Day 8 May Retreat MN 22 "The Simile of the Snake" with Delson Armstrong

Here we are. We're going to read from Majjhima Nikaya 22, the Alagaddupama Sutta, the Simile of the Snake. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. Now on that occasion, a pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Arita, formerly of the vulture killers, thus: as I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them. This is a deeply pernicious view.

Because what are obstructions? Obstructions are hindrances, sensual pleasures. So what he's saying is that those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them. If you engage in a hindrance, does it continue to hinder your mind? If you engage in sensual pleasures, if you identify with them, doesn't it cause craving, doesn't it cause aversion? So his understanding really is that, once you are a monastic, once you know the Dhamma, then even if you have to deal with hindrances, even if you have to deal with sensual pleasures in particular, they're not going to affect you if you engage in them. Engage here is the operative word. Engage means to actually interact with them, to interact with them with a sense of self, to interact with them with craving or aversion or whatever it might be.

Yet, although pressed and questioned and cross-questioned by those bhikkhus in this way, the bhikkhu Arita, formerly of the vulture killers, still obstinately adhered to that pernicious view and continued to insist upon it. Since the bhikkhus were unable to detach him from that pernicious view, they went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, they sat down at one side and told him all that had occurred, adding, Venerable Sir, since we could not detach the Bhikkhu Arita, formerly of the vulture killers, from this pernicious view, we have reported this matter to the Blessed One.

Then the Blessed One addressed a certain bhikkhu thus: Come, bhikkhu, tell the bhikkhu Arita, formerly of the vulture killers, in my name that the Teacher calls him. Yes, Venerable Sir, he replied, and went to the bhikkhu Arita and told him: the Teacher calls you, friend Arita. Yes, friend, he replied, and he went to the Blessed One and, after paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked him: Arita, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you, as I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them? Exactly so, Venerable Sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them. So what does the Blessed One say? Misguided man, not good. When the Buddha calls you misguided, it comes from the Pali word moha, which means actually stupid. To whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not

kindle even a spark of wisdom in this dhamma and discipline how could he venerable sir no venerable sir when this was said bhikkhu arita formerly of the vulture killer sat silent dismayed with shoulders drooping and head down glum and without response then knowing this the blessed one told him misguided man you will be recognized by your pernicious view i shall pushing the bhikkhus on this matter when the blessed one addressed the bhikkhus thus bhikkhus do you understand the dhamma taught by me as this bhikkhu iretha formerly of the vulture killers does when by his wrong grasp he misrepresents us injures himself and stores up much demerit with a question like that you better say no no venerable sir for in many ways the blessed one has stated how obstructive things are obstructions and how they are able to obstruct one who engages in them the blessed one has stated that central pleasures provide little gratification much despair much suffering and despair and that the danger in them is still more with the simile of the skeleton and so on the blessed one has stated that the danger in them

identify with them without sensual desires without perceptions of sensual desire without thoughts of sensual desire that is impossible here are bhikkhus some misguided men learn the dhamma discourses stanzas expositions verses exclamations sayings birth stories marvels and answers to questions but having learned the dhamma they do not examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom not examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom they do not gain a reflective acceptance of them what does it mean to examine examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom it means to apply the teachings it means to actually do the teachings and see for yourself if this works and then once you see for yourself confirm if your experiences match with the suttas when you first read the suttas without any experience at all you really do need a code breaker you really need something because when you start reading it there's so much there there's so much dense information over there right but there's no way for you to make sense of it but once you actually have someone who can guide you and someone who's walked the path someone who

can lead you and say, here are the signposts, here's what to do, here's the suggestion, here's the advice, here's the recommendation, and you follow that and see for yourself, and then walk the path, and then you go back to the suttas and you recognize what the suttas are talking about. Oh, this is what they mean by the first jhana. This is what they mean by craving. This is what they mean by dependent origination. This is what they mean by clinging. This is what they mean by contact and feeling and perception, and so on. Instead of that, they learned the Dhamma only for the sake of criticizing others and for winning in debates, and they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learn the Dhamma. Those teachings, being wrongly grasped by them, conduce to their harm and suffering for a long time. Why is that? Because of the wrong grasp of those teachings.

So they learn the Dhamma, that is to say, they learn it at face value: my teacher told me this, and so I'm going to just repeat what my teacher told me, not really actually do it or look at what they're saying and actually try to apply it. The sutta says so and so, so I've heard so, I will just take that at face value instead of actually doing it. And then what happens? You become a Dhamma defender. You start to see if other people are criticizing your Dhamma, quote unquote, your Dhamma, and then you start to get offended by it, and you start to criticize them, and then you go into debates and arguments. No, this Dhamma is right, that Dhamma is wrong, what you're saying is wrong, you're stupid, I'm right, and all of these other things happen. And what does that lead to? That leads to further aversion, that leads to clinging, that leads to mental proliferation, that leads to quarrels, sometimes even violence. This is the state of the world that we live in for the last

How many of your eons? Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search of a snake. I wonder when you would need a snake. But anyway, he saw a large snake and grasped its coils or its tails. It would turn back on him and bite his hand or his arm or one of his limbs. And because of that he would come to death or deadly suffering.

Why is that? Because of his wrong grasp of the snake. So too here some misguided men learn the Dhamma and because of the wrong grasp of those teachings they suffer. Here, bhikkhu, some clansmen learned the Dhamma, and having learned the Dhamma, they examined the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. When he says wisdom, what does that mean? Wisdom is the product of samadhi, panna. Sila, samadhi, panna. Which means, here is somebody who has actually walked the path. Here is somebody who has actually followed the precepts.

Somebody who's actually done right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood. Who's applied right effort, understood right mindfulness, and had right collectedness, leading to samadhi, which then leads to insight and wisdom. Examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they gain a reflective acceptance of them. They do not learn the Dhamma for the sake of criticizing others and for winning in debates, and they experience the good for the sake of which they learn the Dhamma. Those teachings being rightly grasped by them conduce to their welfare and happiness for a long time. Why is that? Because of the right grasp of those teachings.

Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search of a snake, saw a large snake and caught it rightly with a cleft stick, and having done so, grasped it rightly by the neck. Then although the snake might wrap its coils round his hand or his arm or his limbs, still he would not come to death with deadly suffering because of that. Why is that? Because of his right grasp of the snake. So, too, here some clansmen learn the Dhamma because of their right grasp of those teachings.

Therefore, bhikkhus, when you understand the meaning of my statements, remember it accordingly. And when you do not understand the meaning of my statements, then ask either me about it or those bhikkhus who are wise. Ask those who have walked the path. If you have some doubts, if you have some clarifications required, ask as many questions as you can. Obviously, it's still limited to three. That's a pretty serious enlightenment of misinterpretation.

Yes. You're going to die. Right. Well, looking at the wrong view of the teachings, you could say that he's talking about concentration and what he wrote before and how dangerous it can be. Yeah, fight it. Yeah, it can lead to a lot of suffering. It can lead to psychosis in some cases. It can lead to a lot of very painful processes, and then ultimately having wrong view, where does that take you? Suffering. It takes you to suffer. That whole mass. Yes, that whole mass of suffering. Bhikkhus, I shall show you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping.

Listen and attend closely to what I shall say. Yes, venerable sir, the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said: This, bhikkhus, is how it is. Suppose a man in the course of a journey saw a great expanse of water whose near shore was dangerous and fearful and whose further shore was safe and free from fear, but there was no ferry boat or bridge for going to the far shore. Then he thought: There is this great expanse of water whose near shore is dangerous and fearful and whose further shore is safe and free from fear, but there is no ferry boat or bridge for going to the far shore. Suppose I collect grass, twigs, branches and leaves and bind them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with my hands and feet, I got safely across to the far shore. And then the man collected grass, twigs, branches and leaves and bound them together into a raft, and supported by the raft and making an effort with his hands and feet, he got safely across to the far shore.

So I have shown you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping. Because when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you should abandon even the teachings; how much more so things contrary to the teachings? How could the Buddha say that you should abandon the teachings? Is he saying that, or is he saying abandon your attachment, attachment to abandon, the clinging to the doubt? You follow the Eightfold Path, you utilize the Eightfold Path, you use it as a raft to get to the far shore, to experience

and realize here and now nibbana, the end of suffering. But once you experience the end of suffering, you have to use a path until you come to a point where all craving has gone, all conceit has gone, all wrong views have gone, all ignorance has gone. What's that? What does that mean? What that means is that the mind now is fully liberated. That fully liberated mind, automatically, by default, follows the Eightfold Path without second thoughts, just automatically.

That mind has right view, right intention, speaks with right speech, acts with right action, has right livelihood, is effortless in the right effort, is mindful all the time, and is collected whenever they want. It can go into any jhana, into cessation, whatever it might be. But do they grasp onto that with pride? Do they say, I have achieved this, and therefore this is the right way, and you should practice it too, because this is the only way out?

Sure, it might be all of those things. Sure, it is all of those things. But what use is it to use the Dhamma in that way? So you abandon the clinging to the Dhamma, abandon the pride of the Dhamma, abandon the attachment to the Dhamma. So it's not like you abandon the Eightfold Path. You're always using it until it becomes your nature. Bhikkhus, there are these things, these six standpoints for views. What are the six? Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form thus: this is mine, this I am, this is myself.

In other words, they take them personally. They identify with the five aggregates. And then there is a view which says, that which is the self is the world. This is the Atman-Brahman idea, the non-dual idea. The idea that there is here a soul, and there is out there in existence, and the soul and the universe, and the soul and existence, are one and the same, and the universe is infinite, and so am I. Ultimately being the self, atman, the Brahman, the substratum of the universe, which is all-pervading, source of happiness, which is there for eternity. This is the view that they have. But in having that view, they think that after that, I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change.

And they take that view as mine, as I am, as myself. So whenever they do this, they equate one or more type aggregates as some kind of eternal soul, as some kind of eternal spirit, as some kind of eternal identity. And because of that, they have wrong views. Because the understanding is, all five aggregates are impermanent. And that which is impermanent is liable to cause suffering. And therefore, it can't be considered as me, mine, or myself. Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form thus: this is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself.

Everything that is conditioned is impermanent and is liable to cause suffering, and therefore cannot be considered self. So how can you have agitation about that? Only when you identify it as self and think that the self is existent, is there something to be agitated about. But if it doesn't exist, if it's non-existent, why worry? Why have anxiety about that? When you truly see this, when you truly see that there is no permanent self, and you understand it as it is right here and now through the five aggregates, when you understand and let go of the clinging to the five aggregates, then you won't have any restlessness at all arise. Because the five higher fetters that are still present, that is the restlessness, the conceit, the craving for genre, craving for formless realms, and the ignorance. These are the five higher fetters that prevent you from crossing all the way into arahatship. The restlessness, the craving for genre, and the craving for formless attainments, these three are dependent upon conceit.

And conceit arises whenever there is an identification with the five aggregates. When you let go of the conceit, everything else falls like a house of cards. When you let go of the identification, will restlessness arise? What is there to be restless about? When you let go of conceit, who is it that wants jhana? Who is it that wants the formless attainments? That idea completely goes away. So there's no more craving for that. There's no more craving for existence or non-existence.

And of course, when ignorance is gone, one knows completely the Four Noble Truths. So once you know that completely, then ignorance is gone. You see the links of dependent origination clearly. You understand them clearly. You understand the impersonal nature of all things. You see for yourself how the Four Noble Truths are there, present in every moment. When this was said, a certain Bhikkhu asked the Blessed One, Venerable Sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent externally?

Everything you see around you, everything you're experiencing around you, is experienced through the sixth sense basis. So the idea is that the world itself that you experience subjectively is created by the sixth sense basis. You can't say that this is the color purple. Now, I can say this is the color red, and you might also say that this is the color red, right? So you're seeing it red because of the way your eyes perceive them. In other words, through the retina, through the different cones and so on in the eyes.

You're only picking up certain frequencies. So you only hear a certain bandwidth of sound. So your experience of this world, how it's being received, it's all vibrations, right? Molecular vibrations, vibrations in the atmosphere, and so on and so forth, and all of that is being interpreted in the mind, and then the mind creates this image. This mind creates the experience for you. So what are you actually grasping at? What are you actually craving for? What are you actually having perversion towards? Everything is made up of form. This whole universe is made up of form. What is form? It's the earth element. It's made up of the earth element, the water element, the air element, the fire element. So all of that is basically just molecules in different states of matter. But the interpretation of your mind causes you to say, I like the color red, or I like the color blue, but I hate the color red. I like chocolate cake but I hate cheesecake. I like more chocolate cake and cheesecake.

But you know, these preferences that you have, they're created by what? They're created by you identifying with certain kinds of molecular vibrations. That's it. I like this taste because of the molecules that hit my tongue. These particular molecules I like, those particular molecules I don't. So when you start to see it in this way, how can you take anything personally? How could you be agitated about them?

So here is somebody who has this view of the self, that this is me, this is mine, this is myself, that I shall endure forever. This is the person that has this view. Then they are introduced to the Dhamma, and the Dhamma, which is for the elimination of all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying tendencies, the elimination of attachment to all views, categorically, all decisions, no identification with any of that.

For the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishing of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for nibbana. So this Dhamma is for the cessation of suffering, understanding what is suffering and letting it go through wisdom. That wisdom that arises shows you that everything is impersonal. But somebody with the view that I have a self, or I am a self that will endure forever, will think thus: so I shall be annihilated, so I shall perish, so I shall be no more. Then he sorrows, grieves, and laments. He weeps, beating his breast, and becomes distraught.

This is how there is agitation about what is non-existent internally. So somebody who was introduced to the Dhamma for the first time, with the idea of some permanent soul, they have an immediate resistance when they hear, oh, this is not self, this is not you, this is not you. So they're like, that means that I'll be annihilated. And the reason why they think that this is annihilationism is because they still presuppose somewhere intrinsically that there is a self. Even on an intellectual level, they still think that there is a self. But once you understand that everything is impersonal, then there's no agitation about it. Then you've let go of that view of the self. You've let go of the view of a personal self. Having let go of it, you experience

peace. You don't have agitation about it, because now you understand as it actually is: what is form, what is feeling, what is perception, what are formations, what is consciousness. You understand it all to be impersonal. You understand the sixth sense basis to be impersonal. You understand the experiences of the sixth sense basis to be impersonal. You understand contact to be impersonal. So when you see all this as impersonal, how could you get agitated?

If you have truly let go of that view, you would not be agitated, and you wouldn't have this idea that I will be annihilated, because you realize that there was no you to begin with. It's all a series of impersonal causes and conditions. Venerable Sir, can there be no agitation about what is non-existent internally? There can be, Bhikkhu, the Blessed One said. Here, Bhikkhu, someone does not have the view that which is the self is the world. I shall endure as long as eternity. So they don't have that view, they don't hold that. Then they hear the Tathagata, or a disciple of the Tathagata, teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying tendencies, for the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishing of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for Nibbana.

But do you see any such support of views, Bhikkhus? No, Venerable Sir. Good Bhikkhus, I too do not see any support of views that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who takes it as support. That includes right view as well. That includes the Dhamma as well. So in the first case, the Buddha is asking: do you possess something that would be permanent, eternal, everlasting, not subject to change, that might endure as long as eternity? The Bhikkhus, having seen for themselves all that is not self, know that there is nothing that can be possessed which can be considered to be permanent, which can be considered to be everlasting, which can endure as long as eternity. In the second case, the Buddha is asking: you might cling to a doctrine of self, perhaps there might be a doctrine of self?

that would not arouse sorrow lamentation pain grief and despair in one who clings to it but the beacus say there is no such view possible because they have seen for themselves taking any kind of view and attaching to it clinging to it what does that mean you're defending that view i am a self i exist as a self this is me this is mine this is myself defending in that way being attached to it what happens you have anger you have frustration you have irritation you have this whole mass of suffering that arises so in the same way the buddha asks you might not take a you might well take a support that view or as a support that view that would not arouse sorrow lamentation pain grief and despair and the beakers say no they don't so he says i too do not see any supportive views that would not arouse sorrow lamentation pain grief and despair in one who takes it as support

"Because there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self? Yes, Venerable Sir. Or there being what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self? Yes, Venerable Sir. Because, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, that which is the self is the world, after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, I shall endure as long as eternity, would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?"

"What else could it be, Venerable Sir, but an utterly and completely foolish teaching?" So here are the Buddhas saying: if there is a self, there is a self, let's say, would there be for me what belongs to a self? Yes, there would be something that belongs to a self. So if there is a self, there would be something that belongs to that self. That is, whatever it might be that the self possesses.

And then there being what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self? In other words, if there is something there that presupposes that a self possesses it, then it also presupposes that there is a self. So the idea is, a lot of people might think that the form is self, or the form is possessed of self, or feeling is self, or feeling is possessed of self.

that perception is self, or perception is possessed of self, that formations are self, formations are me, or I possess formations. Consciousness is me, or I possess consciousness. So there is some kind of self, intrinsic self, that people may believe in, and they take one or more of these five aggregates one way or the other, that they belong to me, or that they are me or I am in them or I am separate from them so the Buddha says if you have such a doctrine how do you let go of that so he goes to this he says because what do you think

Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Remember, dispassionate is that attitude, that Teflon mind, that nothing sticks to; it just glides on through. It comes from the word vairagya, which means to be detached, no longer seeing this as me, mine and myself, no longer seeing it as something I have to engage in. Completely disengaged from formations, disengaged from consciousness, thinks, disengaged from feeling, disengaged from perception, disengaged from form. Through this passion, through that attitude, his mind is liberated. When it is liberated, there comes the knowledge: it is liberated. So that this passion leads to cessation, leads to the experience of nirvana. Having seen that, one comes to know that the mind is liberated, and then one understands: birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being. Bhikkhus, such a bhikkhu, one who understands this and sees it, is called one whose crossbar has been lifted, whose trench has been filled in, whose pillar has been uprooted,

one who has no bolt, a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered, who has destroyed all of the fetters. And how is the bhikkhu one whose crossbar has been lifted? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance, has cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, done away with it so that it is no longer subject to future arising. So in other words, that bhikkhu, that person, that one who has attained to arahatship, has let go completely of ignorance, abandoned it, because they have completely understood right view. They have attained to the supramundane right view of the four noble truths.

This is how the bhikkhu is one who has no bolt, or rather whose pillar has been uprooted. And how is the bhikkhu one who has no bolt? Here the bhikkhu has abandoned the five lower fetters, has cut them off at the root, so that they are no longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is one who has no bolt. In other words, he has let go already of the first five fetters. He no longer has a belief in personal self. He no longer has doubt in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. He no longer has any clinging to rites and rituals with the idea that they will take him to Nibbana. He no longer has any sensual craving.

Pajapati here is actually Mara. Seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind. They do not find anything of which they could say the consciousness of one thus gone is supported by this. Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is unfaceable here and now. The mind of the arahat is empty of craving. it is a mind without craving if you will i had to i had to but without that craving without that conceit without that ignorance without any of that how could that mind be traced that mind is completely void of these things that mind is signless signless in that it has no objects of craving it has no objects of hatred it has no objects of delusion it is void it is empty it is signless it has nothing there because there's nothing there to measure it but it is immeasurable for that reason there is no conceit there there is no mana there is no measuring so how could you trace how could you it's like a free bird that night

There's no way you can grasp at that mind to try to read into the mind of an arahant. All you can see is that it's just free. There's nothing there. It's just empty. So the devas, the brahmas, they can't do anything. They can't scope out that mind, the mind of the arahant, because there's nothing there to identify with.

So one thus gone, that's another word for the Tathagata. That's what Tathagata means, one thus gone or one come forth. But one thus gone, meaning one who has attained full nibbana, one who has attained full awakening, there is no way to trace that consciousness. It is known as non-reflective consciousness, anidassanam vinnanam. That consciousness doesn't reflect onto anything. The mind of the arahant is completely free of the notion of I, me, or mine, although they might use the words I, me, or mine just as a way of transacting with the world. The mind of the arahant will still have feeling, will still have perceptions, will still have intention, will still have consciousness, will still experience contact, obviously, but it will not reflect anything.

But the arahant was never not being, nor a being. The arahant completely understands that there was no self to begin with. Once they understand the completely impersonal nature of all things, conditioned and unconditioned, because nibbana also is impersonal, there's nothing to grasp at, and there's nothing to grasp that in the mind of that. So how could you say that it is the extermination of an existing being? Once you realize this, as I am not, as I do not proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly misrepresented thus by some recluses and brahmins. The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray. He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being, because both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

They perform such services as these for me in regard to this, which earlier was fully understood. So in other words, when they do honor, when they do respect, when they revere, when they venerate a Buddha or an arahant, in the mind of such a being, quote unquote, there arises the thought that they're doing this because they fully understand, or they have some appreciation for the Dhamma. They have some appreciation for noble ones. That's it.

abandon that right it's just an experience it's just a feeling impersonal feeling somebody says something about your form abandon it it's just an impersonal feeling when you have a perception what do you do do you grasp at it and say i want it or this is going to make me feel good or just abandon it and just have happiness right there and then treat the five aggregates see the five aggregates as what the buddha just said as just grass as sticks as branches and leaves anything happens impersonally i mean anything that happens pleasant or unpleasant should be seen as impersonal anything that happens that is neutral should be seen as impersonal the experience you have in jana abandon it

Right, abandonment meaning don't take it personally. The good feelings that you experience with loving kindness, the good feelings you experience with compassion, the joy, the equanimity, don't abandon that. Abandon the attachment to it. So those feelings are seen as one impersonal. Don't say this is my loving kindness, this is just loving kindness. It arises, it arises, it goes away, it goes away.

This is the joy that arises in jhana. Is it my joy or is it just joy that arose? Abandon it. Abandon the first jhana, abandon the second jhana, abandon the third jhana, abandon the fourth jhana, abandon infinite space, abandon infinite consciousness, abandon nothingness, abandon need of perception, non-perception. And what happens? cessation of perception feeling and consciousness everything that arises in the mind is not yours is not you abandon let it go and then you will experience cessation bhikkhus the dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear open evident and free of patchwork in the dhamma well proclaimed by me thus which is clear open evident and free of patchwork There is no future around for manifestations

These are sotapannas with path, are all headed for enlightenment, because the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident and free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is clear, open, evident and free of patchwork, those who have sufficient faith in me, sufficient love for me, are all headed for heaven. In other words, those who have let go of even doubt, who just practise the Dhamma out of confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, are already attaining towards right view, attaining towards keeping the precepts, having generosity, and so on. And that leads them to a higher state in a devaloka. That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words.

Questions? Wow, you guys are really delighted. Your instructions were free at Patchwork. Yeah. Can you explain the links through five from consciousness to six world-based? Yeah. So consciousness there is basically the six-fold consciousness. That is the eye consciousness, the ear consciousness, the nose consciousness, the tongue consciousness, the body consciousness, and mind consciousness. That's one understanding. So consciousness also gives rise to nama-rupa, or mentality materiality. That means that mentality materiality depends upon consciousness for it to be experienced. Consciousness cannot be experienced without mentality materiality, so for consciousness to continue it needs mentality materiality, and for mentality materiality to be experienced it requires consciousness. Mentality is made up of five things. It's made up of contact, feeling, perception, intention and attention. So that means it gives rise to the potential for contact. Contact gives rise to the potential of feeling. Feeling gives rise to the potential of perception. Perception gives rise to intention, chetana, which is the inclination of the mind towards something wholesome or unwholesome.

and attention, that is the attention moves from one thing to the other, and so does consciousness. Attention is what drives forward the consciousness. Intention is what drives forward the formations. Then there is form materiality, which is made up of the four great elements, that is earth, water, fire and air. In other words, the different states of matter make up this form, this body that we see here. It's made up of the different elements. In order for mentality to be able to function, it requires the materiality, that is to say it requires the brain, which is all of this stuff that's there. Through that you experience the factors of mentality, that is the contact, the feeling, the perception, the intention and the attention. So in order for you to know that there is a materiality you need a mentality, and in order for mentality to actually work it needs to have materiality. So there is that interdependency there as well. Housed within this mentality materiality are the six sense bases, so that is the eye, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind.

I see. So materiality is depending on consciousness and vice versa, right? So that there's like a cycle there, right? Yes. So is there, which one came first, or how does that work? That's a chicken and egg. Chicken, right? I see. Because the thing is, consciousness arises and passes away in every moment, so it continues to give vitality to the materiality. So you could say the one starting point in one life is just at the birth of that new life. So there's consciousness that descends in that mentality materiality, and then that starts the process, but it's not the same consciousness that departs that body.

It's a consciousness that continues to change, continues to arise and pass away. I see. That makes sense. And so I guess, uh, kind of a follow-up question to that is, so, an infinite consciousness, could you describe what the signpost there is, or what do you see there? So generally in infinite consciousness, what you see is the arising and passing away of eye consciousness, or ear consciousness, or nose consciousness, or tongue consciousness, or body consciousness, or mind consciousness. So the way you would see eye consciousness could be in multiple different ways. In other words, you could notice flickering behind your eyelids. You could notice concentric circles suddenly coming into being. You can notice little things, dots, things like that, coming and going, coming and going. With the eye consciousness you can notice flickering happening, like clicking, snapping going on. Or actually you might even notice, when you, some people can experience infinite consciousness while their eyes are open and while they're walking.

So the world around them is slowed down and they see the frames of reality, like when you slow down the film reel and you start to see the individual frames. So it's like you're under strobe lights, you know, and you just see movements like that, jerky movements. And then sometimes people can hear the sound and then they hear every other sound, like there's a blanket, because they're seeing the arising and passing away of sound, the arising and passing away of your consciousness. Some people experience nose consciousness through phantom smells in their meditation, or they'll experience phantom tastes in the tongue, or they'll experience electricity in the tongue. And likewise in the body they'll experience tingling or vibrations all throughout the body, or they'll experience some kind of heat and cold in the body. And then with the mind they start to see their thoughts, the stream of thoughts, and they start to see the gaps in between thoughts. So these are some ways that they can be experienced. So I guess my question is, so, you know, like the eye consciousness flickering, for example.

So, you know, that contact and feeling, right? You see like those moving. So I guess how do you know that that's the consciousness point that's arising and passing away, and not feeling arising and passing away? Well, you're feeling it. You're experiencing it. Yeah, that's the thing. When there is consciousness there is also feeling and perception tied into it. So you can't, is it you can't know for sure and pinpoint, oh, like this is the consciousness link, like a rising and passing away? Well, when there is the consciousness link, that is to say the arising and passing away of eye consciousness, there is eye feeling there as well, and eye perception there as well. So because you see that feeling is rising and passing away because it's dependent on consciousness, through that inference you can say that consciousness must be rising and passing away. Yes. But feeling is dependent upon contact, and in contact there is the eye consciousness. Um, so I guess if you say that, so first thing, that consciousness is to bear, like cognition, right? So I guess, okay. Yeah, thank you. Any other questions?

Yes, he was not joking when he was saying that his word was clear. A lot of people say that in all of these, practically, Gautama had a 2600 years anticipation on system dynamics and emergence of a phenomena, etc., that science has discovered just 50 years ago. Now, by the point of view of system dynamics, if we say that suffering is dependent on all of those 12 things, you just need to take one out, and suffering doesn't exist anymore.

You have to take out feeling. That's the one that's easy to take out. Yeah, but in theory you take out one of these ones and suffering, because suffering is born by the interaction of these 12 elements. First let's define what is suffering. What is suffering? What is dukkha, that whole mass of suffering? What is it? It's a bummer. It's a bummer. It's a bummer. Yeah, but there's no bummer in feeling. There's no bummer in contact. But I understand what you're saying. You're saying if you cease contact then there won't be any potential for feeling and so on. That's true. Okay, but that means that when you have cessation, perception of your mind consciousness, there's no suffering going on there. In fact, yes, but

Well, because if we take it like a simulation, a computer that makes interrupts these things and makes our software, in that case the only thing that you would notice is that every time that there is an I, there is I, me, myself, there is also suffering. So it would be just a signal, right? That when you have this, and in fact every time that we think of happy moments, we are not at the center of the happy moments. Exactly. So when there is an experience going on, there is a superimposition of I, me or mine to it, and that's where the trouble begins. But if you see everything as just a happy moment, just a pleasant feeling, then there is no potential for suffering through events. Yeah. So it's not abandoned, I mean, it is that if you see that there is the I, me and mine, you are inclined towards suffering, because it is one of the necessary conditions for the emergence of suffering. Yes. You take out of the necessary condition and it cannot arise anymore. Yes.

It's like, um, it's like those two comic strips. I don't know if you guys have seen this. They show memes on this, and there's memes on this on social media as well. The first one is, this guy goes to the doctor and he says, it hurts. And he says, you know, where does it hurt? When I exist.

And the second one is, there's a guy who says, I want happiness. There's a monk who comes by, and there's a bubble, right? It says, I want happiness. So he says, take away the I. That's the ignorance and the conceit. Take away the want, that's the craving. And what do you have left? No self, no problem. I think that's a book too, isn't it? Yeah. Okay. The statement that Aguard said, you know, in theory anywhere along the 12 links that suffering, but you said later you talked about potential, so I think would it be accurate to say, in theory, anywhere along the way it's interrupted, the potential for suffering? Yes. Yes. Yes. So if you see you're identifying with feeling, then you can let go of that and there's no more suffering. If you see that you're identifying with your nama-rupa, your mentality and materiality, which is the five aggregates, but you let go of that, then there's no potential for suffering to arise.

Yeah, okay. So follow-up question to that. So I guess, um, the Buddhist said in this to do just right, right? Don't take feeling as mine or myself, and he also follows up with, don't take consciousness as mine or myself. So, um, someone might hold the view like, okay, this consciousness, which is a big cognition, right, this is who I am, because I'm cognizing all this. So this is me. And so like an infinite consciousness, you see that, um, you see, let's say, flickering. So you come to think, okay, this feeling is not my inner myself, because I see it going in and out. But how do you see the cognition, like of knowing? Wouldn't you have to see the knowing going in and out for that to be the rising and passing away of consciousness, so that knowing itself arises dependent upon the arising of that consciousness?

Yeah. So in other words, that knowing is a feeling as well. That cognition of what you're experiencing is tied to the experience itself. Yeah. Which means that when that experience goes away, the cognition of that goes away too. I see. So then what about awareness? Same thing. I see. Everything is dependent upon something or another. Is there such a thing as awareness? Because isn't it, each thing you see is just a dot, let's say, and so there's no central awareness? But for someone to say there's a central awareness, that's just a feeling, and so that feeling, and that feeling arises and passes, so there's no awareness. Okay. Yeah.

I like the term field of awareness, especially within infinite consciousness, my experience anyway. This phenomenon is popping up, you know, more. You see more and more the gaps between. Yeah. And so you know, and then you realize that the mind is putting this together like a seamless living, and is not seamless at all, right? And the mind is filling these gaps. Yes. So it's so totally impersonal. Yes. There's all any of the stories that we hang on to, most of it's fiction. Yes. Yes. Filling in the gaps, that's a good way of putting it, because that's what the mind does. The mind, your six sense bases, they take in some information and then they just fill in the rest through interpretation. It's not a seamless. Yeah. Just to, I mean, on that point, though, just to be kind of picky about the phenomenology, but, you know, if we are to say that you are noticing consciousness arising and passing away, or, you know, let's even just say an impersonal noticing, consciousness is noticing itself arising and passing away,

how could consciousness know that it wasn't present a moment ago, and how could it know that it just arose from nothing? like there can't be a knowing in the gap right there is not annoying in the gap right there isn't but then how does how does it know there was a gap you only know the gap so when we talk about those gaps all right so we need to we need to clarify first when you talk about gap because there's multiple gaps here there's the gaps in consciousness which is the nothingness which means you're perceiving nothingness there's the gap she explains in neither perception or non-perception where there's non-perception and then there's the ultimate gap which is the cessation of perception feeling and consciousness so which gap are you referring to well we can take the first gap first but then we could also take the cessation gap because what i'm saying is if there is something perceiving a gap then what is what is present in that gap to perceive consciousness

but then then we're saying that there's some kind of substratum consciousness that's existing while there's this arising and passing away there because what i'm saying is if there was truly a gap in consciousness you know let's say um or let's take cessation for example right you come out of it and you can kind of tell that time has passed but there was no there was no awareness of anything in that case so the way you could tell the time had passed is like the clock for example but in infinite consciousness you know to say that you've perceived something passing away to say that there was an awareness that something had just ended if it was truly like a gap in awareness then you wouldn't there you wouldn't even be aware of the gaps like it would seem continuous the way that like everyday experience does because and you go in cessation

When you are not aware of the gap, right, because you are going in cessation. Yeah. Otherwise it is an interpretation. But those gaps that you're referring to, which happen at infinite consciousness where you're seeing the flickering, it's your interpretation, what you're doing. So the experience is subjective, completely subjective. Yeah. So the experience and the conclusion there also is completely subjective, dependent upon how you're seeing it. But the gap between those arising and passing away is nothingness. That's what we're saying. So what we're actually seeing when we see infinite consciousness is really infinite contact.

There's contact, contact, contact, contact, contact, contact. That's what you're saying, but maybe ultimately the moment between each kind of process. Yeah. I mean, what, there's nothing there? But how can you, that's what I'm saying. Yeah. Isn't it memory? Isn't it perception that says, yeah, I saw that? Yeah, that's perception seeing that it's perceiving that there's something there, that was, but not in infinite consciousness. Just normally the mind is going, right, and there's just moments, but there is something between them. All right. Yeah. I mean, just being nitpicky, I guess it's a subjective experience, but to say that there... that it proves that there wasn't some kind of awareness there. I feel like cessation proves that there isn't a continuation of consciousness, but infinite consciousness itself is just an experience that seems like there's some kind of instability. Yes.

When there's cessation, you really understand there is nothing between them. Then you truly understand that consciousness is dependent and it's impermanent. Absolutely. There's no continuation of soul. That's why it says that it's the perception of impermanence, which leads to the perception, which leads to the perception of anatta. In other words, when they say perception, what they're saying is it's an interpretation of that experience, which leads to an interpretation. So the mind is having these insights, subjective insights based on the subjective experience at infinite consciousness, right? But somehow everyone who goes there seems to have that experience.

Right, so it's more about just the insight that's gained by this feeling of instability. Yeah. So, and some people also experience infinite consciousness as just that all-pervading consciousness, so it's like the space is filled up with that all-pervading consciousness. But you have to go even deeper and understand that that consciousness is dependently arisen on the idea of there being space. So first there's the experience of infinite space, and then there's an experience that consciousness fills up that space, but even that is also subjective. Yeah. I wonder if someone who has wrong view would even be able to see it as all-pervasive instead of the momentariness of it. You're saying if somebody had the wrong, you would be able to see only the pervasiveness? Yeah, like they came in expecting this all-pervasive consciousness, and so that wrong view would prevent them from seeing the momentariness.

Which would prevent that insight from arising. Well, that means they didn't see it. Though I'm basing this off of a teacher who said that he went from the yoga path to the Buddhist path, and he was at first in the higher jhana seeing everything as a continuum, and then his teacher said, no, see it, see the momentariness within that. Oh, so he was guided to see it in that way. Yeah. So then he was guided towards right view. Of course, that was probably concentration.

So it really doesn't count. Well, I mean, LSD can give you a lot of these same experiences, and you don't come out of it enlightened. Yeah. There was one time I was walking into the kitchen at someone's house, and I started seeing infinite consciousness, or my subjective experience, let's say, of infinite consciousness, where it was like frames, and it was like there was a strobe light, and everybody was moving. Just some... there was like some kind of blank there, like there was no fluid movement there. You know? And somebody else experienced, they were hearing the sound, but they were just hearing the sound, and there was a gap, but they were like continue. It was a continuous sound, but they were hearing also the lack of sound there, the gaps, so they knew there was some kind of gap there.

I found it interesting to hear, like, a motor, which, you know, just normally you would think that's just a continuous sound, but then you realize it's just made up of all these little sounds, and there's gaps and changes. It's the same with music as well. Music, when you play the piano, when you play the violin, you play the guitar, there's gaps in there too. So I'm curious, I don't know if this is a me thing or if you experience this too after having these experiences and realizing truth more and more and more. A lot of times I'll turn on music and the different parts of it sound off. Yeah, like the tracks are off, the parts are off. Yeah, yeah. Okay, I didn't break my brain, it's just not good. Yeah, yeah. I think you become a lot less interested in music. Yeah, because it creates emotional

...you know, turmoil in your mind, whereas you just do, oh yeah, I ride it. Now you're just more, I just love it. Yeah. Are you sure it's the music of the current generation that just popped in? Yeah. And you're starting to get a distant chance? Yeah, exactly. A lot of people will experience that too, like we get this earworm, right, just continuously that song. There was a musician friend of mine who said that in order to do away with that earworm is to actually listen to the song itself, and then finally you just... so in other words, what you're doing is you have the craving for that song, and you satisfy that craving, and now you find relief. That's their way of dealing with them. As a musician, I try to find it in your head. Yeah, but isn't that kind of, what was his name, Rita, wasn't that his view? Yes, exactly right, which is not the case. Yeah, that's me. Yeah, well, what was doing what they said was, and you have a earworm, that whatever that song is that keeps popping up in your mind

Listen to that song, actually, meaning put on the tape, put on whatever, and listen to the song, and it goes away. Aversion therapy. I don't know. Well, that's what I'm saying. They're doing it because they have the craving for it, and as a musician they're listening to it, and then only they find relief. But what if you find relief by just letting go completely and not having to deal with it? Well, 6R's. 6R's. Try telling that to the musician. Okay, anyone else? Yes. Wait, so I think you had mentioned how after cessation you know for sure that there was a gap, or did you even say that you knew that there was a gap? Something happened where there was, oh, like, there was... I was there and then I wasn't there. I see. But that's also, you can't be sure that that's also just a feeling, right? So, oh, you'll be sure of it, but the way you know it, just do like

Do you only know it after you come out of it? Yeah, I just... it's like also, like, in the picking point, but let's say, no, I think you're making a valid point, which is the only way you could know they're certain is, like, the clock. You know, some time has passed, because it is ultimately a memory, right? But then in that case you'd have to actually go into cessation and come out and say how much time has passed in between the two. Yeah, I'm just, objectively that's the only way you can know for sure. For sure. Objectively, the only way. If there is somebody outside with you, what's happening, because you will not realize when you stop it, when you recover. So everybody needs headbands now.

You need an external observer and many monitoring on your body, otherwise it's impossible. Yeah, we need more of that, right, David? We need to get more of those next retreat. It's kind of like when you go under anesthesia and come up, you're like, whoa, right? Yeah, it was again. Yeah, but the difference is you never remember where you go in. It's like, yeah, you don't... there's no going in, there's only coming out, because everything's stopped and the perception of going in somewhere

is not there, because that you perceive coming out, because you are, you exist, coming out. No, plus, when you do come out, that intense experience that you have after that completely is like, where did that come from? Yeah, how did that happen? This is not the same. Yeah, this is not the same. Yeah. So we were talking about all those complicated things, but in the end what we want is this change of personality. Yes, right, change your perception, perspective. Yeah. So how about you, because you're young and you can. What in mundane, or in language, what changes you in life? The perspective, the view, that's the main thing

That changed now. That's all very subjective. That's the other thing. And there's all this idea of, let's put a sotapana, let's put somebody, let's put this person or that person under an MRI and under all that. Okay, fine, do it. But how can you objectively say that this is what it is, that these are the markers of a sotapana, these are the markers of this academy, because it's the subjective experience? Even if you could take that and say, okay, we've done the MRI scans, and you said, this is what it means to have a mind without craving, this is what it means to have a mind without conceit, this is what it means, and so on, and so fine, and you can replicate it, maybe you have neurofeedback machines, maybe you have these things that can zap your brain into that, or you take a jhana pill, as somebody once talked about, or whatever it might be, fine, you have that experience, but where is the wisdom?

So what has changed is the wisdom, the view, the insight, the knowing. It's the very beginning. Yeah, having let go of that, and everything else changes. Yeah, because people get too caught up on, oh, mine's gonna come to a stop. All we need to do is get it to stop, you know? But when it comes to a stop, it understands things, and that's the change. Yeah, not the stop. Otherwise we could just stop your brain by zapping it, would give you multiple cessations. What was the question? So that's perspective changes, and so you no longer, you no longer see things in the same way, which means your experience of everything is just, you see everything exactly as your sixth sense basis experiences, but you also see things as they are, which is there's no longer that veil, that filter system of, I have to have this, I have to have that, I need to do this, I need to do that. And this might sound super mundane, but mundane, I think it's mundane, is you notice that

if you have no more of I have to do this, I have to do that, whatever is required for in that moment is provided for, so there's complete relaxation. Nothing to do, nowhere to be, nowhere to go. They tell you to do this, you go do this, you come back, that's it. Tell you to sit here, give a talk, give a talk, that's it. That's it. Relaxation, relaxation, relief, relief, relief. So there's no sense of I have to achieve this, there's no sense of in the next 20 years I want to be known as this kind of Dhamma teacher, or all of this nonsense. Well, I think maybe you're looking for the first path here, right, which becoming isn't given up at that point. Yeah, right. In that first path you let go of

any belief in a personal self, which means you no longer can see like there's some kind of a soul there. You just understand that, yeah, this is all impersonal, and there's no question about whether this path is right or not. Just, yeah, this is the path. And sure, maybe before you like to light some candles or light some incense or whatever, but you're not doing it out of some ritual because it's going to take you to nirvana. You just do it because you enjoy it. But there's no longer any clinging to rites and rituals. You replace something that you took personally previously.

And then you look at, you laugh at it, and you go, why did I take that personally? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Your memories change completely. So with that first path, when you do have craving and you do have aversion, you start to notice it, and you laugh at yourself. You're like, why did I take that personally? And you let that go.

Sometimes. Right. But more often than you did before. There's a certain vacuum away from everything. Right. Just kind of, it's still there, but it's, yeah. You want to apologize to everyone that you may suffer, but you're still engaged in the world. So where are you deriving your motivation from? What's blowing your hair back? What's making you want to write a book and do as well as you do here in what you do? Are you talking about in the first path, what happens? So in the first path you're still motivated by things. You're still motivated by the desire to do this or the desire to do that, and so

if somebody had let go of complete desire to become, let's say if somebody had let go of any desire to be, then they're motivated by two things, actually: wisdom and compassion, which means that they see things as they are, and so whatever is required for that situation, they do so in a compassionate way. They don't have any kind of, so in that sense, whenever they're doing things that are required for that moment in the best way possible, then it all works out. There's no craving there. There's no grasping there. There's no need to do something, or there's no need to prove yourself there. There's no need to seek the approval of others. Just the doing, there's just the doing. No personal gain, no looking for an outcome from that doing. And actually, when you do that, then everything seems excellent.

You're not trying to be excellent, you're just doing what is required, and to other people that seems to be excellent effort, effortless. Your definition of wisdom? Well, really, wisdom is understanding and seeing the links of dependent origination, but the application of the wisdom, which is to see everything as it actually is. Always understanding that this is not me, not mine, not myself. Always seeing it as an impersonal process.

And the compassionate aspect of that is understanding that not everybody sees it in this way. All right, let's hear something. May suffering once be suffering free. May the fear struck be fearless. May the grieving shadow weep, and may all beings find relief. May all beings share this merit that we have thus required for the acquisition of all kinds of happiness. May beings inhabit in space and the earth, devas and nagas of mighty power, share the spirit of ours. May they long protect the Buddha's dispensation. Salud.