MN 1 Majjhima Nikaya Series Number 1 with Delson Armstrong-Sunday Series

I think this is good. We will get started now. It's been five minutes. People can start trickling in and we'll just get started. Everybody see this? All clear? Yes. Very good. Thank you. Good. This is from the Division of the Discourse on the Root, the Mula Pariyaya Vagga. And the Sutta that we're going to be doing is Majjhima Nikaya 1, the Mula Pariyaya Sutta, the root of all things.

What do we mean by the root of all things? It's generally talking about the root of existence of all things. What is comprised of all things? Existence and being and becoming and birth, taking birth and so on. So what is the root of that is what we're going to discuss here. As I heard, on one occasion, the Blessed One was living in Ukkattha, in the Subhaga Grove, at the root of a royal sala tree.

There he addressed the bhikkhus thus. "Bhikkhus." "Venerable Sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this: "Bhikkhus, I shall teach you a discourse on the root of all things. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say." "Yes, Venerable Sir," the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this: "An untaught, ordinary person. This is what is known in Pali as a puttujana, someone who is of the world, someone who is worldly, and as it says, has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their dharma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their dharma." So what does that mean? It doesn't mean when they say who has no regard, it doesn't mean that he or she is disrespectful when we say he has no regard.

It's just that they have no real awareness of it. You look out into the world, you look at Buddhism, it's not that. It seems like it's popular in its many different facets, like mindfulness, and things like people like Sam Harris, apps that are kind of promoting it. So it's starting to come into more of the forefront in the public. But when you look at it in the grand scheme of things, of eight or so billion people on this planet, there's very few who are actually Buddhists. And of those Buddhists, there are very few who actually practice Buddhism. And I say that with a little bit of disdain because I don't really care about any isms.

I care more about whether we are actually following something that the Buddha taught, which is namely the Four Noble Truths and the lifestyle of the Eightfold Path. It's less of a religion, I would say, even though there are a lot of seemingly religious or spiritual components with regards to devas and mara and all these other things. But when you go to the core essence, even with regards to rebirth, we're talking about the psychological, mental, emotional, spiritual factors that we need to let go of, that we need to transform, let's say, the process of right effort so that we don't take rebirth again, so that we don't cause any more mental suffering, any more what's known as, or what I would call existential suffering, which is, in the Pali,

what's known as sankhara dukkha. It's the inherent suffering that happens when we identify with one or more of the five aggregates. So in this case he's talking about somebody like the ordinary person, as it's titled, somebody who has no idea what this practice is, who has no idea of who the Buddha is. They kind of know because they've heard about it, or maybe they know arbitrarily something about the — really have a true, maybe interest, inclination or understanding of what we're actually exploring here. Such a person, he says, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he conceives himself, conceives earth to be mine.

He delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. I'm going to break this down, but I want to go through all the elements that he talks about. He perceives water as water. Having perceived water as water, he conceives himself as water. He conceives himself in water. He conceives himself apart from water. He conceives water to be mine.

He delights in water. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives fire as fire. Having perceived fire as fire, he conceives himself as fire. He conceives himself in fire. He conceives himself apart from fire. He conceives fire to be mine. He delights in fire. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives air as air. Having perceived air as air, he conceives himself as air. He conceives himself in air. He conceives himself apart from air. He conceives air to be mine. He delights in air. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. Having perceived beings as beings, he conceives beings. He conceives himself in beings.

He conceives himself apart from beings. He conceives beings to be mine. He delights in beings. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives gods as gods. Having perceived gods as gods, he conceives gods. He delights in gods. Why is that? — to be mine. He delights in Pajapati. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. So first, let's break this down a little bit, and then I'm going to break down what he's talking about when he says conceive. So what the Buddha is doing is he's going through different aspects of existence. In this case, first he's talking about earth. He's talking about water, fire, and air.

These are the four great elements, the four major elements, as it were. In Indian understanding, in the ancient Indian context, these are constituents, or they make up composites of creation. They are the ones that represent, in this case, earth as solidity. So they're the equivalent. The modern equivalent would be having solid molecules. When we talk about water, it's liquidity. It's this sense of movement in liquid.

So here we can say that this is the equivalent of liquid molecules. The fire is heat and temperature and plasma. When you look at fire, or you look at the sun, or you look at anything that produces heat, that's essentially plasma, and the blood, but plasma as another state of matter. And he perceives air as air. That's equivalent to the gaseous state of matter.

And then he goes into beings. So when we talk about beings, that's all beings here on this planet, whether it's animals or humans or birds or fish in the sea, reptiles, all kinds of different beings. And then the gods here, they're referring to gods that they believed in, that they saw within the Indian pantheon, which pretty much make up the gods of the 33. And then Pajapati is a type of Brahma being. So Pajapati is, in the Vedas, he's known as the creator. And as Hinduism evolved, as the Vedas evolved, a mahabrahma, somebody who equated himself as that, as you would see the four-headed Brahma, that's a mahabrahma. Again he says he perceives Brahma as Brahma. Having perceived Brahma as Brahma, he conceives Brahma. He conceives himself in Brahma. He conceives himself apart from Brahma. He conceives Brahma to be mine.

He delights in Brahma. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives the gods of streaming radiance as the gods of streaming radiance. So now we're talking about the second Brahma loka. So this is equivalent to the second jhana. Having perceived the gods of streaming radiance as the gods of streaming radiance, he conceives the gods of streaming radiance. He conceives himself in the gods of streaming radiance. He conceives himself apart from those gods. He conceives these gods to be mine.

Likewise, he says, for the gods of the third genre realm, and then the fourth genre realm, and then the overlord, which is also known as Avihu, that's as part of the pure abodes. Same with infinite space, same with infinite consciousness, same with the base of nothingness, and the base of neither perception nor non-perception. He perceives the scene as the scene. Having perceived the scene as the scene, he conceives himself as the scene. He conceives himself in the scene. He conceives himself apart from the scene. He conceives the scene to be mine. He delights in the scene. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

Diversity, all as all, nibbana as nibbana. So here's an interesting point. You're talking about somebody who is not necessarily a practitioner, actually not a practitioner of the Buddha Dharma. How can they perceive all these things? We talk about the sense that's really with the eyes, the ears and nose, the tongue and the body. You talk about what is seen, that's part of the eyes. When you talk about what is cognized, that's the mind. When you talk about unity, you're talking about diversity in terms of the perceptions of mind, or he delights in nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. How could that be if such a person hasn't really practiced?

Well, it's possible that he has heard of nibbana. He has heard of nibbana. And so he perceives it in the form of having heard about it. He perceives it in the form of somebody telling him about it or reading about it. And so then there are these conceptual frameworks that arise. So, what are we talking about when he says he perceives?

It's really coming from perception. What is perception? Perception is recognition. It's the process of the mind that recognizes. It labels something as having already experienced it, or through inference, through past knowledge or previous knowledge, telling you about it, you have a perception of that particular thing. So you perceive water as water, red as red, hot as hot, because you're labeling that. And that process of labeling is perception, is perceiving. And this happens for everybody. This is the realm of samsara where we have consciousness, feeling, and perception.

So where there's feeling, there's perception. Three run around each other: feeling, here is that which is sensed, which is seen, that which is heard, that which is cognized. And perception is that which labels the experience of what is seen, heard, sensed or cognized. So when you are seeing earth as earth, you're saying, "Oh, I see, that's earth." When you see this water bottle, you say, "Oh, this is a water bottle. This is color yellow." It's a yellow water bottle, right? So that perception happens for everyone.

But for one who is not in the higher training, one who is ordinary in the sense of not having practiced anything with regards to the Buddha Dharma, there is this process of conceptualization, this process known as mental proliferation. This process which is in Pali known as prapancha or papancha. The world is papancha. So you think about the word. This is my way of breaking down the word. Pancha, actually, panch means five. P-A-N-C-H, five. Pra is to exaggerate it, to intensify it, is to make it more.

It's like the equivalent of the English mega, like a mega dose or whatever it is. But prapancha, it's the exaggeration, the intensification of five. What five? The five senses, the five aggregates. Depends on how you look at it. So when you conceive something as something, he conceives himself as something. That is when you equate the sense of self with regards to that particular object. So here we're talking about that dichotomy, that duality between subject and object. that experience.

He conceives himself in that experience, that there is a self in that experience, or apart from that experience, that there is someone that is a self with a capital S, that is unconditioned, that is apart from any of these experiences, and conceives that experience to be mind. The mind takes ownership of it. These, conceive, conceit, and conceptualization, they're all connected in that sense. When we say conceive, in the Pali, it's manyati. Manyati comes from the word mana.

And mana is the Pali for conceit. So perceiving is sanyati. This is what there is. Manyati is the process through conceit, where I compare what it is that I'm experiencing, either through prior knowledge, and then through the sense of self. So either through prior knowledge, or to right now, this moment, new things are experienced, but through that lens of conceit, which is essentially the comparing mind, the mind that says, I am better than, or I am, I am equal to or I am worse off than.

This process of conceiving, this process of conceptualizing, this process of comparing is what one needs to train to let go of. So one who is not practicing at all, they're not even aware that this is happening. The I am is everywhere. You look at our social media, you look at our news, you look at our entertainment, you look at just everyday experiences of people, there is this identity that people cling to. I am so and so, or this belongs to me.

This is mine, right? I am separate from that. That's not mine. Even that is part of conceit. This doesn't belong to me, or this belongs to me, these kinds of ideas, you know, are so pernicious, are so nefarious, are so insidious that even in the Buddha Dharma it is still prevalent. I am a great meditator. I can get into this particular jhana. I have this particular attainment. It is. Or this belongs to me. This is me. This is mine. This is myself.

This is the thing that we need to let go of. So now we'll get into that. Because a bhikkhu who is in higher training. What is higher training? One who is of the higher virtue. Training in the higher mind. Training in higher wisdom. Sila. Samadhi. And Kanya. Yet meets the goal. And who is still aspiring to the supreme security from bondage. That is Nibbana.

Let's break this down. What do we mean by directly know? This is from the Pali, abhinna. Abhinna. So in the Pali, there's a word called abhinna, or abhijna in Sanskrit, and that means higher knowledge. So when we talk about things like siddhis that some people love to talk about, you know, things like the psychic faculties, hearing in the distance, clairvoyance, seeing into the future, materializations, dematerializations, all these interesting parlor tricks, these are all abhinnas. These are higher knowledges. But when we talk about higher knowledge here, we're talking about a specific kind of knowledge. We're talking about knowledge that is yatha bhuta nana dassanam. The knowledge and vision of things as they actually are.

So there is an understanding through training, through practice, through discussion, through talks. How many times have we heard the earth is made up of many different composites, everything is conditioned through dependent origination, therefore it is impermanent, therefore being impermanent it can cause suffering, that which is liable to cause suffering is not me, not mine, not myself? How many times has this been hammered and drilled into us? This is the direct knowledge of it in one regard. But having directly known that, the next part of that is actually applying that by not allowing the mind to go into the direction of conceiving a self in regards to the experience, conceiving a self in the experience, conceiving a self that is apart from the experience.

In other words, I am the great witness that is observing all, and it is separate from this conditioning, reality. That is one kind of way of conceiving. Because where in the body does that witness reside? Where in the mind does that witness reside? How does that witness arise? Because it arises dependent upon the attention given to a specific experience.

Attention is that which directs the flow of consciousness, of awareness. He should not conceive that experience to be mine. And therefore, he should not delight in it. When you say delight here, we're talking about freedom. We're talking about the mind that says that I want more of this. And the only reason why we want more of something is because one, it is separate to us from the sense of or it is something that we already have as an experience, as a thing, as an object, as a relationship, as a person, whatever it is.

And we are afraid to lose it. But who is afraid to lose it? You know, this is the question that Bhante would always ask when somebody is meditating. You know, I feel irritated or I'm feeling this or I feel like I'm not going anywhere in my progress with this practice. And one thing that Bhante would say is, who is feeling that?

Who is experiencing that? A process of meditation that we should all try to do at some point is to just allow the mind to be relaxed and observe the thoughts as they arise, observe the sensations as they arise, observe whatever experiences arise, as they arise, without trying to label them, without trying to note them, without trying to notice them.

And then redirect the mind towards that which is the sense of the experiencer, that which is the sense of the thinker, that which is the sense of the cognizer. What you'll come up with is silence. If you try to trace back, where did this thought come from? talking about in the form of what was the cause and condition for this thought?

Or what was the cause and condition for this sensation? But you go back to what is the source from where this thought is arising? Where is the thinker of this thought? Where is the experiencer of this experience? What you're going to be met with is the sky-like mind. The mind that is free of any kind of thought. The mind that is quiet, the mind that is silent, the mind that is spacious. All of these descriptors are just for you to kind of understand what that feels like, or what for some people it does feel like.

But that mind is non-reflective awareness. It doesn't reflect dependent upon causes and conditions. It is just there. And I'm not talking about it as a witness. Because as soon as you include the sakshi, that's the Sanskrit for the witness, now there is a tension point. Now there is something to hold on to. Now there is something to identify with. What I'm saying is let go of all thoughts.

Try to reverse the flow of thoughts by looking at where they're coming from. Who is it that is producing these thoughts? Or who is it that these thoughts are coming to? And you won't come up with an answer. Presence. And there's no need to label that presence as anything. But there's a lot of freedom in that. This is what is the mind without craving.

Mind free of any kind of ignorance because it is naturally mindful. Mind that is free of any kinds of views because it is naturally not inclining towards anything. A mind that is signless, because it is naturally not inclining to a specific object. A mind that is uninclined. A mind that is undirected. A mind that is empty. This is what in some traditions is known as empty cognizance. Without getting too much into that, basically what we're talking about is a mind that is free of any. And if you can touch that and allow the mind to relax into that, then you just stabilize in that. That takes time. That takes practice. Why? Because of conditioning of the mind.

This is why we do the formal sitting practice. But what I'm talking to you guys about is an everyday meditation, a meditation that happens off the cushion, a mindfulness that lasts lifelong, not something where I'm going to be mindful on this retreat or I'm going to be mindful for these many hours because my mind is inclined towards that, and then I go about my day. No, it's about relaxing, letting that go and coming to that field that is as close to the unconditioned as you can get.

So how does one do that? How does one not conceive themselves as the experience, or conceive themselves in the experience, apart from the experience, or have that delight in the experience because it is me, mine, or myself? It is to first and foremost, as I said, relax into the here and now. Relax into what's usually known as the present moment. But that's just an anchor.

And when you do that, you then let go of trying to stay in the present moment. You let go of any kind of trying to engage or do or incline or intend or whatever it is. Because that is the root of all things. The craving or intention rooted in craving. The aspiration towards anything is the desire to control the outcome of a specific experience.

And therein lies the conceit. Therein lies the me, mine, or myself. You see, everything that we do in the retreat in terms of going into jhanas and meditating, and so on, is to engage the thinking mind, engage the relative mind, engage the mind that feels like it needs to do something, until it quiets down. And what you're left with is that non-reflective mind that we usually sense in the quiet space, in the quiet mind, in the signless state.

And when you're there, there's nothing to do. This is what I say to you guys. Whenever you guys are there on retreat and you get to the quiet mind, don't do anything. The only thing you have to do is, whenever that pops up, like maybe I should do this, maybe I should do that, ask: what is that that comes up?

It's desire to control how things should be. It's the conceit that arises. Just relax. Oh, but then I get bored. There were two words that Gandhi never liked. Two B words. But, B-U-T. And bored. Oh, I'm bored. What's wrong with being bored? What's so bad about being bored? I think we need to be bored more often. We're so inundated with our phones and our laptops and social media and news.

You know, whenever I say this, it's not like I'm against these things. What I'm saying is, can you spend even 10 minutes away from your phone not doing a single thing? In 2024, when I was basically taking the year off, in the middle of the year, I went up to a place called Mukteswar with some other people.

It was more of a writing retreat. It was more of a place where we could disengage. I had one person with me and he said, what are we going to do on Friday? Friday was do-nothing day. Literally do nothing. And it was difficult to not do anything. Every five minutes we checked up on our phones. Maybe I should check an email. Maybe I should go for a walk. Maybe I should, you know, just go outside. No, no, just don't do anything.

Then you disengage completely, to the extent that you can, and just sit there in the boredom, sit there in the nervousness, sit there in that desire, that some kind of impelling thing, that's making me want to go somewhere or do something? Can you sit with that? And when you sit with that, then you see conceit. Then you see how the mind creates its own problems when there are no problems.

It creates its own ideas about the world when there are no ideas there. And we don't see this because we're always constantly bombarded by different sensations and experiences. But if you're there for 30 minutes, 40 minutes, an hour, where you're not doing anything, literally not even meditating, not observing anything, not even trying to observe anything, not even trying to be mindful of anything, just sitting and letting the flow of sensations happen, letting the flow of thoughts happen.

And after a while, that starts to slow down and there's an awareness there. And that's where things get a little bit subtle and tricky. Because then we use that awareness as a standpoint. Ah, I am aware of this. I am becoming aware of this. No, that is the treachery of the mind. If you can notice that as well.

Then you start to see that every impelling thing that needs to be done is nothing more than the biological conditioning of the sense bases in the mind. What the Buddha says is there are only these six sense bases and the life that they are dependent upon. Then there's no me there. Then you really see whoever that you is. I'm using this transactionally, conventionally, for you to understand. But then you see, the mind sees, whatever it is, sees that it is all actually just process. We, as the conceit, add meaning to it. The process of proliferation: that this is painful, that this is boring, that I need to do something.

And this might not be a popular thing to say, but I will say it, which is that even the good things that we feel like we are doing are just another way to distract our minds. I'm not saying not to do good things. I'm saying look at the motivation, the rationale, the intention behind it. Somewhere it's a desire: once I do this, then my karmic bank balance starts to get equated, like it equally has equilibrium, and then my mind will be calm, and then I'll experience nibbana. Like everything has a specific benefit to it, but that is because again that sense of impelling, from that boredom, comes up, and it's like, all right, I'll go volunteer and do this, and I'll go and meditate for this long, and I'll go and give to the monks, and I'll go and do this and that.

Life is a series of processes. Existence is a series of processes. And the moment you see that, there's no more conceiving yourself as the experience. No more conceiving yourself in the experience. No more conceiving yourself from the experience, or apart from the experience, or that the experience is mine. It is just process. It's very easy to say that. You've heard it a million times from Bhante, from myself, from other twin teachers, from other Dhamma talks and so on, from the suttas themselves.

But if you just sit down and don't do anything and let the mind see this, then, as the Buddha says, mindfulness in the four foundations of mindfulness. As the Buddha says, in a week's time, you will have gotten it. If there's no stability in it, you'll have become an anagami, which is not a bad place to be, but it is better.

But you'll have understood it completely if you're stabilizing in that for a week in that way. And so we get to the arahant, because one who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge.

He too directly knows earth as earth. Let's just break that down. One who is an arahant. What does arahant mean? What does it actually mean? We keep using that word and are mystified in so many different ways. Arahant is basically someone who is worthy of veneration, someone who is worthy of respect. That's all arahant means. With taints destroyed, what are the taints here? The taint of ignorance, whose practical aspect is the lack of mindfulness.

The taint of sensual desires or sensual craving, where we identify with the sensual pleasures and spaces, and the taint of existential craving, which is the desire to be something or to control the outcome of something for a specific result. They've let go of all of that. They've destroyed all of that, as per the sutta. Who has lived the holy life? The holy life here comes from the word brahmacharya. In brahmacharya, acharya basically means one who lives in that way. Brahma here is not referring to a specific being or deity or anything. It just means holy. Holy in the sense that it is a higher life, a life free of any kind of unwholesome states of mind.

Free from any kind of unskillful, constricting states of mind. Akusala. Done what had to be done. What had to be done? What has to be done is that one has to let go of ignorance. Lay down the burden. Lay down the burden of what? The burden of identity. Reached his own goal. So you have set forth saying that I'm done with this life and I'm not interested in having the next life or any more, more of different kinds of iterations of life, even in this life. So I let go and go for that one thing, which is letting go completely, that leads to the cessation of all suffering.

Destroy the fetters of being. The fetters of being here, essentially, yes, we're talking about the five lower fetters, but also the five higher fetters: the conceit, the ignorance, the desire for becoming in a form state or formless state. Or in this case, being addicted to jhanas or formless states. And is completely liberated through final knowledge. What is that final knowledge?

That final knowledge is knowledge of the four noble truths. The knowledge of the emptiness of the five aggregates. That's really what it is. So he too directly knows earth as earth. He knows that this is conditioned, therefore impermanent, causes suffering, therefore not me, not mine, not myself. Having directly known these things, he does not conceive himself as those things or as that experience.

He does not conceive himself in that experience. He does not conceive himself apart from that experience. He does not conceive that experience to be in mind. He does not delight in that experience because he has fully understood it. He has understood what? The emptiness of all experience. He hasn't reified that experience either. He just knows emptiness as emptiness.

And so one who is an arahant, he too directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself in these things, does not conceive himself as or apart from these things, and not these things as mine. He does not delight in them. He is free from lust through the destruction of lust. So that is the root, which is known as lobha. That is greed.

And he is free from hate, through the destruction of hate. He has destroyed the seed, the root, which is the dvesha or dosa. Dosa is how it's known in Pali. This is the hatred. Finally, because of the destruction of delusion, moha. What is that delusion? The misperception of reality, in the sense of seeing things that are impermanent as permanent. Seeing things that are suffering as happiness. Seeing things that are empty of self as me, mine, or myself.

The interesting thing about the mind of a Buddha is that not only is he the first in his generation and in that particular age to have rediscovered the Dhamma, but he's equipped with certain faculties to be able to see certain things that the ordinary, let alone the ordinary individual, visual that perhaps even an arahant cannot see in regards to karma, in regards to different kinds of sense bases for different kinds of beings and different kinds of realms and dimensions and world systems and so on. So whatever earth there is in whatever world system, it's there, he's seen it fully.

And he has, and so he says the same thing with nibbana and so on. He has fully understood it to the end. The Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened, directly knows earth as earth, or any experience as an experience. But he does not conceive himself in that experience. He does not conceive himself as that experience. Apart from that experience, that experience is not mine.

Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering. Here, craving is the root of suffering. It is that tension, that tightness that wants to own something, wants to keep something. And that, with being as conditioned, that desire to be, to become, to identify with, that habitual tendency to incline towards a specific choice in a series of different choices.

As conditioned, there is birth. And that, for whatever has come to be, there is aging and death. That which has a beginning has an end. You hear this from The Matrix, Part 3, Revolutions. Is it Revolutions? Yes. Not the best Matrix, in my humble opinion, but that's the saying that they have. Whatever has a beginning also has an end. That's where it comes from, to aging and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing of cravings, the craving for sensual things or experiences, the craving for a specific outcome in the form of existence, and the craving for, let's say, the ending of an experience. That's the boredom that arises, right?

I can't not do anything. Something has to happen. That innate sort of sense of something has to happen. I don't like being in this space where it's boring. That's another kind of craving. The Tathagata has awakened to supreme full enlightenment, I say. So he says the same for water and nibbana and so on. But those bhikkhus did not delight in the Blessed One's words. This is probably the only, if I'm not mistaken, time where we hear the bhikkhus did not delight in the Blessed One's words. And I think, as far as the commentary is concerned, it says that it's because those bhikkhus were either unable to really fully understand what they were saying, or that they couldn't really keep up with what he was saying, couldn't subscribe to what he was saying.

But I would like to be a bit more optimistic and say that they did not delight because they understood that if they did delight in it, that means that they were conceiving themselves in the Dhamma talk, conceiving themselves as the Dhamma talk, conceiving themselves apart from the Dhamma talk, or conceiving themselves as the Dhammatog being mine, and therefore they completely let go, and therefore there was no delight, no identification, no views, no craving, no ignorance. I'll stop there and open it up for some questions, comments, anything anybody wants to share. Yeah, I have a couple. Delson?

Yeah. Brian, I never really fully understood the phrase seeing things as they are. Because when I see a tree, I seem to see a tree. Or are you... is it because you're judging, you're seeing a situation and you're judging it whether it's good or bad? Does that mean, is that what it means to see things as they are? That might be not seeing things as they are.

To see things as they are is to see the dependencies that cause, to see it as being conditioned, to see it as being impermanent, to see it as being liable to cause suffering. Oh, seeing as impermanent. Okay. And then when you talk about controlling something for a certain outcome, aspect to controlling something for a particular outcome, isn't there?

Yeah, but being obsessed by it actually makes it less effective in the actions towards the outcome. In other words, what I'm referring to is when we're meditating, what happens is some people will meditate, or most people will meditate, and they say, I'm doing this so that I want to get here. I want to get there. They're never fully present with what's arising. There's always a sense of like, it needs to be this way. So I need to do this and I need to do that, engineer it in this way for a particular outcome. And that just sabotages the entire experience completely.

Yeah, I think as Adyashanti said, just leave things as they are. Just sit and leave things as they are. Yeah. May suffering ones be suffering free, and the fear-struck fearless be. Kind of simple. May the grieving shed all grief, and may... Yeah, he would think so. Well, maybe not. May all beings share this merit that we have thus acquired for the acquisition of all kinds of happiness. Okay, thanks, Delson. May beings inhabiting space and earth, devas and nagas of mighty power, hey, hear me, my stables. Thank you so much, Delson. This is not good. Okay, there we go. Thank you, everyone. I will see you next week. Take care. Thank you.