily uplift their mind in that moment. It's the karma of giving that will still have some kind of effect, maybe in the next moment, maybe in a couple of moments, maybe in another lifetime, whatever it might be. Yeah, but helping each other, I think the movie I can't get out of my mind in this whole subject is K-PAX. Do you know the movie K-PAX? It was where an alien from Mars came, and they were going to put him in this, they actually did. They chucked him into Bellevue in New York, and then the doctors didn't know how to treat him, and while he was there he integrated all the patients by telling one to help another, do the laundry, and you help her make her bed, and all of a sudden, because they had something to do and someone to help, all of a sudden everyone was cured in the whole ward, which irritated the doctors no end.

Okay, something if you're giving a check to the Sangha and you're sending it, so what you need to do is find a two-handed emoji to go with it, so that you're giving two hands like this as you're... That's a great idea. Emoji, that's what some of my students started doing. The other thing about empathetic joy, or yeah, empathetic joy and sympathetic joy, is what happened to the word altruism, because the translation was altruistic, meaning the strange experience of not being involved with another person. And suddenly you hear that the person just got into school or passed an exam, and you feel this uplifted feeling. That's what I think they're talking about.

And I had a few students that really claimed that happened. And it happened to me when I went through that, of having this unusual experience and not understanding what it was. Why am I so happy this person I don't even know succeeded? And I began to think maybe there's something to this altruism. So altruistic is the other word, the old word. And some people like it, some people want to call this just regular joy, a different level of it. Yeah, it can go either way, yeah. - I'm glad you brought that up. Yeah, joy is a great translation too, because it doesn't have to be a person that you know. It could be just somebody, a stranger, you hear, oh, you know, they had something great happening in their life, and you have that joy for them. That's the kind of joy that is being experienced in daily life. That's the mudita, but then the quality of it is experienced in the meditation. - Yeah, I really liked your talk. Very nice, very clear. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Hi, Delson. I have a second question. How do you know how much to give? Like, what is giving too much? That's a very good question. There's a friend of mine here who was talking about it, and his brother asked the same question of him: how much to give? And he said, give until it hurts just a little bit. That was an interesting way of saying it, because it's basically you are giving with an open heart, and you're giving not to the extent that you go bankrupt or go into debt and things like that, but you give a little extra, something that you feel will benefit the other person.

Thank you. You're welcome. Mark, I was on a retreat once and someone asked the same question, and the answer that was given was by a physician, because you can give too much medication as well as too little. So his answer was that it was better to give too much than too little, so I just wanted to share that. Thank you for your talk today, it's been wonderful. Thank you. Do people have any other questions, like questions about practice? I think Delson could take a few of those if anybody has something. I did find the two-handed emoji on Zoom, so if you, next time I put it in the chat, so take it away. Yes. Does anybody have any questions about the practice or anything they read in the sutras, whatever it might be? I think practice. These questions would be great because it'll really help you.

- Delson? - Yes. - Lately I have had quite a few problems. So I've been trying to focus a lot of the metta towards myself, but I'm wondering, is it possible to combine that with making actual progress in the meditation as well? I'm trying to make it really sincere and make the strength of the metta, the object, almost to overturn, well, uproot, some of the defilements that are quite an abundance in the heart. I'm wondering if you could maybe comment on that, please? Well, I want to caution you about trying too hard, because if you're going to concentrate your mind on the metta, you're going to start to see you're becoming one-pointed in that method.

And then you're going to start to see that you're suppressing the mind, and you might cause yourself pain in the head and things like that. So I want to caution you about that. Let the method flow wherever it's going to flow, whether it's to yourself, or to a spiritual friend in particular, or if you're radiating in all directions, just do that.

The defilements will go when they go. If you make so much of an effort to let go of the defilements, and what you're actually doing is you're having becoming, which is another way of saying craving, and you have an aversion to what's really happening. Okay. Thank you. I have a question, Delson. Yes. I've been doing forgiveness meditation for some weeks now.

And yes, I can remember things I did wrong or I hurt people. But there's nothing really big coming up. And I wonder how long to do this. It feels good to do it, but I'm not sure. The thing about forgiveness practice is it's a great way to kind of supercharge your loving kindness. There comes a point after you're doing a forgiveness practice that you feel just naturally uplifted, light.

You feel like whatever blockage that might be to radiating the metta to a spiritual friend goes away. When your mind intuits that, I've done enough forgiveness, everybody that seems to have come in of having to be forgiven is forgiven, and you forgive yourself, and you feel like you've been forgiven, and your mind will say, okay, it's time to go back to the practice. So you should ask your intuition and see: does it feel that way?

Okay. Thank you very much. I have a question. Yes. When you're radiating in the different directions, does it matter which order you radiate in first? Usually I'll do front and then the back and then east, west, and then up and down at the end, or can you do, does it matter how you do that, which order you do that in?

No, it doesn't matter. What really matters is when you're radiating, not to push. So you have an intention of one direction, and you just watch the flow of the metta or the compassion, or whatever it might be, going in that direction and the next direction, and so on. So the sequence of directions doesn't really matter at all. Okay.

Thank you. - Delson, I do have another question. I do apologize if anybody else was wanting to jump in. Again, with me saying earlier on that we've just had a child, so obviously times are quite limited, but actually sometimes now I'm getting maybe an hour to myself in the morning, for walking meditation? Is it advisable to try and just sit for an hour, as opposed to maybe try and break that into a half an hour sit and a half an hour walk? Because I find that walking meditation really does help me take the practice into daily life, where obviously it feels like you can make more progress in some ways through sitting practice.

I would incline towards sitting for one hour rather than breaking that up between walking and sitting, because you want that time. You really want as much time as you can to keep the mind settled while it's in sitting meditation. No doubt there is great benefit in walking meditation, as you just said, which is that you are able to infuse loving kindness with whatever it is you're doing. It's a great practice to do that. So my suggestion there would be: do the sitting practice for one hour, because you want as much time as possible to do the sitting, and when you're doing whatever else you're doing, infuse it with loving kindness.

It doesn't just have to be walking meditation. If you're taking a shower, have loving kindness. You're eating breakfast, have loving kindness. You're driving your car, have loving kindness. You're taking the bus, have loving kindness. Whatever it is you're doing, you're on the computer, have loving kindness. If you can smile, you can meditate on the go. Thank you. That was a beautiful answer. Thank you very much. I have a follow-up question to that, or maybe more of a comment.

I remember the Sutta, the Buddha, saying, of course, it's the Buddha who says this, that the body posture doesn't matter. The quality of the state he's in is the same. It doesn't matter which jhana or ayatana that is. And from my experience also, of course, I respect your suggestion and your recommendation, but from my experience, it's like a walking meditation can have the same quality and be as deep as a sitting meditation. Of course, not to the extent that you have cessation while walking, but up to the seventh jhana, meditation.

Would you agree? About that, it's quite possible somebody can have an experience of cessation while walking, because I've heard somebody had cessation while they were eating their food. They suddenly just went into cessation because their mind was so pure that it let go. So to that point, yes, it can happen. But the reason I'm saying sitting is because there's a tendency while you're walking with your eyes open, obviously, for you to get easily distracted. You might look here and there and start to go into a flow of different kinds of thoughts.

Granted, yes, you can still have that level of depth in terms of the meditation while you're walking, but it really depends on the individual. So as a general recommendation, as a general suggestion, I would say that you should have some time to sit. If you had the choice between sitting and walking. Okay. Yeah. Do the sitting. And the walking you can do at a later stage, but really you want that time to sit to really settle the mind, because you have one less sense input that you have to deal with. If you're walking, you have your eyes open and there can be a tendency to get more distracted than with your eyes closed while you're sitting.

So it just makes it easier. Okay. And I think you would not be able to quiet down the physical formations while walking. That is true. You would still have physical formations. Whereas if you're sitting, you have the ability to tranquilize them when you get to the fourth jhana completely. And the other thing about that is if you have a certain level of experience, as I said, who just doing something like washing the dishes or eating their food or something suddenly go into cessation.

If your mind is clear enough and you have the experience, you could experience up to the level of nothingness and so on while you're walking. It's like your entire body, you don't have any awareness of the body. It's like as if you're floating and the only contact you have is the feet when they touch the ground, unless you're levitating and that's a different story. But if your feet are on the ground, you will feel the contact. There will still be some contact, which is the bodily form. Yeah, Mark. I would think it would be also very important to the location of where you're walking for the purpose of what could be called a situational awareness.

You've got traffic, you've got other people, you've got things going on, which could be important in that process, so that the choice of location for the walking would be very important, so that you would have the serenity as well as the safety to go into whatever level is appropriate and that you could use in your practice.

Yeah, that's a very practical point. I mean, it's much easier to be, for example, here in Dhammasuka to do walking because you don't have to take, you know, You don't have to take into account traffic and things like that than it is for when you're walking down the street and you have to cross traffic. That's a very good point. So the setting also matters where you're walking.

Thank you. I just want to say that we have had some men over the years, I think, that Mark and Anter can remember, a certain redheaded person who might be in the room right now, could not stop walking and needed to walk it off. That is the first step of stilling the formation when you're working with men that are hyper. You have to let them walk if they prefer the walking instead of sitting. I think you'd agree with that. And then what happens is they get to a point where they've walked it off enough and then it's time to sit, and when they come back and sit everything

A sitting, but if you try to sit before you walk, if you come home from work and you're really, you know, "oh gosh, this whole day was like this"... okay, you... some men just really want to do it. I haven't found a woman yet that really wanted to walk as hard as some of the men, but it happens. That's a very good point. Yeah, yeah, that's a very good point, because sometimes I also will recommend if people feel agitated or they're feeling restless while they're sitting, they just need some activity in the form of walking or even just running, just to expand that extra energy. It's worth the time too, to take the time in the beginning of the retreat, to take one day or two days to check everyone's posture and to take the time to find out what they prefer in their first interview.

And then to watch, make sure they're trained for walking, looking six feet ahead or eight feet ahead at the ground and not taking a nature walk. Training involved in walking meditation. It's not something you just say, go take a walk. And we've all had it. I know Mark and Hunter and I have had it. Erwin, hi Erwin. I know Erwin really needed to walk, you know, and maybe kick a tree. I was just trying really hard most of the time. So Erwin, I hope you don't kick trees anymore. There might be some tree devas in there you don't want to disturb. So yeah. Well, I apologize to them. - I accepted. - Delson, before I found out about TWIM, I used to do a lot of concentration meditation.

I've been doing TWIM for a few years, but I still have a habit of forcing, trying too hard. I'm getting better at it, but I was wondering if you had any advice. Yeah, that's interesting. Somebody asked the question: what are the two things that you see that are very common among people when it comes to challenges of meditation? And one is definitely trying too hard, and the other is self-acceptance.

In other words, don't be so hard on yourself. Don't try to set such expectations on yourself. If you're enjoying the meditation, if you're enjoying the process, then that means the meditation is working. So if your mind is light, your mind will be clear. If you try too hard, your mind, you will see, will start to have some restlessness. The pressure of the concentration practice, the pressure of trying too hard, brings about a lot of mental energy. And that mental energy manifests in the form of restlessness.

Whenever you sit down to meditate, have a kinder and softer approach, a much more gentle approach, and just have the attitude of, let's see what comes up. If you have that kind of an attitude, and then just keep observing, your whole goal here, or let's say the whole point, or the whole effort in the practice, is to just observe how mind's attention moves. And then when you see that it's off its object of meditation, just do the 6R's every time you do the 6R's. You purify your mind and you bring your mindfulness... you make your mindfulness much sharper, which means now you will be even more collected. So it is a feedback loop that helps you to sharpen your mindfulness, helps you to sharpen your collectedness.

But if you try too hard from the beginning, what you're going to find is it's going to be difficult for you to even recognize that you were restless or that you were not mindful. Are that process because it takes more time. Thanks. One of the things that happens is I'm trying to let myself be comfortable, feeling relaxed, because it almost feels a little bit wrong to not be concentrating. And sometimes I'm like, I'm getting, I think I'm being relaxed after the meditation, and I have a headache, because, oh, I actually was concentrating too hard. I didn't notice it when I was in the meditation, though.

Yeah. So when it comes to having a relaxed feeling, there's a couple of ways to understand that. First of all, there's nothing wrong with relaxing. Everybody in this world wants to relax, and to feel guilty about wanting to relax, that's something you have to let go of. That would be something you don't need more of. We already have a lot of people who are tense in the world and creating all kinds of crazy situations because they have so much tension, and so on. So it's actually a good thing to relax. It's a good thing to tranquilize the bodily formations. It's a good thing to become relaxed and collected because of that relaxation.

One way of understanding what relaxed feels like is, you know, what relaxed feels like. When you tense up your fist and then just let that go. So when you recognize that there's some tension going on, you recognize that there's some restlessness going on. That is a point of tension that you have to just let go of. So you recognize it, you release your awareness from it, and you just relax, and relax is just letting it go. I had a friend of mine who was talking about this, and he had an interesting way of discussing it. It's like when you take your finger and you look at your finger, your mind becomes super fixed on that finger, and you lose complete awareness of what's happening outside of just looking at your finger.

So the relaxed step is going from just looking at the finger to just looking at everything. It's like you're expanding your vision, you're expanding your sense of sight, well, while your eyes are open. But in the meditation it's like you're just expanding your awareness. You're opening up your awareness. When you do so, if you feel in the practice that the mind becomes constricted and it's just trying too hard, or it's trying to just stay with this object of meditation, that's when you know you have to pull back. You have to make less effort. You have to relax, and collectedness comes about because of the right causes and conditions that come into play to give rise to that collectedness.

Thank you. Hey, Delson, I have a question that might seem off track from this, but in a way it's not, I guess, because it all has to do with peace of mind and when you meditate, getting rid of those crazy thoughts and stuff. But my family, or a lot of them, have this fear of the month of October, because there have been a couple of deaths in our family by younger people. My dad, he was in his 30s, and my niece, my sister's daughter, she was also in her 30s. But in any case, everybody, we have this little uneasiness about the month of October. So I don't know, I guess it's a superstition, so it's something.

To be six hard, you know, it's just that underlying thing that's there in the month of October. Yeah, there's a tendency for the mind to make certain kinds of correlations and connections, but there's no causality there. It's just a correlation. It's just that, okay, that happens in the month of October, but there's no real truth to that. There's no real causation based on that. So my immediate advice there would be to 6R: let go of that idea, because this clinging is a form of clinging to rites and rituals when you think about superstitions and things like that. Because what it's saying is, on the flip side of that, what it's saying is, for example, you think that you have a lucky sock, or you carry around a four-leaf clover, and somehow that's going to change your fortunes, or somehow that's going to change your luck. That is in violation of the

of the law of causation, because what you're saying is you're going beyond the law of causation to say that if I just do this, then all that karma and everything else won't matter. In other words, it is effort, it is intention: mental effort, verbal effort, physical effort, whatever it might be. It is that action that gives rise to the karma. So people who seem to be very well to do or wealthy and things like that, and it seems like they just inherited it, or they just didn't do a lot of work, doesn't mean that in that particular life, it doesn't mean that they just got it out of nowhere.

It means that in a previous life, they had generosity, they had the purity of mind, and they were always keeping the precepts. And so because of that, it generated into a more wholesome state of mind, whether it's in this particular life or in the next life. So you have to understand that any kind of superstition like that would be a form of clinging to a specific kind of view related to rites and rituals. Just let that go by 6R. Okay. Well, that makes it. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. If I could just convince them, my sisters too.

Yeah. Well, that'd be, that's great. Thank you, Delson. Welcome. Delson, I wanted to ask you one question. Let me see. It was just about relaxing, and feeling and stuff like that. Do you think there was any instruction by the Buddha to actually do anything personally in the meditation? Or would you say it was a direction for watching and observing primarily? Yeah, that's always been my own emphasis in teaching. Whenever I have a retreat, there's two things you do: just observe and 6R. And by the end of the retreat, you're going to get tired of me saying the same thing over and over and over again. But it's important to know you're just being aware of what's going on with your mind's attention.

Everything else will take care of itself because of right intention of loving kindness here, because you're generating the experience and so on. Anything beyond that, except for the 6R's, then that's an experience of trying too hard, making too much of an effort. The observing, which is the right mindfulness, the mindfulness that we talk about, is the bare awareness of what is arising and passing away in reference to your attention. If you direct your attention to something, or rather you're saying that the attention can be controlled, then now you're making too much effort. Now you're putting the sense of self there. Now you're putting the sense of making it personal.

But if you just see the attention itself as being impersonal, observing how the attention moves and then nudging it along with the 6R's and so on, then it naturally gives rise to right collectedness, to samadhi. Yeah. And also, say, in India we deal an awful lot with one-point concentration, and having them come over to experiment and find out what Tranquil Wisdom Insight Meditation is actually all about. In going to the instructions, if you look at the breathing instructions, there's not anything here at all from section 18 through the dyads of the whole thing that says do something. It says experience something. It says the instructions to observe, but it's just talking about experiencing. So there really isn't anything it says to actually do.

And being a watcher is all it's really asking us to do. Is to watch, right? The rising and passing away of the phenomenon. Yeah, yeah. Right, exactly. That's why it's such an easy practice, that's why it's so effective, because you are training yourself by watching how the mind's attention is moving. Yeah. The mind is teaching itself when it does that. Oh yeah. If you try to control the situation, that's where things get haywire. Basically it just creates more hindrances, and it brings up more personalization.

Especially when you have one point of concentration, because they're trying to direct the attention somewhere, and then that causes not only just pain in the head, but it also causes pain in daily life, because now you see that you suppress the hindrances, and then when you come out of it the hindrances come back up. The metaphor I use is like a beach ball. You put it under the water and you suppress it, and then you let go and it comes back with full force, and you don't know what to do with that. What I found over here was that if I talked to someone about the mindfulness being an observation and not concentration, and I keep saying it's not concentration, instead we started saying it's a redefined, retuned form of concentration with specifics, and then they settle down. But they get so upset if you say that I've been concentrating for 15 or 20 years, and I have to do this, and then they think, don't you... can't take concentration away.

I'm not taking it away. I'm refining it and retuning it. And then they settle down. It's just kind of fun. Yeah. That's the sneakiness of try. There was one other thing. If your people are afraid for October, go and read the Sutta, MN 131, the Bhaddekaratta Sutta, and give up the past for the month of October, and give up the future worry and the concern. Take a turn, maybe, living in the present time, just as a little crystal ball, a crystal carriage carrying you through the month of October. The kids will love the story. They do here anyway. To just be able to not think about COVID, forget what happened in the past, let go of all of the grief and things that we've dealt with over here.

And it's still going on here. It's not the same as in the States at all. So yeah, 131 is really helpful to look at the present time. And they're specific in the prose, in that one, poetry. I don't know if you have the book. It's really the short poem. - It's the One Fine Night? The One Fine Night you're talking about? - That's right. Yeah, wait a minute. What is that? That's right here.

I didn't know if you had the book sitting there. Let not a person revive the past, or on the future hold his hopes. For the past has been left behind, and the future has not been reached. Instead, with insight, let him see each presently arisen state, and let him know it and be sure of it, invincibly and unshakably, that this pure mind, this clear mind, really exists. And just keep relaxing and watch, and it gets fun. It gets really fun.

Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you for that. Nelson? Yes. Hi, Arthur. You talked about just observing the movement of the mind, and I was wondering how the object of meditation fits in with that particular... Yeah, there is some level of right effort, which is to say, what you're doing is you're observing how the mind's attention moves. So that's the mindfulness part of it.

The initial application of thought: ignite the loving kindness, intentionalize the loving kindness, and that then is your object of meditation. And you are observing the object of meditation, and in this sense you're observing the loving kindness, you're observing the flow of loving kindness, your spiritual friend or invadiating, or whatever it might be. And then, while in that process of observation, the mind might get detracted from its object. It might just go somewhere else. In that process of observing, your mind is open enough to be able to catch that there has been a distraction, that there has been a hindrance. So really the starting point is observing, but in the way of observing where the observation itself, or the attention itself, strengthens the collectedness of mind. So the more you're able to observe the loving kindness, so you bring it up in the beginning, that's the first jhana. You bring it up with the intention of loving kindness, with a verbal or whatever it might be.

But once you have it, then you're just watching it. And then you're just observing it. And eventually the mind becomes collected the more you observe it. So the two things that you're doing really are the observation, which is the mindfulness of that object, and the second is the 6R's, the right effort. So when you see the mind is distracted, you let go of that distraction. So you recognize it, you let go, you relax, and then you re-smile to uplift the mind, and you come back. So there is that right effort of coming back to observing the object in it.

Because in the instructions from Bhante, my understanding is that there always is an object in meditation. Yeah. Yeah. Whether it's loving kindness, compassion, or any of the brahmaviharas, or quiet mind, there is still an object there that you're just observing. And the object's purpose is, when the mind grips, then you collect it by returning to the object. So I just wanted to clarify that, because what you were saying was just observe.

But there is always kind of a touchstone for the observation. Yes. That's a very good addition to it, as you just said. The whole point of the object is to keep the mind tied to something. So the way I kind of look at it is like a rock that the string is tied to, and it's like a balloon. So it might go away from its object, but then it comes back with the 6R's process. And so when we talk about the unification of mind, for example the ekagata that's said in Pali, it's really that the mind or the attention is no longer scattered. So even if it gets askew, if it gets detracted, there is something to return to, which is the object that you said.

Okay. I was looking for the anchor. You see, the anchor in the one-point concentration got really serious, because you had to tie yourself to it and fix on it. And what I've run into, Delson, is people actually think that that object is going to give them the answer to Nibbana. It's very serious. We actually ran into, Bhante and I ran into, a woman in Australia, and I had asked him the question in the morning: does it ever occur, for a breathing meditation, to believe that the breath is so important that if I don't pay attention to it I can't breathe? And then that day, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, two 40-year-old women came in and said, cannot do med talk.

If we do not pay attention to our breaths, we will not be able to breathe. And they actually believed it. I was shocked. And then it's fascinating. No, I mean, that's like the extreme form of one-point concentration, because the whole point of one-point concentration is I become the meditation object itself. So my existence, my personality is now tied to the object of meditation. That happens in yoga, which is the unification, or the union, of the atman with the brahman. But that's a very extreme form of that. Yeah, but we're different with our position. We actually enter. We had a retreat in 2017 for 35 people in Pohang and Malaysia, and we spent three days trying to determine if there were laws for meditation, and one of those laws is absolute, concerning an object in meditation.

So you have to ask the question, why do all meditations seem to have an object of meditation? And Delson, you said it. It's like an anchor. I draw a picture of an anchor with a boat and a harbor and it can't float away. So now it's safe to go to bed for the night. But you're always going to be in that vicinity. But you can't, you know, if we say tie me to it, it's buying into the one-point concept. concentration you have to be careful with that one and and because and the other thing is you can't blame a teacher for this you can't if you're sitting over here these teachers are in front of 125 people or try try the big the big one at 5 000 people and a teacher is teaching at something there's 5 000 brains in front of you and you say something even when goenka said it i i read listen to many of his talks are just fine okay but but okay He's giving instruction, maybe the right way, on a subject to 5,000 people.

And how does each brain hear that? You can't go around and figure that out, you see. It's a stymied thing for the teacher. Yeah. I think the object of meditation is important, obviously, for the meditation. I mean, the whole definition of meditation is that you have something that the mind is thinking about. definition of meditation we seem to have lost Delson, he's frozen. Meditation, which is brought up there is an object of meditation. Oh, can you... okay, you're back now. Okay, all right. What I was saying is the whole point about the meditation, I mean, the general definition of meditation is that the mind has something that it collects itself around, so to speak. The attention is collected around something.

But the whole point here is to see that you don't become your object of meditation. Of compassion is not your intention. And this might go over some people's heads, but when you get deeper and deeper into the practice, you see that even intention is impersonal and you don't take the jhana, you don't take the meditation personally. It's all happening because of the right causes and conditions coming together.

So the observation helps to keep that distance of self in that process. The mind, let's say, collected or unified, not to the extent of becoming it, but unified as a way of keeping the mind clear. The whole point is to bring the mind to a level of clarity and depth so that insight can arise. Because if you become one-pointed and you suppress, as I was saying, you not only suppress the mind and the hindrances, but you suppress the opportunity for any kind of insights to arise naturally.

Thank you, Delson. Let me jump in here. We have been doing some interviews with Delson over the last week or so, and I'm going to make some videos out of all those things, and we get into some really deep Dhamma stuff. We get into some upcoming neuroscience research that Delson has participated in, and we talk about dependent origination. We talk about nirodha cessation. You name it, we're getting into it. And the first video, where Delson introduces himself and his background and gives us a thumbnail sketch of the jhanas and so on, that's going to come out tomorrow at 1 p.m., same time that we started this video here. And I'm just putting that in the chat so that you can get a link to that.

But tomorrow at 1 p.m., that'll be our first release of these interviews. And there should be a number of them to follow. And of course, we will have a recording of this Zoom call up as well. So let's take a few more questions. And I think we're getting pretty long here. Anybody else got a few more or one more? - Yeah, I just wanted to offer a kind of metaphor for really deep practice. You had the balloon in the water, and it made me think of a very small bubble at the bottom of a swimming pool where consciousness is coming into formation.

And as the bubble rises, it gets larger and larger and larger, and it's easier and easier to see. Thought bubbles take place, and as the sensitivity grows you see them at an earlier and earlier level or a smaller level. So the practice becomes watching those formations, maybe at a tiny level, and then maybe doing the 6R's at that time. But the metaphor of the bubble in the pool is one that people can relate to, and I find it very useful. I wanted to share that. That is very useful. Thank you for that. And then there comes a point when there are no bubbles at all.

And that's the cessation. Oh, you went on mute. You went on mute there. Yes, that's true. Any other questions? Another question. Thank you. About the English terms of unification of mind or collectedness. I always wondered since. And on the other side, also the suttas, we hear the mind being scattered outwardly or externally. So this collectedness or unification.

or scatteredness, it implies that there is something that can be at different places at the same time, but isn't it that mind's attention can only be with one thing at a time, so there is nothing that can be collected or unified because there is only one thing at a time? And also doesn't it mean that it's more like I'm sorry to interrupt, but my internet just went down for a second, so I didn't hear the whole flow of the question. Can you please say it again? That's perfect. Sorry. That's perfect. Yeah, it's about, you mentioned it, ekagata.

And in English, we say collectedness mostly. We don't use concentration, of course, but we have collectedness or unification. can only be with one thing at a time. So isn't it kind of misleading to think of it as something that can be collected or unified? And isn't it more useful to think of it like calming down or becoming tranquil, like the movement of mind's attention is calming down?

I like that interpretation. That's a very good interpretation because you're right. The attention can only go to one object at a time. It just feels like the mind is scattered. It just feels like the attention is scattered. But what you're really doing is you're redirecting the attention back to its object. So I like that idea of tranquilizing and relaxing, because then that's just calming down the mental energy of the distractedness and bringing it back. That's a good way of putting it. I think it helps other people understand as well. Yeah, yeah, okay, thank you. I think it also depends on when you look at the term eka, how you break it up. Eka means one, but eka is tranquility, and calmness. Yeah, yeah. Okay, thank you. I always wanted to ask that question. David, I have a question for you.

Can I ask you a question? I know you're the one person that might know, but Delson might know too. What is the sutta about scattered internally or externally? Do you remember, Delson? Yeah, I know what you're talking about. That's the sutta. It explains what it means to be scattered externally: is that your mind won't stay in watching. See, when you're sitting here and you're watching here with a peripheral vision inside, and then you can't stay there and you keep going outside of this boundary, outside towards hindrances and other thoughts and everything. That's a scattered mind externally. I can't remember, David, what did it say about the scattered mind internally? Remember, we used to do that sutta a lot.

Bhante's done it a lot. Is that the Upakkilesa Sutta 128? No, no, it's not 128. It's not 128. That's different. That scattered internal, and I'm trying to remember the name of it. I can't remember it, but there is one. Is it not the satipatthana? hundreds and i'm trying to look at it i can't figure it out what it is there's 138 which prompted one let me try that talks about restlessness. Okay, wait a second. There's something related to that, there's something related to that which talks about a mind or an attention that is non-dispersed, and from that I interpreted as saying unscattered, meaning the mind doesn't become swayed here and there by something of destruction. That's right, it wasn't 138. No, wait a minute. Is um, here you go. I got it. I got it. Uddesavibhanga Sutta 138. Okay, and what it has is scattered externally or stuck internally, and the cause is craving. Keeping attention on the distraction is a bad thing, you see. And it talks about distracted and scattered externally, and then it goes over and says not distracted or scattered externally.

It gives you an explanation at sections 10 and 11. That would help someone who thinks they're, you know, what you were just talking about. If you go back to that. That's Majjhima Nikaya 138, you said. No, it wasn't 138. Wait a second, it's um, and it's the one about agitation. Agitation is what this is about. I just got... would I say what I say it was? Did somebody hear me say what it was? You said that's what I'm trying to find it again. This is page 1075. Yeah, 1001, 1074 is Uddesavibhanga, the exposition, a summary. Hint: the topic is hindrance management at agitation and non-agitation. It's a really good one to read about, uh, the hindrances. Very, very good one. Yeah, and the stuck internally, the stuck internally, I would say, is the way I interpret that: not to take the meditation seriously. It sounds really counterintuitive, but it's basically not to make it a big deal, just let things flow

and let it just happen when your mind becomes collected. That's going along with what it's saying. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Not stuck internally is when you're doing, you're sitting and calmly doing it. Yeah. Going through the jhanas. Okay. I think that's a wrap. What does everybody think? All right. Any last questions or all good? All right. We have a thumbs up. Okay. Going once, going twice. Okay, it's a wrap. Thank you very much, Delson. Topic today was about giving, so go and give and give often. So thank you from Dhammasuka Productions. Goodbye. Thank you. Good luck. Follow those precepts. Thank you, Delson. Thank you, Delson. Thank you, David. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.