Zoom Talk MN 22 Simile of the Snake -with Delson Armstrong

I'm not going to be affected by them, and I'm not going to attach to them, or I'm not going to have aversion to them. But having that kind of a view, as we'll see, is a pernicious view, because it can cause a person to act on their underlying tendencies and therefore cause the arising of craving, clinging, being, and so on. Because what we have to understand is that the feeling, whether it's painful, pleasant, or neutral, is just a feeling. It's how you react to the feeling which will determine whether there will be any kind of craving or clinging. But here this person Arittha is under the idea or under the impression that if he engages with them, he makes it something more than what it is, which is just an impersonal feeling, and engages with them by taking them personally. It's not going to affect him. But we'll see what goes on. Several bhikkhus, having heard about this, went to the bhikkhu Arittha and asked him, "Friend Arittha, is it true that such a pernicious view has arisen in you?"

These can be found in Majjhima Nikaya 54, and the Buddha goes through each of them to explain how they are in relation to sensual pleasures. Now, if I remember correctly, the butcher's knife and block, and the one with the sword stake and the snake's head, is probably in the sutta right after this, which is the Anthill Sutta. But we'll go through it little by little. Yet although pressed, questioned and cross-questioned by those bhikkhus, Bhikkhu Arittha, 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, sat down at one side and told him all that had occurred, adding, "Venerable Sir, since we could not detach Bhikkhu Arittha, 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 Bhikkhu Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, in my name that the Teacher calls him." "Yes, Venerable Sir," he replied. And he went to Bhikkhu Arittha and told him, "The Teacher calls you, friend Arittha." "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, "Arittha, is it true that this 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."

much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more. But you, misguided man, by your wrong grasp have misrepresented us, injured yourself, and stored up much demerit. For this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time." So this whole process of dressing down Arittha in this way is very similar to Majjhima Nikaya 38, where Sati, son of a fisherman, has the view that consciousness is unified and is one consciousness that transmigrates from one lifetime to the next. So this is very similar in terms of the way it's structured. But here we are talking about Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, as he's known.

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think? Has this bhikkhu Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, kindled even a spark of wisdom in this Dhamma and discipline?" "How could he, Venerable Sir? No, Venerable Sir." When this was said, Bhikkhu Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, 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 own pernicious view. I shall question the bhikkhus on this matter." Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus, do you understand the Dhamma taught by me as this bhikkhu Arittha, formerly of the vulture killers, does, when by his wrong grasp he misrepresents us, injures himself, and stores up much demerit?" "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 sensual pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them is still more."

"For this will lead to this misguided man's harm and suffering for a long time. Because that one can engage in sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perceptions of sensual desires, without thoughts of sensual desire, that is impossible." So let's break that down. He says that one can engage in sensual pleasures without sensual desires, without perception of sensual desire, without thoughts of sensual desire, and that is impossible.

So we understand from the scope of dependent origination that feeling, whether it's painful, pleasant, or neutral, can give rise to craving, but that is only if you engage in those experiences. And when we say engage, we're being very specific here. What we're saying is taking that feeling, that sensual experience, as being personal. Once you start taking it personal, there is craving liable to arise.

There is aversion liable to arise. There is further identification with that experience. And that brings about the perceptions of that craving, aversion, or identification. And so there will be thoughts of that sensual desire in the form of clinging. This is really what the Buddha is talking about. When you take a feeling to be personal, whatever feeling it might be, if you take it to be personal, then you are no longer having mindfulness of it. You're taking it personal, you're taking it as me, mine, or myself.

And in doing so, you bring up conceit, you bring up ignorance, you bring up craving, and therefore there are the thoughts. And when you talk about thoughts or thinking, that process of thinking happens in the link of clinging, which starts the ideation and conceptualization process of why it is that you like what you like, or why what you don't like is what you don't like, and so on and so forth. Now we're going to get into the simile of the snake.

Before we do, what's also important to understand is sensual desire or sensual pleasures, as we're reading about. This is really in regards to the five physical senses. The Buddha calls the five physical senses the cords of sensual pleasures. But it's through the mind, through the mental realm, that you experience higher pleasures, higher mental good feelings, which come in the form of love and kindness, for example, or compassion, or joy, or equanimity, and ultimately give you the experience of the factors of the jhanas. The more somebody is able to do this, the more somebody actually really is able to master the jhanas and experience the jhanas in such a way that they will see sensual pleasures in a way that is less interesting.

The more they're in jhana, the less the sensual pleasures become interesting, and eventually there's a level of disenchantment with sensual experiences that they no longer are engaged with as me, mine or myself. So that means the collectedness has given rise to an experience of disenchantment, and that disenchantment continues to inform the mindfulness in every moment when there is an experience, so that somebody is aware of the three characteristics of existence of that experience.

Meaning that experience is impermanent and not worth holding on to and therefore not me, mine, or myself. When that happens, a person does not react towards the underlying tendency, towards aversion or a craving or ignorance or any of the other seven underlying tendencies. When that happens, they won't have craving and therefore they won't have clinging, being, and the rest of suffering.

So, to hear some misguided men learn the Dhamma and so on because of, and they're not able to grasp it because of the wrong grasp of those teachings. So really what this is pointing out to is the fact that you might go to the suttas, you might go to the Jataka tales, you might go to the commentaries and other places and read. And then that's really just intellectual knowledge. That's really just book learning.

And that can give rise to clinging to views as well. And we're not talking about clinging to wrong view, but clinging even to right view, clinging to the intellectual understanding of right view. And there are different levels and subtleties of clinging to right view. One of them is through this experience, and the other is through having seen the Dhamma, experienced the Dhamma, and still having some amount of clinging to the Dhamma in the form of seeing the Dhamma as being me, mine, or myself. This is what happens with the anagami. They take the Dhamma and they make it something more than just an experience to be able to let go of suffering, and so there's reverence for the Dhamma and so on. When you look at in the pura boats, all of the anagamis at the pura boats, they have wonderful reverence for the Buddha, wonderful reverence for the Dhamma, wonderful reverence for the Sangha, but they're still attached to the Dhamma as a thing, as a thing to be attached to.

So that's one level of misunderstanding and wrong level of grasping to the teachings. But ultimately, you go from wrong view to right view to clinging to no views. In other words, you no longer even identified with the understanding of the penitentiary nation or the experience of the Dhamma. But here, what they're specifically talking about is people who read the suttas without any kind of experience as such. In other words, they will read the suttas and interpret it in a certain way for the sake of having critical thinking and debates and things like that. This happened a lot in ancient India, where people would go through the different Vedas and different Upanishads, and they would actually have debates, and they thought it was for the welfare of the people, because people would learn from those debates.

But some of those debates became basically grounds for clinging to certain views. There was even a story of how there was a debate that went on where if somebody lost that debate, they would have to then toss themselves into the river. And so all of these things for the sake of just trying to prove I'm right and you're wrong, all of these things, they continue to strengthen the clinging of wrong to the right view, and they continue to need to. You're taking the Dhamma as something to have to be proven. You're taking the Dhamma as something that needs to be debated about rather than experienced, and as a tool to let go of suffering and cease suffering altogether.

Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search of a snake, saw a large snake and caught it swiftly with a cleft stick. Having done so, he grasped it rightly by the neck. Then, although the snake might wrap its coils around his hand or his arms or his limbs, still he would not come to death or deadly suffering because of that. Why is that? Because of his right grasp of the snake. So, to hear some clansmen learn of the Dhamma and so on, but they grasp rightly because of the right grasp of the 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. Now, this is very important to understand what they're saying. What he's saying is they examine those teachings, or the meaning of those teachings, with wisdom and gain a reflective acceptance of them.

And whenever we have the word wise or wisdom, what we are talking about is the experience of the Four Noble Truths and the experience of dependent origination. Your experience will inform you how to interpret, let's say, the suttas. And what I mean by that is sometimes you'll go to a certain sutta, and you'll read it, and you have no idea what is being talked about, or you have very little understanding of what's going on, whatever it is that they're talking about. But the more you are able to meditate and go into jhana and experience these things for yourself, you're seeing them for yourself, how this process arises, how you let go of the hindrances with the 6R's, how the smiling strengthens the mindfulness, and then ultimately seeing how the links of dependent origination arise, seeing the tiny formations, seeing the tiny consciousnesses arise and pass away, and so on.

All of this is from direct experience. And that direct experience equals wisdom. And so when you go back to the teachings, when you go back to the reading of the suttas, you go back with a different understanding. It's like the experience has unlocked a kind of code which helps you decipher the meaning of the suttas and because of that as the buddha says they gain a reflective acceptance of them so when you read the suttas just take them for what they are but you don't have to accept them just do it yourself see for yourself how this process works and then by that your experience will help you to confirm what is being taught or talked about in the suttas so don't read the suttas because you want to be book smart

Because 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, 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 his 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.

Suppose I were to haul it onto the dry land and set it adrift in the water and then go wherever I want. Now, bhikkhus, it is by doing so that the man would be doing what should be done with that raft. 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.

Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you should abandon even the teachings, how much more so contrary, so how much more so things contrary to the teachings. So in other words, when you experience something wonderful in jhana, or whenever you experience something like the way of wisdom, you have an attainment or see the links of dependent origination, that's wonderful, but don't make it a big deal. Don't get attached to it. Don't make that a source of grasping. Don't make the Dhamma a source of grasping. The Dhamma, the experience of the Dhamma, is for letting go of suffering. If you grasp wrongly and start clinging to the Dhamma, there is still some suffering that will arise. It won't be through any kind of sensual craving, but it can be for clinging to the Dhamma, clinging to right view.

It can be for craving to be in a certain state, whether it's a jhana or any other kind of experience rooted in the Dhamma. And when that happens, then there is a self which connects with that Dhamma, which makes that Dhamma as me or mine or myself. And because of that, there are views that arise that need to be defended.

There are insights that arise that need to be defended. There are concepts and ideas which then become sources for debates and quarrels and all kinds of things. And when you notice this, if you notice this in your own practice, that you have a tendency to criticize somebody who says something about the Dhamma because they have wrong understanding, instead of saying, well, have you considered it this way? Have you thought about it this way? Or, you know, I've heard about it in this way. So there is a way, there's a method, in understanding the Dhamma and being able to explain the Dhamma in a way that is kind and courteous and intentionally wholesome. But if you go ahead and become proud and conceited about the Dhamma and say, no, this is the only way I know it to be, and this is the way you should be doing it, then you are clinging to views. And so now that is the wrong grasping of the teachings. And so the Buddha says, Bhikkhus, there are these six standpoints for views. What are the standpoints?

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. He regards feelings: thus this is mine, this I am, this is myself. He regards perception: thus this is mine, this I am, this is myself. He regards formations: thus this is mine, this I am, this is myself. He regards what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, sought, mentally pondered: thus this is mine, this I am, this is myself. So the last is really all about consciousness, awareness of what is seen, awareness of what is heard, awareness of the other six sense... the rest of the sixth sense basis, and so on. And this standpoint for views, namely

namely that which is the self is the world: after I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, I shall endure as long as eternity. This too he regards: thus this is mine, this I am, this is myself. So this is that viewpoint, that eternalist viewpoint, where I am the atman, I am the self, and when I die according to this view, when I die, I will become one with Brahman, one with cosmic consciousness, and I will be forever immortal and eternal, and so on. But there's a lot of inconsistencies in that view, because that view considers there to be a permanent self. And if self, by definition, is supposed to be permanent and everlasting and unchanging, then you cannot consider any of these, including the view of this idea of the personal permanent self, to be permanent. You cannot, because material form continues to change.

Feelings continue to change in every moment. Perceptions continue to change in every moment. Formations and consciousnesses arise and pass away in every moment. And so that cannot be considered to be self. The view itself, that there is a self that is permanent and everlasting, arises as a form of a mental idea that is subject to be experienced through the process of the mind. And whatever is tied to the experience of the sixth sense basis, which includes the mind, is dependent upon causes and conditions. And whatever is dependent upon the sixth sense basis

is liable to change. And therefore, even this idea is liable to change. It cannot be considered something that is independent or outside the scope of dependent origination. Bhikkhu, is 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. He regards feeling: thus this is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself. He regards perception: thus this is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself.

consciousness. If you are experiencing it, you are experiencing it within the scope of the sixth sense basis, namely the mind, if it's a mental experience, and you take that to be something as self or mine or myself and so on, then when you grasp it, you have it. When it goes away, you realize, I don't have it anymore. And that is liable to cause suffering. But if somebody grasps it correctly, which is actually through not grasping, that is to say, understanding correctly that this experience is just tied to the experience of mind, and therefore should not be worth holding onto because it is impersonal. It is not mine. It is not me. It is not myself.

And they won't have any kind of ideas about something being there, something not being there, having been there, gone. They just see that as an impersonal process. So when they see it this way, they won't have any craving, they won't have any clinging, they won't have any being, they won't have birth of new karma, new action, and therefore further suffering, and so on.

so I shall perish, so I shall be no more. Then he sorrows, grieves, and laments. He weeps, beating his breast, and becomes distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent internally. Venerable sir, can there be no agitation about what is non-existent internally? There can be, bhikkhu, the Blessed One said. Here, the bhikkhu does not have the view that which is the self is the world, and I shall endure as long as eternity. He hears that the Tathagata or the disciple of the Tathagata is teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all standpoints, decisions

So here, first, we talked about externally, this idea of a cosmic consciousness or this idea of some kind of larger self. There's also the idea of the Atman. There is that which exists internally within the body, controlling everything that's going on. This is really what the Upanishads talk about. They say that the hearer, the seer, the one who listens, the one who smells and tastes and so on, is the Atman, is the soul.

And just a brief aside, Bahiya of the bark cloth was somebody who had that understanding from the Upanishads, that the seeing, the seer, and so on, the cognizing, the cognizer, and so on, these are all part of self, part of atman. And the Buddha understood this when he came to the Buddha, he asked him to give him the teaching to become an arahant. And the Buddha said, in the heard there is only the heard. In the seeing there is only the seen. In the sensing there's only the sensed. In the cognizing there's only the cognized. When there is no self before that, when there is no self in it or any self after it, then that just is the cessation of suffering. So in the same way, here, what the Buddha is saying: somebody has a standpoint or the view that I am the self, I am the independent self that is not able to be killed, and so on and so forth. And so when they come across this understanding of the Dhamma and Nibbana, they take that to be annihilationism.

And when that happens, they see this as being an annihilationist view. But in truth, the idea that there was a self and then the self is destroyed and so on is a wrong view. Because in truth, the idea of a self in itself is dependent upon causes and conditions. Take away and cease the causes and conditions and there is no self to begin with. But that understanding, that insight into the experience of anatta, doesn't lead to annihilationism. It leads to the cessation of suffering. So somebody doesn't hold that view. That's what's going to happen. They can correctly grasp the teaching and see this: that it doesn't matter whether there is a self or not self. That's not a question to be looked at. That's not a question to be understood.

The question should be, how does cessation, how does suffering arise and how does it cease? Because it's in the process of dependent origination, where things are taken personal as self, that the craving arises, and then through that process, the clinging and the being, and then from that sense of self, the action that arises is liable to cause suffering. But when you see it for what it really is, that this whole process is impersonal, you're not going to be causing yourself suffering, or yourself meaning you're not going to have suffering. There's not going to be an experience of suffering, because I won't be creating clinging or being or any of the links that lead to suffering in that sense. So when you're in the practice, when you're deep in quiet mind, oftentimes there will be some kind of a fear that arises just before cessation happens. And that is the clinging of conceit, that is the formation of I am.

That subtlest formation of I am is what causes the fear, because you're still taking this to be an impersonal process, and that clutching to it, when you feel like you're falling, when you feel like everything is going to cease. There are people who describe it in such a way that they feel like they're going to die. And why they say that, or why they feel that, is because they're still coming from that sense of self. So when you do come across this experience of cessation just before, let go.

See the fear as being arising because of that subtle formation of I am, and just relax it and let it go, and keep letting it go. And there won't be any fear, and there won't be any reaction to that experience prior to the cessation of perception, feeling and consciousness. When there is no fear, there won't be any agitation. There won't be any clinging to it, clinging to this false notion of self that prevents you, or prevents the mind, from experiencing the sensation of suffering. Because that's where that wrong view of self is holding onto the idea that if I let go now, I'm no longer going to be alive. And that's true, because the self

is impermanent. The idea of consciousness arises and passes away is an understanding that the self, as you understand the self to be, is impermanent. It arises and passes away in every moment. And eventually, having actually seen for yourself that this is an impersonal process, you no longer put any kind of notion of self to it, and you ultimately experience the cessation of perception, feeling and consciousness. Because you may well acquire that possession that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as long as eternity.

But do you see any such possession? Because no, venerable sir. That's an interesting question. So the Buddha starts off with saying, you may well acquire that possession. It's almost like a trick question. And he says, do you see that? And they say, no, venerable sir. Good. Because I too do not see any possession that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as long as eternity. Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. Again, it's a quick question. Do you see any such doctrine of self, Bhikkhus? No, venerable sir. Good. Bhikkhus, I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it.

Bhikkhus, you may well take as a support that view that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who takes it as a support. But do you see any such supportive views, Bhikkhus? No, venerable sir. Good, Bhikkhus. I too do not see any support for views that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who takes it as a support. That means even right view, you don't want to take as a support.

See it as the raft. It gets you across to the other shore, gets you away from suffering and ceases suffering. And that's basically what it's used for. Don't use that as a standpoint, as a foundation from which you cling to that view. 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,

Suffering, venerable sir. Is what is impermanent, suffering and subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: This is mine, this I am, this is myself? No, venerable sir. Because what do you think? Is feeling, is perception, are formations, is consciousness permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, venerable sir. Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness? Suffering, venerable sir. Is what is impermanent, suffering and subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: This is mine, this I am, this is myself? No, venerable sir. Therefore, Bhikkhus, any form or any kind of material form, whatever, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all material form should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom.

Thus, this is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself. Any kind of feeling whatsoever, any kind of perception, any kind of formations, any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness and the rest of the aggregates, that is to say feeling, perception and formations, should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom. Thus, this is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself. Seeing thus, because a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with formations, disenchanted with consciousness. Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through this dispassion, his mind is liberated. So what we're talking about here is, yes, you might see formations arise in your practice when you get to the quiet mind, but eventually all of these things just become disinteresting. They become uninteresting anymore.

So because of that there's disenchantment, and you're no longer interested in any of that. You're now just with your object, and you'll let go of any kind of formation of I am. You're not even disinterested in it, you're disenchanted with that as well. And eventually that leads to this passion, and through that dispassion there is cessation of perception, feeling and consciousness, and then there can be the mind that is liberated.

And so when it is liberated, there comes a knowledge it is liberated. And so one understands birth is destroyed. Birth is destroyed in the sense that there is not going to, there's not going to be any more new action that is liable to cause new karma. The liberated mind sees all experiences as old karma, and therefore doesn't hold on to it because it sees it as being impersonal sees it as being impermanent because it sees it that way it won't have any kind of clinging it won't have any kind of grasping onto any underlying tendency because that's the case there won't be any kind of craving there won't be any kind of clinging and therefore there won't be any kind of being from which there can be birth of new karma birth of new action and ultimately on the macro level no more rebirth that is how birth is destroyed the holy one has been lived what had to be done has been done there is no more coming to any state of being because in truth the arahat has destroyed all all experience of clinging to a sense of self in relation

to any of the five aggregates. There is a definition of being in the suttas, which is: one is considered a being when there is any kind of identification in relation to any of the five aggregates. But the arahat sees the I guess as they really are, which is impersonal. So there is no more being in that mind. There is no sense of being in that mind. There's nothing to defend. There's nothing to try to hold on to. There's nothing that is to be taken personal.

There's so much relief and freedom in such a mind. This bhikkhu 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. 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.

That is how the bhikkhu is one whose crossbar has been lifted. When we talk about ignorance, we're talking about not understanding the four noble truths, choosing not to see the four noble truths in every moment, and that is because of lack of mindfulness. Every time the mind slips and doesn't have mindfulness, it adds energy back to the taint of ignorance, and therefore continues to add strength to the link of ignorance, which continues to influence the formations that arise. But every time you 6R you regain your mindfulness, every time you are mindful in the sense of seeing how your attention moves, how the mind's attention moves, and are able to see that process as being impersonal and not taking it as a self, seeing it as impermanent. That attention, yoniso manasikara, that's what I call attention rooted in reality, because it's rooted in the understanding that this experience right now is impersonal, that this experience right now is impermanent, and therefore not worth holding on to. Every time a person or a being or a mind sees it in this way

then such a being has cut off any kind of repeated patterns. When we think about rebirth, rebirth is really on different levels. There is a rebirth when we talk about the arising and passing away of consciousnesses in every moment. There is a larger level of rebirth from one lifetime to another. But there's a rebirth that arises when you see that you start to become acquainted with the same kind of people and the same kind of situations.

Rebirth is another way of looking at insanity, the definition of which is doing the same thing over and over and again, expecting a different result. So you find yourself in certain kinds of patterns or certain kinds of situations that you were in before. And if you have ignorance and you're not able to see what that process is, which is impersonal and permanent, and hold on to it and continue to react to it, there's liable to be rebirth of those similar situations.

But the moment you let go of it, you're not holding on to them and you're seeing them as being impersonal. Then you're whittling away at the old karma of these situations. Eventually, if they arise again, they won't be seen as me, mine, or myself, and eventually you won't be dealing with such situations because the old karma is completely run out.

That is my possession. I like it because it makes me feel good. I don't like it because it's painful. Or I identify in this way. This is really craving. But the arahant is one who takes everything as impersonal, and so even a pleasant experience or a painful experience, it might hurt the body, but there won't be any agitation there, there won't be any aggravation, there won't be any irritation, because they're not taking the body, they're not taking the mind, they're not taking anything as self, and so they have abandoned craving altogether.

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. This is how the bhikkhu is one who has no bolt. We talk about the five lower fetters. When they have been abandoned, then you become an anagami. That means when you become a sotapanna, you let go of any kind of intellectual belief in a personal self. You understand that this is indeed an impersonal process. You let go of any doubt in the teaching, or that this is the path leading to nirvana, and you let go of any kind of rites or rituals, or clinging to any kind of rites and rituals with the belief that they will take you to nirvana. When you become a sakadagami, you weaken the fetter of sensual craving and you weaken the fetter of aversion.

When you become an anagami, you have no sensual craving coming up at all and you have no aversion coming up at all. With the sakadagami, they might experience the arising of craving just a little bit, but then they're able to immediately recognize it and 6R it. With the anagami, it doesn't happen at all. It doesn't come up at all. So this is one who has abandoned the five lower fetters. And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered?

Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the conceit 'I am', has cut it off at the root so that it is no longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered. Think about the five higher fetters. These are restlessness, craving for form realms, craving for being in formless realms, conceit, and ignorance. Now, conceit is already destroyed once you completely understand the four noble truths and no longer take anything to be personal. But that's ignorance. Ignorance allows you to see the truth of the moment, that is to say, you're able to see it in the context of the four noble truths. You understand suffering, you've abandoned the craving that leads to suffering, you experience the cessation of suffering, and you have perfected the eightfold path that leads to the cessation of suffering.

This is how ignorance is done away with. Now, the other three fetters, the restlessness, the craving for being in a form realm, the craving for being in a formless realm, is actually dependent upon conceit. So when you cut off conceit, it's like a house of cards. The other fetters of restlessness, of craving to be in a form realm and the craving to be in a formless realm, completely demolish, like a house of cards.

So that's because that sense of 'I am' arises when you want to be in a jhana, or you desire to be in a jhana or in a form realm, you desire to be in a rupa jhana or in a formless realm, or you just have agitation with identifying with something, which could be even the Dhamma itself, that this Dhamma is mine. That's the conceit. That's the restlessness that arises, the agitation from taking that to be mine. When the conceit goes away, those lower three fetters and the five higher fetters, that restlessness, that craving to be in a form, the craving to be in a formless realm, those become destroyed. Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, that is to say Sakka, in the Tavatimsa heaven, with Brahma, and with Pajapati, seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find anything of which they could say, 'The consciousness of the one thus gone is supported by this.' Why is that? The one thus gone, I say, is untraceable here and now.

mind cannot be understood completely at all they can't it cannot be traced by the devas or by the Brahmas. That mind is empty of any kind of clinging, empty of any kind of conceit and ignorance. When you think about the mind of an arahat, there is no sense of being. If there is no sense of being, how could there be a support for this idea of such a person being able to be found? There's no more person or personality in the sense of a self or wrong view of self arising in such a mind.

If you were to, let's say, hook up an arahant to the EEG or any other brainwave detector, or whatever it might be, of course, there's activity in that mind, because there's contact, there's feeling, and there's perception. But there won't be any sense of self. There won't be any more conceit. There's not going to be any kind of ignorance.

So I will venture to say that in that sense, when you do an fMRI of a possible arahant, you won't see certain kinds of networks in the brain that would be active, networks associated with craving, networks associated with identification, networks associated with the wandering mind. The arahant's mind is completely empty. It's completely void of any kind of fetter. So because of this, it is completely untraceable in that sense.

So saying, bhikkhus, so proclaiming: 'I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray. He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being.' As I am not, as I do not proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray. He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being. But because both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. Whenever the Buddha says 'I teach suffering and the cessation of suffering', he's talking about the arising of dependent origination, that is to say the arising from ignorance all the way to suffering. When he says suffering, when he says cessation of suffering, he's talking about the cessation of the links of dependent origination.

the cessation of craving which leads to the cessation of suffering. The cessation of clinging, the cessation of being, the cessation of ignorance, the cessation of conceit, and so on. The cessation of formations fettered by conceit, craving, and ignorance, that is the cessation of suffering. If others abuse, revile, scold, and harass the Tathagata for that, the Tathagata on that account feels no annoyance, bitterness, or dejection of the heart. And if others honor, respect, revere, and venerate the Tathagata for that, the Tathagata on that account feels no delight, joy, or elation of the heart. If others honor, respect, revere, and venerate the Tathagata for that, the Tathagata on that account thinks thus: they perform such services as these for me in regard to this which earlier was fully understood.

there is no future round for manifestation in the case of those bhikkhus who are arahats with destroyed taints, who have lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached their own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and are completely liberated through final knowledge. Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me thus is clear, free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me thus, which is clear, free of patchwork, those bhikkhus who have abandoned the five lower fetters, that is to say Anagamis, are all due to reappear spontaneously in the pure abodes, and there attain Parinibbana, final Nibbana, without ever returning from that world. Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me thus is free, clear, free of patchwork.

So, Dhamma followers and faith followers, those are those who have some experience with impermanence and are bound for, uh, violent libana. They are stream-enterers, actually, because they have investigated, and the faculty of the Dhamma, in terms of understanding the Dhamma, is strong in the Dhamma followers, and with the faith followers their faculty of faith is stronger, and so they are called faith followers. 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. These are beings who have conviction in the Triple Gem, conviction in the Buddha, and they maintain their precepts, but they haven't had an attainment yet.

They haven't deeply understood through wisdom and insight and experience through the process of the jhanas, through the path to Nibbana. And such beings will, because of their virtue, because of their faith and conviction, they are liable or they can be headed for the deva realms, for the in the sixth century's heavenly realms. This is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words. Oh, does anyone have any questions? - Nelson?

Hi, Anthera. How are you doing? Good, thanks. Thank you very much for that reading and discussion. I really appreciate it. Now, thinking about the simile of the raft, and my question is, in taking the Triple Gem, which we do before sitting, what attitude is appropriate in taking the Triple Gem? Yeah. Well, for one, when we go on retreat and we have the taking of refuge in the Triple Gem and taking the five precepts or the eight precepts or whatever that might be, or at home,

It should be seen not as rites and rituals. It should be seen as a foundation for an uplifted mind. As soon as you take reverence for that, there is an uplifted mind, which is primed for meditation. When you take the precepts, you make a commitment to remember to follow the precepts, and that causes your mind to be uplifted, and that creates the grounds for a very good meditation practice.

So I would say, you know, even for someone who has crossed the other shore and let go of the raft, that doesn't mean that they don't have reverence for the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. They definitely will still have it, but they even see the Buddha as being obviously not self. They see the Dhamma as also being not self. They see the Sangha as well as being not self. But there is still appreciation. There's still gratitude. There's still reverential understanding that the Buddha went through such an experience, went through such a journey. And for that, they have gratitude and appreciation.

That the Dhamma is so wonderful and effective that it leads to this experience of arahatship. And for that, they have gratitude. And that there is a Sangha, a community, that continues to maintain that tradition and can be a community of like-minded thinkers where there can be discussion and meditation. And for that, there is reverential appreciation and gratitude.

But it seems to me that crossing the river with the raft and letting go of the raft, that happens when you become an Arahat. Before you become an arahat you're still clinging to the raft because you haven't finished the journey. Yeah, yeah. So, as long as somebody is clinging to the raft, which is to say, as long as somebody is taking the Dhamma to be personal, making things or concepts in the Dhamma that one understands as being a big deal and seeing it more than it actually is, rather than just a raft to let you lead to the cessation of suffering.

And that person still has clinging. And that person is not an arahat. Right, right. However, if you're not an arahat, that is clinging to the raft, clinging to the Dhamma, because without doing that, you're going to fall into the stream, into the stream, and not ever get across. Yes, seems like so. So what I'm taking away from this is that taking the Triple Gem, whether you're just a worldly being or whether you're an arahat, you take it with a sense of gratitude. This is, yes, yes, this is how I understand it.

Nelson, I have a question for you. Yes. Can we talk a little bit about the Nagas? Oh, there we go. Can you give some explanation of what Naga means and what these Nagas are, what the Naga realm is, and are they here? Well, they're not here in this room right now. Nagas are known not only in Buddhism but also in ancient India. They were known as these beings who resided in what is known as the realm of the four great kings, but they can be experienced in this particular realm, which is to say the human plane of existence, and Nagas

are basically reptilian in nature, or they're snake-like beings, and that's why even the snakes in India are known in some ways as nagas or nagini, nagini being the female form, and the reason being is because the snakes or reptiles have a certain cold-blooded attitude about things. In the same way, the nagas are not able to experience loving kindness, not able to experience warmer emotions. They're cold and calculating, and they're very protective of the Dhamma. Interestingly enough, they have reverence and so on, but it's a very

cold and calculating way of doing it. Now, the nagas are also shapeshifters. So, shapeshifters in the sense like you have this concept of the reptilians and things like that? They can shapeshift. Absolutely, they can shapeshift. That's why we talked about this last time, I think, where one of the questions that is asked when you ordain is, are you an animal or are you a naga pretending to be or impersonating a human?

For the very fact that there is a story where there was a naga who impersonated a human, took ordination, and then late at night, when he was asleep, he changed back to his usual naga form, which is pretty scary. I mean, it looks like a reptilian. They have very weird snake-like eyes and scaly skin and all kinds of reptilian features, so that definitely scared some of the monks. And there was a rule in the Vinaya that that's one of the questions that should be asked, which is, are you a naga? But there's another understanding that arahants are also known as nagas, not for the fact that they are reptilian or anything like that, not for the fact that they are cold and calculating. It's because naga is a contraction of two words in Sanskrit and Pali.

So the na, which is no, and guna means innocent or good. So aguna means not innocent or guilty or blameworthy. And so when you contract these two, it's na, aguna, naga, one who is blameless and innocent, meaning they have no more fetters, they have no more conceit or other kinds of fetters that can cause them to be blameworthy of an action. That's one understanding. Now, are the reptilians here? Are the nagas here? I mean, I've heard stories of them being in Walmart. Somebody told me that they saw them at a Walmart, but I can neither confirm nor deny that. But you can encounter them. There was a story I was saying that one time while I was in Cambodia.

Now, this is one of those really weird stories, so you can take it with a grain of salt, and if you want to believe it you can believe it, if you don't want to believe it that's okay. But I was staying at my dad's hotel, and he had this guy who was working for him, and he just gave off this really cold calculating vibes, very on the surface, not very warm, things like that. And I had a realization that this person is actually a naga, and I actually, weirdly enough, confronted them about it, and they said yes. And they left. They just went away. They realized, okay, I'm caught, I might as well go. So they're around. They can appear in human form, and it's possible that you might encounter one but you won't know it. If you really look for certain kinds of elements of what makes up a naga, you wouldn't really know it. I mean, the black eyes.

Well, they can have black eyes, they can have snake-like eyes, like the reptilian features, those kinds of things. So, nagas will have different colored eyes and things like that. But yeah, you're talking about the children of the black eyes who have nothing but the black eyes. They can appear in that way too. In the same way, you see snakes with different colored eyes as well, you'll see in the same way for nagas. Hi, Delson.

Thank you for your talk. It's insightful, as always. Nice to see you. I'm wondering if you can elaborate a little bit on suffering. And the reason why I ask is because I came across the sutta a few years ago, where the Buddha says, Bhikkhu, is both formally now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. And so that spoke to me a few years ago. I was like, great, suffering around work, suffering around raising kids, lay life, all these things that I consider suffering.

But with the explanation today, it seemed like the Buddha is talking about the idea of suffering is much more narrow in some ways, even though there's a lot more to it. In other words, what I thought of as suffering when I first came to this path seems to be like not quite what the Buddha's talking about. When I think of, like, I want any of my suffering, I think I don't want any more troubles at work or troubles with my coworkers or, you know, these kinds of mundane sufferings, if you will. But the Buddha seems to be talking about a whole other level or type of suffering. So can, if you can just help, I guess, help me understand what that level is, and if there is a way to bridge what I think of as mundane suffering with what the Buddha is really offering to us?

Yeah, I guess it depends on which sutta you read, but I know that in the greater discourse on the four foundations of mindfulness, which is Digha Nikaya, I can't remember which number it is. It's either 14 or 15. I can't remember which one. But in there, there's a really good explanation of the four foundations of mindfulness. And within that, the four noble truths.

And the Buddha goes and says, he talks about suffering. And he goes through each of the different kinds of suffering. Suffering includes illness. Suffering includes aging. Suffering includes death. Getting what you don't want, not getting what you want. All of these things are suffering. So there's a whole, like, sort of list of things. So you might want to look at it. It's the Maha Satipatthana Sutta. So suffering is also an unpleasant feeling. That's suffering as well, but that's old suffering. That's why I keep delineating it between old and new, which is everything leading up to a feeling, which can be a pleasant or painful or neutral feeling, is old karma. If you add to it by craving for it or averting against it or identifying with it, then there's new suffering in the form of, or new karma in the form of craving, clinging, being birth of action and jarana marana.

But when he talks about, all I teach are these two things, which is suffering and the cessation of suffering, what he's really referring to is dependent origination. So dependent origination, when you see it, you see the four noble truths in every link of dependent origination. If you read Majjhima Nikaya 9, that will show you how clearly that works out.

But the understanding here is, yes, he says, I teach the four noble truths, but just to encapsulate it, he says, I show you how suffering arises through this process of dependent origination. And such suffering can include pleasant feelings that might change into unpleasant feelings, or unpleasant feelings. It can change to different kinds of dukkha, which is like the dukkha dukkha, which is the dukkha of the body, the suffering of the body, suffering of the mind, which is anxiety and depression and not wanting what you want or not getting what you want, getting what you don't want. And all of these things are divided into three different categories of suffering.

There's the dukkha dukkha, there's the viparinama dukkha, and there's the sankhara dukkha. So the dukkha dukkha is really the physical part of that. The viparinama dukkha, well, the physical and mental. The viparinama dukkha is the dukkha of change. The inherent stability, instability of life, which is to say, suffering when you miss a flight. Suffering because your flight got canceled. Suffering because you were in a hot shower and suddenly it became cold. Suffering because you were expecting it to be a sunny day and suddenly it started to rain. All of these are also suffering, and what I'm explaining to you here, in those examples, can be extrapolated from that understanding of suffering in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, that's 22. Okay, in Digha Nikaya 22, you're getting high 22. Thank you. Yes, thank you.

Awesome. I'll go look at those. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Let's see. Delson, I really liked the sutta a lot. Did a really great job on it. And also, the one thing I thought was cool about this sutta, I always thought it was cool, that all of the different examples, the different similes, are mostly about following the instructions and everything works fine.

but if you deviate from the instructions it doesn't work right. Yeah, that's what I was teaching when I was using this in a retreat about a month ago, and also one of the things I stumbled on in this that is kind of cool was nobody is stuck, nobody can say I got stuck. It's I got on this thing about, I had a bunch of people who were saying I'm so stuck, I'm so stuck. I said no, nobody's stuck, and then we talked about what I meant. You know, nobody is stuck. You know what I mean? Yes, you talk about that a little bit. Yeah, I mean, people, you know, when they go on the path and they experience all of these things in jhanas, they might say oh, you know, there was this restlessness that arose and I'm stuck there because of the restlessness. But then, as Monte will say, who is restless, you know, or who is craving, or who wants it to be a certain way.

And really what he's pointing out is the impersonal nature of this process. Not only the impersonal nature of suffering, but even the impersonal nature of the path leading to the cessation of suffering and the cessation of suffering itself. Nirodha and Nibbana is impersonal. So you're not stuck. You don't, you're just, well, there are impediments and there are blockages and things like that. But it's not happening to anyone.

It's just a process that's arising. And you take the tools to apply, whether it's forgiveness or any other of the processes, like the 6R's and so on. And you let go, and that's it. And in the letting go, you experience some kind of relief. And by the way, even that relief is not yours. Even that experience of nibbana is not yours. Even the joy experienced from an attainment is not yours.

That's cool. And the other thing was turning anicca around. Can you talk about anicca? Because, last year, one of my students said something, and I didn't even think about this before. Because anicca is always coming to us as anicca, this impermanence and change. And because we get annoyed with that and human beings don't like it, then we suffer it.

We see it always presented like that. Only she came to me and said she discovered something, and I said, what? She said, I think anicca is my friend. And I said, what do you mean? And she had to tell me, you know, she told me, well, the thing is, if something bad is going on, if I just remember anicca, it's like I want to put a team flag on my wall, because if I remember anicca is real, in everything, everything is impermanent, then I'm not stuck. Yes, and she was talking about not stuck. She wasn't using that term, but she was basically saying, you know, I'm not stuck. Yeah. Did you experience this, this two-sided thing about anicca? Oh, definitely. I mean, in the beginning, if somebody takes something to be self and they say, oh, what do you mean all things are impermanent, then that leads to a lot of discomfort with that idea, because I want this happy feeling to continue.

What do you mean that the jhanas are impermanent? I want to continue feeling these jhanas. You know, what do you mean loving kindness is impermanent? Well, it is. I mean, all conditioned things are impermanent. That is the understanding. But I love that fact that she's able to use impermanence as a friend, because in the realization of impermanence you abandon any kind of taking of anything as being personal, and that can lead to a deeper understanding, deeper insights. I know there's seven different types of perceptions, or sometimes six different types of perceptions, that are talked about, which is they kind of lead one to the other, which is, and if I remember correctly, it's like the perception of impermanence leads to the perception of understanding dukkha, the perception of understanding dukkha leads to the perception of understanding anatta, impersonal, impersonality, that leads to the understanding of disenchantment and dispassion, and ultimately cessation, and so on. So impermanence is really the key to start that whole process. I've come across a couple of sutras where the Buddha talks about seeing the impermanence in this experience.

Lets you abandon the fetters, lets you abandon any of the attachments, but then seeing the impersonal nature of things lets you uproot that, meaning so that they are not liable to return, that they are not liable to emerge again in terms of the fetters or any of the attachments. Yeah, that's good. That's cool. And I had a student just yesterday who came to me and said, well, I don't see why I have to do this with the way you're explaining it with the path and stuff, because I already have the second jhana. I have it. And have you been confronted with the person who walks in and says, well, I already have the fourth. I have it. You know, yeah, that's the thing. Whose jhana is it? I mean, did you buy it at a store and now you possess it, or does it just come out because of, does it come about because of causes and conditions?

That's the way to really understand it. - It's really terrific, yeah. Thank you, thank you. - Hi Delson, thank you for the talk. A question for you on the fear of the cessation, and you pointed that, you elaborate more on that, how to basically confront it, and I mean, that that feeling may come across a few times, and how to basically embrace it or let that go, because one of the fears could be the fear of what happens if I don't continue the status quo, or if the life is gonna change significantly, or what happens after that. Basically, could you elaborate more on that, how to let that go and make that pass smoother? Yeah, so first of all, when it comes to the experience just before cessation, sometimes people kind of stumble into it and then experience it and then experience relief and joy and so on.

But sometimes people have this fear, and that fear can be some kind of blockage that they're not looking at. One of the tools you can use is your intuition, and ask, what is blocking this experience of cessation to happen? What is blocking, in the form of this fear, from going further? You ask the question one time, you let it go, and then an insight will arise, and it'll let you know what it is that the mind is attached to that is preventing that experience of cessation to happen, and you six art and let it go. That allows you then to actually experience, in the meditation, when that experience happens, or the fear of that experience happens, rather. You have the information of why this is happening, and you let it go right there and then.

Now, letting go doesn't mean you try to let go. Letting go doesn't mean I am letting go, because what is being abandoned is that formation of I am. What is being abandoned is the sense of self. So how can the self let go of the self? That's what you have to understand. That's not what's going on. What's actually going on is when there is an abandoning, it's just a letting go in the form of, let's say you're carrying a heavy burden and you just let it go. That's it. There's nothing beyond just letting go. And there's nothing beyond, I have to let go or I have to do it. In the very observation of seeing that there is a hindrance in the form of this tension or in the form of this attachment to self, there is some relief there in seeing that, because it stops that flow.

And then you relax, and you release, and you relax, and so on. And that lets it go, and that replaces that old model of thinking and perceiving things with a new model. It replaces the unwholesome with the wholesome. So even the six R's is an impersonal process. If you see it with that understanding and you use your intuition, that should help. Delson, can we say that that's, is that the same thing as doubt? That point would be doubt. So if we went to upakilesa, and it's one of the ones he said, as soon as you understand that doubt is an imperfection, we abandon it. Yes. Yes. And that can happen with any of the upakilesas, or any of the hindrances, in the actual recognition of it.

It stops it. It stops the flow of any of that doubt or restlessness or whatever. And then the rest of that process is just doing the rest of the four right efforts. Abandoning it by just releasing it, letting it go, and relaxing it, smiling, which is generating the wholesome, and then maintaining it by collectedness, by coming back to your object of meditation. So the first right effort of recognizing it, or preventing it from continuing on, is happening through that process of realization.

Right. I guess the other side of the coin, I guess it's one side is that fear, but the other side of the coin, because I know there is a lot of talking about that, and you read a lot of that, is the excitement, saying that, oh, it's happening, and that prevents that as well. So how to, I mean, how to come across that or how to put that behind?

That's the longing. That's the other part of it. And actually longing is one of the kilesas that I mentioned in the Upakilesa Sutta. And that longing is happening because you have an intention or an expectation of how this meditation is going to happen. Or if you don't have an expectation of how this meditation is going to happen and you start off with saying, let's just see what happens, that's the attitude that everybody should have. Like, I don't know what's going to happen with this meditation. Let's just see what happens.

If you continue with that attitude, even when you're in the quiet mind, then there won't be any longing. But in the recognition, and that's why I say arguably that it's easy to get into cessation for stream entry, but after stream entry, to get into cessation again is more difficult, because you know the path, you know the signposts, you know the things that are going to lead to that experience. And as soon as you grasp onto those signposts, there's no cessation.

So when you find the mind starting to recognize and trying to grasp onto these things, see that as a hindrance and let it go, and just say, okay, I don't care about that. So that's where the disenchantment comes in. I've seen this before. I know what's going to happen. I don't care. I really don't care. And it's not just saying it. It's really just experiencing it. It's really just saying, let's just see what happens. And so that's really, again, redeveloping, if you will, the beginner's mind, the mind that says, you know, I don't know what to expect, I'm just going to continue on, and let's see how the mind unravels. And that's it.

Right, okay. What was the sutra number that you mentioned? Is it in Majjhima Nikaya, or is it different? You're talking about upakilesa, that's one two eight? Yes. Oh yeah, Majjhima Nikaya one two eight, brilliant. My second question is about continuation, or basically what continues after this. I guess we talked about you on that. So could you talk a little bit about that process, about how karma or craving is going to continue on, I guess, and is going to manifest itself in terms of the form? Is it karma from one person going to, I don't know, I keep the whole, keep it the whole way, and then, or is that from one person going to basically dismantle multiple car mods, or how does it work, basically?

I'm trying to understand your question. Are you saying, how does rebirth work from one lifetime to the next? Yes. Or what do you... what do you... So what you should understand first and foremost is the last thing that the Buddha said, and this is how I understand it to be, the very last words of the Buddha were that all conditioned things are impermanent. Be mindful and strive for your awakening. I'm paraphrasing here, but there's a very specific thing he says: all conditioned things are impermanent. And when you read the Pali, the word for condition comes from the word sankhara. So he was very, very much wanting people to understand this part. Otherwise he would not have said this as his last words. Fine, you can come to the understanding that consciousness is impermanent. You see it arising and passing away. But then, now you understand that formations activate the consciousness in the process of dependent origination

and formations can then give rise to a new consciousness that takes rebirth in the new mentality-materiality, but then that can be misconstrued as saying that means formations themselves are also permanent. They're arising and they're going from one lifetime to the next. But that's wrong. Because formations are dependent upon previous choices and intentions. Formations arise because there is some kind of contact with the outside world, with the sixth sense spaces. And they will give rise to, for example, mental formations.

That gives rise to feeling and perception, or verbal formations, which gives rise to verbal speech, or bodily formations, which gives rise to breathing. So when the formations arise, they then give rise to consciousness, but that doesn't mean the formation continues on. It just continues so long as there is some kind of karma to be played out. So formations are always changing, just like consciousness is always changing, always arising and passing away. When you understand this as well, then you see that it's not that formations continue on from one lifetime to another. What they do is they activate a certain type of consciousness. That's why it's understood that your last intention in a previous life gave rise to the strength of the craving, the strength of the clinging to that last thought, that by the way arose because of certain formations.

will then be an indicator of your next life if you cling to it. If you cling on to it, what that means is, if a person has been unwholesome all their life, then the formations that arise because of the continual making of the choices rooted in the unwholesome will give rise to unwholesome thoughts, will give rise to some kind of unwholesome image in the form of regret, and that can give rise to some kind of regret or remorse or fear or anger or any other unwholesome mental actions or thoughts. When that happens, there's craving in there. Because of that fuel of craving, that formation that created that image activates a certain kind of consciousness that then is established in a new nama-rupa, which then fades away, and there is a continual arising and passing away of consciousnesses in that new being, in that new life.

Now, if a person has been wholesome throughout their life, then, because their choices have been wholesome, there will be further wholesome thoughts. There will be formations rooted in the wholesome, which will give rise to wholesome thoughts, which can give rise to loving kindness, which can give rise to an experience of joy, which can give an experience of gratitude, or start seeing visions of devas or other things like that. And that's rooted in the formations. So the formations, I see them as carriers of karma, but they're not... they're impersonal, and they are not permanent. They do their job in the form of activating a consciousness, which then cognizes an experience, but they fade away after that.

So there's a momentum that is felt by the process of this experience of formations, but that too fades away, and they keep changing. So the more wholesome you are, the more you make choices in the wholesome, the more they tend towards the wholesome, the next arising of formations can become wholesome. So this whole process of the 6R's is about purifying, let's say, the next arising of formations. So formations are always arising in every given moment, arising and passing away, just like consciousness. But the next formation that arises is dependent on a previous choice you've made. So if your choice has been wholesome, it will be more often than not a wholesome formation, which will give rise to your mind basically automatically inclining to the wholesome.

So what we're talking about here is really reconditioning the mind, using the tools of the 6R's, which is really the Noble Eightfold Path. Reconditioning the mind from going from taking things personally and causing itself suffering, to the mind that sees things as being impermanent and impersonal, and understanding, and leading to the way of cessation of suffering. So when the formations do activate a kind of consciousness, they will activate because there has been some kind of personalizing going on, even in the wholesome formations that arise, which can give rise to an experience of a deva realm, which can give rise to joy or loving kindness in that moment, because of the taking of it personally.

that is liable to create a consciousness which then becomes established in a new nama-rupa in the new life. That's why there's a story, or there's a sutta, in which there's an arahant who passes away, and the Buddha points out and says, you see all that black smoke that's around that monk? That's basically Mara, who's looking for the consciousness of the arahant. But because that arahant has no more clinging, no more craving, no more being, there's not going to be any fettered formations to cling to. And because of that, there won't be any new consciousness that arises, and because of that there won't be a new rebirth.

Right, no, that's a really great explanation. One question on that. In terms of the right view, one aspect of that is that, as the Buddha mentioned, we are our own house builders, and the previous karma of course built this house. If you're building karma, we're going to continue this cycle of samsara. But then the question is, this karma, I guess the ownership of the karma, the karma is mine, or can we actually own this karma? But there is a way to escape building the house again, and that's by releasing the karma, basically, or just letting it go. I don't know how that past karma is going to shed in this life, basically.

So that's one aspect of it. And the other thing is, if karma goes on in the next life, can it cause multiple formations, or can it cause multiple reverse rather than one reverse? Because if it is going to cause one reverse, then it's going to be similar to, okay, one soul goes to the next soul. That soul exists. But does it have any basically different causing different formations if my karma, or this karma, goes to the next life?

First you have to understand one thing. Right now, are you experiencing karma? Well, I guess the reason I'm... the karma, I don't know if you're... No, no. Is there, are you experiencing my voice right now? Are you experiencing the sound of my voice? Are you experiencing the sight of the computer screen, or maybe the mobile screen that you're watching the Zoom through? Yes.

Yes. That's karma. Karma is activity. Karma is painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that is the fruit of previous choices. You had an intention to come and join on this Zoom call. That's karma as well. So there's a distinction between old karma and new karma. Karma, in terms of intention, is karma. Vipaka is a technical term for the fruition of karma, the fruit or the effect of your choices. But if you made a choice now and then that created an experience later, there's a direct connection between cause and effect: the cause being the intention, the karma that you add in the form of a decision, a choice, and karma as vipaka, the fruition, as an effect of that choice.

But nowhere in between those, nowhere in the process of intention, and nowhere in the process of the effect, was it a personal process in the form of a self experiencing it. And the reason I say that is because, can you control right now what you're going to be hearing? Can you control at what volume I'm going to be speaking? Can you control the colors that are going to be appearing on the screen, in the way that your eye sees it? No, I cannot. Yeah, well, I mean, technically you can by reducing the volume and things like that, but aside from all of that other stuff, what I'm getting at is anything that you're experiencing right now in contact, feeling, and perception, you can't control that.

So there's no controller there. It's an impersonal process. So the effects of those choices are impersonal. That's one way of understanding. But how then are the intentions impersonal as well? Because your intentions are conditioned by previous effects. So right now, if somebody chooses, well, in the sense that somebody decides to shut off the internet, or let's say you forget to pay the bill for the internet, you're no longer going to be able to see this Zoom. You made a choice not to pay, and the effect of that is because of not paying the bill. But in nowhere is there a personal self in that process of choice. Every choice that you take, there is an automation process, in the sense that it's not that the choice is just happening on its own.

The choice happened because of a series of causes and conditions that led to that choice. And the series of processes and conditions, causes and conditions, that led to that process of choice is karma. And so that karma came about because of a previous choice. And that karma came about because of a previous choice, so on and so forth. But in nowhere was there an underlying permanent self experiencing that. Because you might have made a choice, I mean, just a very general idea: you might have made a choice to save up for college, let's say, when you were younger, or your parents made the choice, they opened up a bank account. You made a choice to save up for college. That was one sense of self that you had. But the one who experienced the fruits of that, is that another sense of self, or is that the same sense of self? That's what I'm trying to get at here. It's all impersonal. It's just a series of choices, causes and conditions that lead to the next series of causes, choices and conditions.

Now when the Buddha says you are the inheritor of your karma, what he's trying to say is that the choices you made previously led you to this karma. So anything that happens in the context of dependent origination, from formations up until feeling, are the effects of previous choices that you had. How you choose to see it will determine new choices. If you choose to have craving, if you choose to have clinging, if you choose to have habitual tendencies, that will create birth of new karma, hence birth of new action, and so you are creating karma in this way. Now, the Nigantas, or the Jains, had this idea that I am going to purify my karma through self-mortification and other things like that. So the Buddha said, how do you know? Is there a bank balance of what karma is remaining, and when karma has been purified, how do you know that? And they said, we don't know it. So how do you know that? In every moment karma is being

experienced and karma is being let go of. This is the way to understand it. Now, in the context of seeing that you have formations, all the way from formations up to contact, feeling and perception, as being old karma, then you are experiencing the karma of previous choices. How you choose to take this moment will lead you to either acting upon that feeling in a way that creates craving and identification, thus perpetuating that karma over and over and over, every time you do that, or purifying the mind through taking the precepts through sila, cultivating the mind through bhavana or samadhi, through the jhana practice, through collectedness, and purifying your view through insight, that arising of understanding, the wisdom that arises because of seeing the Four Noble Truths.

When that happens, then the mind becomes so pure and so mindful that it no longer takes any feeling, the end point of any old karma, as being personal. It sees it all as being impersonal, and therefore doesn't react to it, doesn't have any underlying tendencies that underlie the feeling that are liable to create further craving and clinging. So karma is something that is to be felt and experienced. That is the old karma. Any new karma that arises is because you chose, or somebody chose, to take it personally, somebody chose to identify with it, somebody chose to have craving or clinging to it, or aversion and ill will towards it. When you see in that mindfulness that that feeling was impersonal, then you're not going to react in a way that is outside the scope of the Eightfold Path.

But if you react, if you react in a way, or respond, within the scope, within the bounds of the Eightfold Path, then that is the cessation of karma. The Buddha says that the way leading to the cessation of karma is the Eightfold Path. Why? Because not only do you have right view, you have right intention, which is an intention rooted in letting go and abandoning, rooted in non-ill will, or loving kindness, rooted in non-cruelty, or compassion. That gives rise to right speech. You speak when it is timely. You speak true words. You speak in a kind manner that is not liable to cause further karma. You act in a way that doesn't cause pain and suffering for yourself or to others. You have livelihood that doesn't cause pain and suffering to yourself or to others. You use the 6R's, which is right effort, and therefore you're mindful in every moment, which allows you to see the experience as being what it really is, and therefore not adding any more reactions that are liable to create new karma.

Thank you. That was a long-winded answer, but hopefully there was some clarity in it. That's great. Really appreciate it. Delson, can I ask you one question in that? Yes, please. There's choice in there. What about volition, and who chooses? Yeah, so would you explain it? Yeah, the way I see volition, which is chetana, is intention. So what I say, or how I understand it to be, is that every choice is conditioned by previous choices.

And so those choices are conditioned by contact with the outside world. Intention comes first, but you have intention, the chetana, then the kamma, the action, the vipaka, the ripening, and the kamma-phala as the fruition. But after the intention, there's a volitional choice to go through with this or not. So volition is separate from chetana. So who chooses?

Yeah, there is no one who chooses. There is almost an automated process, the way I see it. And what I mean by that is that volition, as you're saying, you're getting really deep into the point between the intention and the action itself. Because in that moment of choice, there can be either a choice to act in the unwholesome, or the choice to say, wait, the mind is tending to the unwholesome, and letting go and experiencing. So would you say that I'm trusting my brain? Would you say that I'm trusting that my brain has been trained, in the 6R's? The first part of it is purification, the second part of it is retraining the brain. Would you say the brain is trained enough, because of the repetition of the 6R's, that it leans, and you're just wanting to lean?

Not really choose to act or not. You just say it that way. Exactly, yes, because, yeah, before you do the Eightfold Path, before you do the 6R's, even those choices are seemingly automatic. When somebody chooses to be unwholesome, when someone reacts in a way that causes anger or creates anger and suffering, that choice itself tends towards the unwholesome. But the moment you start to 6R, the repetition, as you say, of the continual 6R process, the repetition of the Eightfold Path, has the choice inclining towards the wholesome, has the choice inclining towards the Eightfold Path.

Yeah, yeah. The 6R is actually retraining the neural pathways in your brain, to let go of your old habits and structurally build new neural pathways in your brain, to have a new habit of the wholesome direction instead of the unwholesome direction. So that's why practicing this whole practice outside of just the retreat, or when we're training people, convincing them, when they say to me, you know, I didn't have enough time to sit, to practice. They're thinking, I didn't have enough time to sit at home in the morning, sitting at home at night. I'm talking about doing this stuff all day long, inside and out. You see, that's what I'm asking you to do when you leave the retreat.

And then when I'm checking up on these women that came through a few, a couple weeks back, a 10-day retreat, I'm calling them on a follow-up, a 30-day checkup. I want to know what these people have been doing outside of sitting, after they moved into another module for training, and what they're doing. It's going to be fun.

Yes. And the way I would look at it is, you have to do the 6R's. Anytime you recognize the craving, anytime you recognize the aversion, anytime you recognize any of the hindrances arising, what you are doing is training your mind to see that hindrance as just being impersonal. So anytime it starts to arise, you let it go and you replace it with the wholesome. The more you do that, the weaker the hindrance will be. The hindrance itself is old karma,

but how you choose to react to that hindrance will be new karma, or the cessation of that karma. That's why every time you 6R the hindrance, and it might come up again, it's weaker in the next cycle of the arising of that hindrance, until it completely fades away. Question for you about what you're saying, and that is: are you finding your vipassana students that are coming from straight vipassana, who are trained on the sensations in the body, sensing the sensations, are they going through the program faster than the people who have not learned to sense these sensations? Because that's what's happening in my records in India.

It's finally the place where we get to a place of agreement, that they've had a set of training. And now if they go into this, they're moving much faster, you see, because they can sense the sensation arising. That's the symptom of the craving. And if they let go, they start to let go sooner than the other students. Is that happening with you there in the States? Well, what I'm seeing, or the way I explain it, is vipassana, or straight vipassana, is really just the first R.

Meaning they have a good way of noting when there is an arising of sensations. They have a good way of noting when perceptions are arising, and things like that, or craving is arising. So it really strengthens the first R, of recognize, or realizing. But what I also tell them after that is, once you recognize it, it's not just, okay, you're noting it. You're actually doing something with it. If it's craving, if you notice there's tightness, you're actually doing something with it by releasing and relaxing. You're actually doing something with it when you're re-smiling and recollecting your mind, or returning back to the object of meditation. Thanks, that's good. Yeah.

Any last questions? I'll take one more question, Delson. I have a question about forgiveness meditation. Yes. So it's about the determination to stay, so that it stays shallow enough that I can still vocalize the forgiveness. Sometimes the determination works for me, sometimes it doesn't, more recently not working so much. I think maybe if I understood how the determination works, what makes the determination work, it might be easier to really figure this out and stay in a level where I can vocalize and do the forgiveness well. I would say with forgiveness you should always be verbalizing, and that will help you to stay in the first jhana, meaning

when you walk, you say, I forgive you, you forgive me, with every step, right? You say, I forgive you, you forgive me. So that is verbalizing. When you're sitting down and you say, I forgive myself for not understanding, then you start to experience your weight and you see what's happening, and you start to, situations might come up, people might come up, memories might come up, then you say the same thing, you forgive it, you relax it. I forgive myself for not understanding. Somebody else comes up and you say, I forgive you, not for not understanding. So every so often you say that as a way of letting the mind stay in that first jhana, but you're always saying it. When somebody comes up, I forgive you for not understanding. In doing so, you're experiencing

acceptance of that and letting you go and move on to the next person and the next person so you have to make a determination not in that sense that if you just say i look i forgive myself for not understanding and then just let go you have to stay with it and see what's happening in the way of a memory or a situation or something that you did or whatever it might have been and then say it again i forgive you for not i forgive myself for not understanding and feel the experience

of, you know, having let go of that, there's a release that is experienced that happens when you say, "I forgive myself for not understanding," that should help you stay with that verbalization process. Yeah. Um, sometimes this happens, like there's this tension. I don't just feel like the mind is getting stiller, and so I'm still verbalizing, and then there's this tension between the mind stilling down and the verbalization, and then if I keep meditating through that, I tend to get headaches and often feel off when I quit meditating.

So you're saying if you feel the stillness and there's a tension arising because you want to let go of that stillness and stay with the verbalizing? Yeah. It's like, the mind is settling down, and at the same time I'm still verbalizing, and there's this tension between the two. Yeah, I would say that. And don't, don't take this out of the wrong context. I'm saying the mind should not be settling down to that level. It should just be verbalizing, "I forgive you not understanding," and just, it's less of a feeling meditation.

At least this is what I'm saying, based on my discussions with David and Bhante. It's less of a feeling meditation and more of a verbalizing meditation, because the experience of the relief that you feel happens after the meditation. Then you feel lighter because you're forgiving. It's just like when I say, "I forgive you, I forgive you," that's it. You know, if somebody tells me they forgive me, they just forgive me, that's it. So the feeling comes up afterwards. The recognition, or the understanding, that you are forgiven gives rise to an experience of release, gives rise to an experience of abandoning any kind of ill will that might be there, any kind of blockages

due to that experience that might be there, but every so often just keep saying the words, continue with that verbalizing. There's nothing you feel here. You feel after having done the forgiveness meditation, you feel that relief, you feel that release. In the instructions for the forgiveness, did you find that? Where I found the most recent one, he put together, was the instructions for the forgiveness. He basically is

is saying to you that when you say your phrase, okay, you have to pause and let it sink in and just watch inside and watch your mind for something to happen. Okay, you have to take your time with this. It's not that I say the phrase and somebody comes up. I described this when I was trying to do a full retreat on the forgiveness, which I don't want to do anymore right now, because I use it as a stop for breaking up blockage, more that way. But when we were doing that, I would describe it to them as: you have a bunch of horses in your head, and there's a corral like this, it's locked, and the gate, the hook is on the gate. Okay, and what you're doing is convincing your mind it's okay for you to forgive, and you, by saying the phrase over and over again, then your mind begins to believe you. Nelson, do you feel like this whole thing, this whole practice and teaching people, either the 6R's or the forgiveness, is teaching people a communication system with their mind?

It's a new way to communicate with your mind and get it to cooperate with you, but it has to trust it. When you are doing these things in the training, that it's okay for you, the mind has to believe that, because it's part of your protection system in the human body. Yeah, yeah. The way I see this whole process, I mean the forgiveness, I haven't actually taught anyone forgiveness, so anything I say to you, Jared, just take it with a grain of salt. I'm just telling you what I have learned from Bhante, or had discussions with Bhante and David, but as far as I understand

whether it's the 6R's or whether it's forgiveness, it is a process of reconditioning, because even the Eightfold Path is conditioned. It's a process of reconditioning so that you continue to let go. It's a process of changing the way your mind sees reality and ultimately coming to a point where you see things as they really are. When we say, you know, things as they really are, it means that there's no projection of self, there's no projection of craving, there's no projection of expectations, there's no pre-judgment going on, nothing like that. And so the forgiveness tool is a way to lighten the mind, is a way to let go of certain blockages, and it's only temporary. It's only for a short period of time, where then the mind intuits that okay, now it's time to go back to the practice of radiating loving kindness or radiating compassion or whatever it might be.

And you'll know it because you'll feel it. And to Sister Kema's point, which is you say the phrase and you wait and see what comes up, and then say it again by letting it go. When you say it again to them, you let it go. So it's a process of just saying it and then waiting and then forgiving them, forgiving any distractions and relaxing. So Bhante has said, forgive and relax. Those are really the two things that he's doing here. But that should only be seen as a way to come back to loving kindness or compassion or your formal meditation, and then from there the process of the 6R's is all about reconditioning the mind so that it suffers less and ultimately doesn't suffer anymore at all.

Okay, so I've been talking for a long time. Let's share some merit. My voice is starting to get a little dry. So may suffering ones be suffering free, and the fear struck fearless be, may the grieving shed all grief, and may all beings find relief. May all beings share this merit that we have thus acquired, for the acquisition of all kinds of happiness. May beings inhabiting space and earth, devas and nagas of mighty power, share this merit of ours. May they long protect the Buddha's dispensation. You