GTOG Sunday Meditation sessions: MN 136 The Greater Exposition of Actions by Delson Armstrong

Hello, everyone. I hope you're all doing well. So today I'm going to be talking about karma. And I'm going to be using two different suttas. One is from the Majjhima Nikaya, and the other one is from the Samyutta Nikaya. And I'll start with the Majjhima Nikaya, and we will discuss it. Well, I'll first read that, provide my explanation for that, and then go into the Samyutta Nikaya sutta and explain that, and then from there we can discuss further if you have any comments or questions. So let me get started with the Majjhima Nikaya one. This is Majjhima Nikaya 136, and this is the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta, the greater exposition of action.

This is a translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Let me begin. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living in Rajagaha, in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrel's Sanctuary. Now on that occasion the Venerable Samiddhi was living in a forest hut. Then the wanderer Potaliputta, while wandering and walking for exercise, went to the Venerable Samiddhi and exchanged greetings with him. When this courteous and amiable talk was finished, he sat down at one side and said to the Venerable Samiddhi, "Friend Samiddhi, I heard and learned this from the recluse Gotama's own lips: bodily action is vain, verbal action is vain, only mental action is real, but there is that attainment on entering which one does not feel anything at all." So this is what Samiddhi says. He says, "Do not say so, friend Potaliputta. Do not say that. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not speak thus: bodily action is vain, verbal action is vain, only mental action is real. But, friend, there is that attainment on entering which one does not feel anything at all."

At all. So when they say bodily action is vain, verbal action is vain, only mental action is real: first of all, Potaliputta didn't actually hear this from the Buddha's own lips, as we will see. So this is a distortion of what he heard, and whoever told the term might have misheard it, or he might have misunderstood it. Basically, here it's saying, or he's trying to say, that bodily action is unfruitful and doesn't produce any kind of result, and verbal action is unfruitful and doesn't produce any kind of result, and it's only mental action that does. That's not the case. This is actually referring to another time when the Buddha was talking to Upali, who was a follower of the Nigantha Nataputta, who was basically the head of the Jain wanderers, the Jain group of wanderers.

And in that, the Buddha says that it starts with mental action. Mental action, verbal action, and physical action or bodily action are all important, but it starts with mental action. And it's the mental action that one needs to pay attention to, because that's where it begins from. The intention starts in the mentality. It starts from the thinking process, the intention, and the mental feeling process, which then will give rise to an intention to express through speech or through physical action.

To that, this is what was said, but not in the way that Potaliputta is representing it. So, there is that attainment on entering which one does not feel anything at all, of course, that's the cessation of perception and feeling. So Potaliputta says, "How long is it since you went forth, friends?" The meeting, not long, friend, three years. There now, what shall we say to the elder bhikkhus when a young bhikkhu thinks, defended thus: "Friend, somebody having done an intentional action by way of body, speech, or mind, what does one feel?" Having done an intentional action by way of body, speech, and mind, one feels suffering. So we will see that the statement is not representing it.

But then this is what Potaliputta does. It says, "Then neither approving nor disapproving of the Venerable Samiddhi's words, the wanderer Potaliputta rose from his seat and departed." Soon after the wanderer Potaliputta had left, the Venerable Samiddhi went to the Venerable Ananda and exchanged greetings with him. When this courteous and amiable talk was finished, he sat down at one side and reported to the Venerable Ananda his entire conversation with the wanderer Potaliputta. After he had spoken, the Venerable Ananda told him, "Friend Samiddhi, this conversation should be told to the Blessed One. Come, let us approach the Blessed One and tell him this.

As the Blessed One explains to us, so we shall bear it in mind." "Yes, friend," the Venerable Samiddhi replied. The Venerable Samiddhi went together with the Venerable Ananda to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him they sat down at one side. The Venerable Ananda reported to the Blessed One the entire conversation between the Venerable Samiddhi and the wanderer Potaliputta. When he had finished, the Blessed One told the Venerable Ananda, "Ananda, I do not even recall ever having seen the wanderer Potaliputta, so how could there have been this conversation?"

There you go. It confirms. Though the wanderer Potaliputta's question should have been analyzed before being answered, this misguided man Samiddhi answered it one-sidedly. And so somebody else jumps in. He says, "When this was said, the Venerable Udayin said to the Blessed One, 'Venerable Sir, perhaps the Venerable Samiddhi spoke thus, referring to the principle: whatever is felt is included in suffering.'" So let's take these two different statements. As the Buddha said, Samiddhi responded one-sidedly, meaning he didn't give the full picture. He didn't explain it as it should have been explained. Here it's saying, having done an intentional action by way of body, speech, or mind, one feels suffering. That's not the whole picture. You can still do something that is pleasant in the way of the mind, in the way of speech and the body.

Then you will experience a pleasant feeling. Or you can do something that is neutral and experience something that is neutral. So it's not just suffering. But there is another understanding which Udayin is trying to bring up here. The experience of feeling, because it is impermanent and liable to change, has intrinsic dukkha in it because of its impermanent nature.

So that's a different understanding. That is to say, feeling is always in flux, and therefore there is the experience of sankhara dukkha. Sankhara dukkha means the inherent dukkha because the formations that bring it about are also temporary, also impermanent, and fettered. So that feeling will also be temporary, will be impermanent, and therefore not to be considered as satisfying, and not to be considered as self.

Then the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ananda: "See, Ananda, how this misguided man Udayin interferes. I knew, Ananda, that this misguided man Udayin would unduly interfere right now." So he's admonishing Udayin for interjecting into the conversation. Perhaps it was not the right time to interject, or whatever it might have been. But even though Udayin's answer would have been considered correct in reference to that understanding, that feeling being temporary or impermanent is intrinsically also bound for suffering, or intrinsically dukkha.

But because he interfered, interjected, the Buddha admonishes him for it. And so he says, "From the start, the wanderer Potaliputta had asked about the three kinds of feelings. This misguided man Samiddhi would have answered the wanderer Potaliputta rightly if, when asked, he would have explained: 'Friend Potaliputta, having done an intentional action by way of body, speech, or mind whose result is to be felt as pleasant, one feels pleasure. Having done an intentional action by way of body, speech, or mind whose result is to be felt as painful, one feels pain. Having done an intentional action by way of body, speech, or mind whose result is to be felt as neither pain nor pleasure, one feels neither pain nor pleasure.' But who are these foolish, thoughtless wanderers of other sects, that they could understand the Tathagata's great exposition of action?

You should listen, Ananda, to the Tathagata as he expounds the great exposition of action. This is the time, Blessed One. This is the time, Sublime One, for the Blessed One to expound the great exposition of action. Having heard it from the Blessed One, the bhikkhus will remember it and attend closely to what I shall say. Yes, Venerable Sir, the Venerable Ananda replied.

The Blessed One said this: "Ananda, there are four kinds of persons to be found existing in the world. What four? Here, some person kills living beings, takes what is not given, misconducts himself in sensual pleasures, speaks falsehood, speaks maliciously, speaks harshly, gossips, and has idle chatter. He is covetous, has a mind of ill will, and holds wrong view." So these are all of the evil actions that one can commit in terms of the ten unwholesome actions. There is one who kills, one who steals, takes what is not given, has misconduct in sensual pleasures, or has misconduct due to sensual pleasures, speaks falsehoods, lies, speaks maliciously, harshly, and gossips and has idle chatter. He is covetous. He has a mind of ill will, and he holds wrong view, which means that there is not established in his mind right view.

He hasn't yet become a stream-enterer. On the dissolution of the body after death, he appears in a state of deprivation, an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. Some person, again, goes through the ten unwholesome actions and a wrong view. On the dissolution of the body after death, he appears in a happy destination, even in the world.

So it's important to note this. In the first case, you have a person committing unwholesome deeds, unwholesome actions, and because of those unwholesome actions, he appears in a lower realm, deprivation, even in hell. But you have the second person who also commits those same deeds, but he appears in a heavenly world. He appears in the six sensuous heavens. Here, some person abstains from killing living beings, from taking what is not given, from misconduct in sensual pleasures, from false speech, from malicious speech, from harsh speech, from gossip, is not covetous, his mind is without ill will, and he holds right view. On the dissolution of the body after death, he appears in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world. So when the Buddha talks about right view here, it's important to make this distinction. He's talking about mundane right view, which is to say the understanding that there is mother and father, and so one should pay gratitude towards them; that there is meaning in giving, meaning in charity, meaning in generosity; that there is an understanding of kamma, that good and bad actions produce good and bad effects,

that there is such a thing as spontaneous rebirth or spontaneous generation of a body. There is such a thing as rebirth. There is such a thing as this world and another world, who know about these things and have understood through their own experience and are able to provide and convey that information. So that's the mundane right view. The super mundane right view is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths.

So what he's saying is, even a person who is still abstaining from these ten unwholesome tendencies and actions, even though they hold right view, that in this case is the mundane right view, they have some kind of understanding of that, but even despite all of that, on the dissolution of the body after death, they appear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, even in hell. So then he continues. He says, here, Ananda, by means of ardor, endeavor, devotion, diligence, and right attention, some reclusive brahmin attains such concentration of mind, when his mind is concentrated, with the divine eye which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees that person here who commits these unwholesome actions and who holds wrong views. And he sees that on the dissolution of the body after death, he has appeared in the state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell.

that there are beings who have arisen and gone into hell because of their wrong misdeeds and their wrong views. But then another person has seen that there are people or beings who commit wrong deeds and have wrong view, and yet they enter heavenly destinations. So this person, the second person, thinks that this is the only way, and he holds on to that view like the first person. Now there's a third person. Here, Ananda, by means of ardor, some reclusive brahmin attains such a concentration of mind that when his mind is concentrated with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees that person here who abstains from killing living beings and holds right view.

So now the Buddha has given us an understanding, an outline of the four cases. There are two sets of... the four cases of understanding, the different kinds of beings who arise according to their deeds, and yet there are some who, even if they commit right deeds and have right view, go into hell, and those who commit wrong deeds and have wrong view go into heaven. The beings or the recluses who were able to see for themselves and hold these different kinds of views, depending upon their experiences. Now that he's laid this out, the Buddha will continue with the exposition, the analysis of this whole process. There, Ananda, when a recluse or brahmin says, indeed there are evil actions, there is result of misconduct, I grant him this. So what does the Buddha say? Yes, this is right. This is possible, that there are evil actions and there is a result of those evil actions.

Then when he says, I saw a person who killed and committed all of these things and then held wrong view, and I see that on the dissolution of the body after death, he has appeared in a state of deprivation, even in hell. So the Buddha says, I also grant him this. I would say this is accurate. This is right.

After death, everyone who kills living beings and so on and holds wrong view reappears in a state of deprivation, even in hell. I do not grant him this, because it's not always so clear-cut. As you will see, it is not so clear-cut that as soon as you do a wrong action you will see the fruit of that action in the next moment, or the next life, or whatever it might be. There is a certain complexity to kamma, where you see that there are different kinds of streams of kamma crisscrossing, and dependent upon the timing in terms of the fruition of certain kamma, the fruition of certain action, there will be the ripening of that fruit and then the experiencing of the result of that action. Anyway, the Buddha says, he does not grant him that.

He does not grant him that everyone who does this is going to go into hell, because there is, like I said, different kinds of complexities involved. So then the Buddha says, and when he says, those who know thus know rightly, those who think otherwise are mistaken, I also do not grant him this, because you cannot be so black and white about kamma in this sense.

Good karma, there is bad karma, there are bright deeds and there are dark deeds, and they do have an interconnection in the sense that good results in good, and bad results in bad, but like I said, it's not as clear-cut. So to hold that view only would not be accurate. It would not be the correct view to have and to hold on to. And when he obstinately adheres to what he himself has known, seen, discovered, insisting only this is true, anything else is wrong, I do not grant him this. Why is that? Because I know that the dog gets knowledge of the great exposition of action is otherwise. There, Ananda, when a recluse or brahmin says, indeed there are no evil actions, there is no result of misconduct, I do not grant him this, because he has come into wrong view. If he sees that there are beings who have committed wrong action, who have committed bad karma, bad actions, and have wrong view

And they're still going into heaven. Then he makes this logical kind of process in his mind, saying that well, then that means there is no meaning to committing wrong actions or right actions. It doesn't matter, everyone will go into heaven. So the Buddha is saying, I will not grant him this. This is wrong view. When he says, I saw a person here who killed living beings and committed all of these actions and held wrong view, I see that on the dissolution of the body after death he has reappeared in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world, I grant him this, because that is a possibility. That is a possibility. Even somebody who has committed wrong actions and has wrong views can still go into a heavenly destination.

There, Ananda, when a recluse or Brahmin says indeed there are good actions, there is result of good conduct, I grant him this. Yes, that is a possibility. Somebody who commits good actions has right view and gets the result of that good conduct. And when he says, I saw a person here who abstained from killing living beings, who abstained from committing all of these wrong actions and held the right view, and I see that on the dissolution of the body after death he has reappeared in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world, I also grant him this, which is to say, yes, that this is a possibility. It can happen. But when he says, on the dissolution of the body after death everyone who abstains from killing living beings and committing these wrong actions, and everyone who holds right view, that's the mundane right view, reappears in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world, I do not grant him this, because you can't just say absolutely that everyone who does this will be bound for a heavenly realm.

of death, that will lead that person into hell. So that is a given. Because of that, on the dissolution of the body after death he has appeared in a state of deprivation, even in hell. And since he has here committed these deeds and held wrong view, he will experience the result of that, he either here and now, meaning he will experience the effects of the wrong view in this lifetime, or in the next lifetime, in the next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence. Which is to say that because of the process of kamma, that kamma will be like a seed which will bear fruit at a certain time. It's not to say that that seed will bear fruit here and now in this lifetime, or that it will bear fruit in the next lifetime, or in a you can't say which is which. It can happen at any point in time, and it's dependent upon different factors and conditions. Now the Buddha says, there, Ananda, as to the person who kills living beings and commits all of these misdeeds and holds wrong view

Because he was able to have some kind of action that was good, that overtook the effects of the negative karma, the past negative karma, and resulted in an immediate fruition in which he has a rebirth in a heavenly existence or in a happy destination. Because of that, on the dissolution of the body, after death he has reappeared in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world, but since he has here killed living beings and held wrong view, he will experience the result of that, either here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence. Which is to say that even if he experiences, or he takes on the mundane right view, which is to say that he hasn't become a stream enterer yet.

That's an important factor here. He still has the mundane right view, the intellectual right view of understanding on a mental level that these are the different elements of the mundane right view. He still has that. He still has committed some good deeds which have ripened and taken fruition into a better destination or heavenly existence. He will still pay for, in that sense, he will still experience the effects of the wrong view, the effects of whatever he did in terms of misdeeds, at some point in time. He might even, and that's the thing here, he might even experience the effects of that wrong view, the effects of that negative kamma right now in this lifetime and still go into heavenly realm, or he might experience it at a later time or in another rebirth, after having experienced the happy destination, or in a subsequent existence at some point in time in samsara. So then the Buddha says, there, Ananda, as to the person who abstains from killing living beings, abstains from all of these wrong actions and holds right view, and on the dissolution of the body after death reappears in the happy destination

And since he has here abstained from these misdeeds and held right view, will experience the result of that, either here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence. So yes, he might go into the heavenly realms because of what he's done, and he might still continue to experience the fruition of his deeds, his right deeds, his wholesome actions, at another time as well, in his cyclical existence. He will experience a better rebirth at another point in time after that, heavenly and so on. But, there, Ananda, as to the person who abstains from these misdeeds and holds right view, so at a certain point he abstained from any misdeeds and held on to that mundane right view, and on the dissolution of the body after death he reappears in a state of deprivation, even in hell, either earlier he did an evil action to be felt as painful, or later he did an evil action to be felt as painful, or at the time of death he acquired and undertook wrong view.

So that means that he has not had confidence in that right view. If he had right view, which is the mundane right view, because he didn't have stream entry, he is still liable to fall into an unhappy destination, a lower realm like the animal realm, the hungry ghost realm, or the hell realms. So even if he has committed right action and right speech, abstained from wrong action and wrong speech, he might have done something in the past that overtook the ripening process of that negative karma, and that resulted in a state of deprivation in hell. So he did something good, but the negative karma overtook the ripening of the good karma, and it resulted in a state of deprivation in hell.

Kind of wrong view before dying, because that immediate thought that one person has is that bhava that then leads to the next rebirth, whatever the bhava is, whatever that becoming is, that sense of existence, that sense of identification with the formations that arise in the mind prior to death. If the mind latches onto it and there's enough energy, it will give rise to a new consciousness that will take rebirth according to those immediate formations. So if he took wrong view at that point in time, it can result in a state of deprivation, in a state of hell realm.

But since he has here abstained from killing living beings, abstained from all the other misdeeds, and held right view, he will experience the result of that either here and now, or in the next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence. Which is to say that once that ripening effect, that process of ripening of the negative actions, overpowers or overtakes the ripening process of the good karma, resulting in him getting into a lower state of existence or a state of unhappiness, after that is gone, there will be the ripening of the good karma. So it's not linear. It's not in a way that is cut dry. It's not black and white.

Certain kamma comes to fruition here and now in this lifetime, in the next few moments or in the next few years or whatever it might be, or it might take time to come to fruition until the next rebirth if one is still in that process of samsara. It's only when a person has entered the stream that they completely close off the possibility of rebirth to a lower realm. The reason is because they have acquired complete confidence in the Buddha, complete confidence in the Dhamma, in the Sangha.

They have maintained their precepts. They have maintained their virtues. And they have abandoned all wrong view. And so the effect of any kind of negative action that they've taken will result in some kind of destination that might be unhappy in the human realm, effective as to cause them rebirth in a hell realm, in an animal realm, or in a hungry ghost realm. Of course, there are the five acts that one should not commit because that cuts off one from completely going into the stream. And that is the action of killing your mother, killing your father, killing an arahant, wounding a Buddha with malintent, or creating a schism in the Sangha, creating disharmony in the Sangha.

So any of these acts basically will result in an immediate rebirth in the hell realm. It will immediately result in that. And then only after that process of karmic exhaustion will there be an opportunity for someone to enter the stream, but not in that very same life because of those actions. So that's the thing about karmic.

It is so complex that you cannot just say, because I'm committing all of these right deeds, am I entitled to go into a heavenly realm? Or if you haven't entered the stream and you say, I have committed these deeds that are right and noble and I still have right view, I am entitled to go into a happier place, into a happier rebirth? Unless you have entered the stream, you are liable to fall into a lower realm. So it's the same way for somebody who has committed bad deeds. Just because they have committed bad deeds doesn't mean that in their next life they necessarily will take rebirth in an unhappy destination, or they will take rebirth in a lower realm, or even in hell. It all depends upon the crisscrossing, the intertwining of different kamma, and how those seeds ripen at certain periods of time during this whole process. So the Buddha says, "Thus, Ananda, there is action that is incapable and appears incapable.

There is action that is incapable and appears capable. There is action that is capable and appears capable, and there is action that is capable and appears incapable. So there are these different variations. It's a very interesting understanding. So there is action that is incapable and appears incapable, that is to say there's action that could be unwholesome and appears that it won't lead to a good rebirth. So that's the unwholesome action incapable of leading to a good rebirth. There is action that is incapable of leading to a good rebirth but appears to lead to a good rebirth. Then there is an action that is capable of leading to a good rebirth and definitely does lead to, or to lead to, a good rebirth.

There is action that looks like it is capable of leading to a good rebirth, or it can provide you a good rebirth because of the wholesomeness of that action, but it appears incapable of leading you to a good rebirth. So these are the different variations of how action and the fruition of action occurs. Now, I do want to bring up something in regards to understanding negative kamma, unwholesome kamma, in this life here and now. Oftentimes people will look at that and say, well, I've committed all of these terrible deeds and therefore I am liable to experience them, and they hold on to it and they have all of this guilt around whatever those misdeeds might be. But that only further creates further existence in this very life. Further, that creates further action that might not be rooted in wholesome states of mind because of that guilt, because of that remorse, because of that continually being in that process of guilt. One is unable or incapable of being able to create good karma for themselves.

So in those processes I would recommend using forgiveness practice. If there are people who have committed something that has been considered to be very unwholesome, and it might be unwholesome, but if you hold yourself as a victim to that, and you attach a sense of self to that, and say, I am not worthy of anything other than experiencing the bad effects of my karma, then you are holding on to one of those wrong views, because there is still an allotment of good karma that you've committed before those bad deeds, let's say. So you need to be able to take a look at that. You need to be able to see and acknowledge that and understand that, and at the same time forgive yourself, go through a forgiveness practice, have self-compassion, let go of the attachment to that negative kamma. When it ripens it will ripen; that is not in your control. What you have in your control right now, so to speak, is your choice of whether to continue to be wholesome or your choice to continue to be unwholesome, attachments to any kind of outcome of any kind of kamma.

Stop identifying with unwholesome kamma, but ultimately also stop identifying with wholesome kamma. And commit yourself to attaining stream entry if you haven't already, because at that point in time, then you have the mundane, the super mundane right view, the understanding at some point in time because of the Nibbanic experience that this is the right view, that is to say the Four Noble Truths. It completely, but you have now understood that the Four Noble Truths work. So you have let go of the fetters of doubt, you have let go of the fetters of self-view, let go of the fetters of attachments to rites and rituals with the thinking that this will lead to nirvana. So at the same time, when you have committed good deeds, don't just rely on those good deeds to take you to wholesome states of mind further in the future.

Understand that this is committing of good deeds. Attaining sila, keeping the virtues, keeping the precepts, is only the first step. At that point then you get into samadhi practice. You use that as the foundation because it will help you create a mindset that is clear, that is collected, that is tranquil, for you to be able to go into jhana and experience deeper and deeper states of mind, so that you are able to then experience nibbana at some point in time. So this is really the understanding one should have when it comes to kamma, that it is not cutting. It's not clear cut like that. It's just a lot of different variations and a lot of different other factors that we'll see in the next sutra that I'll read right after this.

So this is what the Blessed One said. The Venerable Ananda was satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words. So I'm going to read from the other sutra. It's very short, but it'll give you some more clarity on the understanding of karma, because you can't just rely on kamma itself. There are other factors in play, other causes and conditions in play, in relation to one's own intentions and in relation to others' intentions. Yes, the underlying current is some kind of karmic process in terms of cause and effect, but you can't just say that's all it is. It is all part of a series of causes and conditions that take into account one's own kamma but also take into account other factors outside of that process. So this is a sutta that is from the Samyutta Nikaya, and let me see where it's from. It is from, let's see, so it's called Sivaka sutta, or Molia Sivaka sutta, and it says here, it is in the new translation of Samyutta Nikaya.

It's in chapter 36, or section 36, chapter 2 of part 4. And it is in the section called Vedana Samyutta. And in here it says it's in the theme of the 108. So it says here it's called 21, 1 in parentheses, Sivaka. And it says here-- I'm going to read now. On one occasion, the Blessed One was dwelling at Rajagaha in the bamboo grove, the squirrel sanctuary.

"Or originating from an imbalance of the three, as I just mentioned, produced by change of climate, climate change, the weather, temperature, snowfall, rainfall, wind, hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever it might be, produced by careless behavior, being unmindful and being heedless in your actions, and caused by assault, which is to say somebody else attacks you without rhyme or reason, seemingly without rhyme or reason, produced as the result of karma: that some feelings arise here, produced as the result of karma, one can know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world now. When those ascetics and Brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this, whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither painful nor pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in the past, they overshoot what one knows by oneself, and they overshoot what is considered to be true"

the world therefore i say that this is wrong on the part of those brahmins so essentially what the buddha is saying is that the idea of holding on to the view that everything that one does is happening because of previous choices and conditions or previous choices and intentions then cause the effects of that in a future time period that is valid and that is accurate but one has to also take into take into account that that's not the under that's not the only underlying current here there is also other factors at play ultimately they all result from some kind of karmic fruition because somebody was there at a certain time period in a certain place with a certain climate and with certain kinds of disorders in the body it arose because of previous choices and intentions but you cannot just fully say that just because one committed this This is what is the result of that.

You have to take into other factors. So when it comes to disease, when it comes to illnesses, when it comes to whatever it might be, it's not to say it's a punishment or something that someone did in a previous life. It's just because of certain causes and conditions. Maybe one was careless. One didn't wash their hands. One came into contact with something and therefore is experiencing disorders in the body, and then experiencing some kind of disease or illness, or while one is just walking down the street, suddenly somebody comes up and, you know, assaults you. That was not because of something you did directly, but it was caused by somebody else's actions, somebody else's intentions. Your choice to walk there was definitely your choice and intention, so insofar as that being karmic in nature, yes, you can grant that. But in as far as saying that you caused the assault directly, that won't be valid either, because you have to understand the complexities that are involved here.

There is something to be said about committing good action, which results in good experiences or good existences, and vice versa, in the sense of good actions can lead to bad circumstances, not because they are directly connected, but because something else overtakes that. That is the ripening of previous karma. Same way here he's saying they overshoot what one knows by oneself. They overshoot, meaning they're not coming here in the present moment and understanding in the here and now what are the immediate factors that are being in play, whether it's related to disease, related to assault, related to climate change, was related to carelessness, whatever it might be. They overshoot that. They don't see that, and they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world, meaning

what is accurate right now. Instead, they try to say, "This was because of a past life that I did something." No, it can also be because of something you did a few moments ago, something you did a week ago, whatever actions you committed. Somehow that created some causes and conditions that led you to a certain place, and that led you to certain exposure to disease or exposure to assault or exposure to climate, and still that was because of certain choices you made, but those weren't directly related to that climate, directly related to that disease, directly related to that assault. It's just that everything came into play through that series of causes and conditions.

And there was some kind of ripening or effect of those series of causes and conditions. When this was said, the wanderer Moliya Sivaka said to the Blessed One, "Magnificent Master Gautama, magnificent Master Gautama. From today, let Master Gautama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life." And then it ends with a small verse. It says: bile, phlegm, and also wind, imbalance and climate too, carelessness and assault, with kamma result as the eight. So these are the different causes and conditions, the eight different causes and conditions, and the effects of that as well.

Does anybody have any questions or comments? I have a little comment. If you are interested in this, you might want to read from the Book of Threes, number 100. It's called A Lump of Salt, and it goes even deeper into the effects of some people doing a very tiny misdeed and ending up in hell, versus people doing something massively wrong without seemingly much ill effect. Interesting sutta. I was under the impression that you would be reading that as the second one, but it's even deeper. Well, I could. Yeah. I could. What is the sutta? It's Anguttara Nikaya, the Book of Threes, number 100. I have it here in front of me too, but it's a couple of pages, but it's very interesting.

Oh, it's a, is it a long one or it's just... It has three and a half pages. - Well, I can go through it and we can discuss it. Let me see if I can. All right. Yeah, this is a lump of salt. Yes. "Because if one were to say thus, a person experiences kamma in precisely the same way that he created it, in such a case there could be no living of the spiritual life and no opportunity would be seen for completely making an end of suffering."

"But if one were to say thus, when a person creates kamma that is to be experienced in a certain way, in a particular way, experiences its result precisely in that way, in such a case the living of the spiritual life is possible and an opportunity is seen for completely making an end of suffering. Here, because some person has created trifling bad kamma, yet it leads him to hell, while some other person here has created exactly the same trifling kamma, yet it is to be experienced in this very life without even a slight residue being seen, much less abundant residue."

"Suppose a man would drop a lump of salt into a small bowl of water. What do you think, Bhikkhus? Would that lump of salt make the small quantity of water in the bowl salty and undrinkable? Yes, Bhante. For what reason? Because the water in the bowl is limited, salt would make it salty and undrinkable. But suppose a man would drop a lump of salt into the river Ganges. What do you think, would that lump of salt make the river Ganges become salty and undrinkable? No, Bhante. For what reason? Because the river Ganges contains a large volume of water. Thus, that lump of salt would not make it salty and undrinkable. Because some person here has created trifling bad karma, yet it leads him to hell, while some other person here has created exactly the same trifling karma."

Here, because someone is imprisoned for stealing half a kahapana, a kahapana, or a hundred kahapanas, while someone else is not imprisoned for stealing the same amount. What kind of person is imprisoned for stealing half a kahapana, a kahapana, or a hundred kahapanas? Here, someone is poor with little property and wealth. Such a person is imprisoned for stealing half a kahapana, a kahapana, or a hundred kahapanas. What kind of person is not imprisoned for stealing half a kahapana, a kahapana, or a hundred kahapanas? Here, someone is rich with much money and wealth. Such a person is not imprisoned for stealing half a kahapana, a kahapana, or a hundred kahapanas. So too, because some person has created trifling bad karma, yet it leads him to hell, while some other person here has created exactly the same trifling karma.

Looks like it goes on for some time. Should I continue? I think we get the gist of it. Basically, the understanding is if you are committing wholesome actions and you commit to keeping the precepts, you commit to having a mind that is meditative. Remember they said immeasurable, a mind without measure, which is to say someone who is immeasurable in their meditation, someone who practises love and kindness, someone who practises the other Brahmaviharas.

They are not liable to experience the effects of that kamma in a next life or in a hell realm necessarily, because of the quantity of good deeds that they've committed and the quantity of wisdom that they have in terms of their understanding and right view. Whereas somebody who has not walked the path, somebody who commits the same kind of kamma, their mind is still disturbed by their misdeeds. Their mind is not cultivated or developed by virtue, developed by keeping the precepts, developed by samadhi and wisdom. And therefore, they could be liable. That's not that they will be liable, but they could be liable for experiencing a hell realm. That's the difference in maintaining precepts, maintaining virtue, and keeping some kind of meditative practice.

Thank you, Delson, for your talk. I have a question. It's a bit tangential, but the first sutta you read, about the recluses who are abstinently-- holds to what he himself has known, seen and discovered, in terms of they saw for themselves, for lack of better terms, like good people who go to heaven, good people who go to hell, bad people who go to hell and bad people who go to heaven. These four different ones. So they saw for themselves. This was their experience, but then they were wrong. And I guess my question is, my understanding is that in Buddhism we come to see for ourselves, to experience for ourselves what this is. It's not blind faith. So how do we make sure that our experience isn't leading us to the wrong view, the way these recluses did? Because they're saying, I have seen for myself, I know for myself, but they were still wrong. And I feel that, so far, from the little that I've learned, I feel that I have seen it for myself and I know this for myself.

But I don't end up like one of the recluses, saying, well, yeah, my experience, but it still took me down to the wrong conclusion or to the wrong view. Anyway, so if that makes sense, that's so... I guess how do we check our experience, if you will? Yes, that's a good question. In the context of that sutta, what we saw was you had these four recluses, and what they were doing was only seeing part of that experience, but they weren't taking into account that there are these four possibilities.

So whatever they saw in terms of their experience, they considered to be the truth. And like the Buddha says, we can grant them that in the sense that, okay, this is the understanding. But then saying that and applying it absolutely to all circumstances, or inferring that based on that experience, would not be correct, would not be accurate. Because in the process of understanding right view, we know that there is an experience of good karma, which produces good results. There's bad karma, which produces bad results. But we also understand that there is a complexity to this karma. So from that context, we know that we can't just say that this is the case and nothing else can be accurate.

Nothing else can be right. So in that stubbornness, in holding onto that view, they don't have the full view or the full understanding of karma in relation to, like we said, you have good people or good beings who can go to hell, because the right name of their bad kamma comes before the right thing of their good kamma, or the other way is possible too. So when it comes to one's own experience in terms of jhana practice, in terms of the attainment, let's say, or whatever else it might be, you have to be more

long-term in your view or in your understanding. And what I mean by that is how the mind responds and reacts, that's your best teacher in terms of your experience. So if you think, or somebody has said to you, that you have this attainment, go back to the suttas, check it out, refer to that, understand it, and then see how that experience of that attainment relates to your life. So for example, after you have an attainment, let's say somebody says that this person is an anagami. If they are an anagami, then that means they have destroyed the first five fetters, which means they won't have any craving and they won't have any kind of aversion to anything.

They won't have any kind of ill will. Now that person continues on throughout their process of meditating and living out their life, and they experience just an inkling of craving. That experience informs them and tells them, no, I haven't. They have to be honest with themselves. They have to be understanding through the process of referring to the suttas and checking back with their experience to see if it matches up. If they notice, even after a year, an inkling of craving comes up, they're not an anagami. So in terms of attainments, I will say insofar as that, one doesn't really need to worry about attainments. Craving is going away. And ultimately, that experience will come about and you will see for yourself that you just don't equate things in terms of craving.

You don't equate things or see the world in terms of aversion or ill will. So I will always say your experience is your best teacher. Your experience and the mind and how it experiences the world is your best guide and your best teacher, because we don't have a Buddha around us. So we can't really rely on someone like the Buddha telling you for sure that this is the case. So your own experience is the best guide, second to the Buddha's explanation. And the other point is to always check back with the suttas, that's the other part of that. So your experience is there, but does it gel with the suttas? Does it really confirm and conform with what the suttas are talking about in relation to what you are seeing or what you are experiencing?

It sounds like two things. One, it sounds like trust my experience, right? Like what I've seen for myself, what I know for myself. But also understand that if this is all of the truth, if you will, my experience is only like this little bit down here. And so, yes, what I've seen is true. Yes, what I know, I know this is true for myself because I've seen it for myself. I've known it for myself.

But recognising that I've only learned a small part, or I've only seen a small part of the truth. I haven't seen all of it yet. And so that, I guess, will lead you to be open to keep learning and experiencing more and hearing more. Whereas what these recluses did was, I saw this for myself, I learned this for myself, and only this is right and everything else is wrong.

So if me and my limited experience, or any one of us, I guess, we experience and we learn some small bit, a small bit of the Dhamma, and we say this is true and I'm done, then that would be okay. So we can trust our experience. Like I said, check with, check with the Dhamma, maybe check with folks, other kalyanamitas, to check with you. But you still trust your experience. And the other thing I wanted to say about the Dhamma just reminded me of the story: how bad karma always has fruition. So the Buddha had a bad back because he had hurt other people in the past, and Moggallana had a horrible, violent death because of his bad karma. And Moggallana was an arahant, and the Buddha was a Buddha, but even they were still, from who knows way back when, having to have some debts to pay before it was all really done.

That's right, even the case of... and I'll just add a couple of things based on your first part. That is an extension of, if you go back to Digha Nikaya number one, that is the Brahmajala Sutta, which is 62 different types of view. And there too you will see that there are recluses that see so and so, and then they think that this is how the world is or this is how existence is. Like someone might have an experience of Brahma and say there is this Brahma, there is this all-powerful, all-seeing deity, but that's just a limited perspective, because beyond that there are other worlds beyond the Brahma realms and stuff.

different views, the 62 different views related to that. So, again, going back to that, just to confirm and reiterate what you just said: you cannot just say that that is the view and say that's it, I know everything now. You have to be able to confirm with the suttas, and obviously keep in check with your own experience, and depending upon that, see if there is still work to be done. If there's still more work to be done. The second part to that: you were talking about Moggallana, and you were talking about the Buddha. Even in the case of Angulimala, who was this killer on the loose, right? He was a serial killer. He killed all of these people and collected their fingers and created a necklace out of that and wore it.

That is how the story goes. But the Buddha saw that Angulimala was about to actually go and kill his mother, as one of the stories goes. So he went there to stop him from doing that, because that would have prevented him from going into stream entry and ultimately realising the deathless. Then there was an exchange of words. The Buddha said, and Angulimala said, "You know, why do you keep running away from me, or why do you keep walking away?" The Buddha was using, they say, his powers to be able to get away from Angulimala, no matter how fast Angulimala was running. And the Buddha said, "I've stopped even while I'm running. I've stopped. In the mind has stopped all craving. What about you? The mind has stopped all the hatred. What about you?" And that starts the process of Angulimala turning into a stream enterer, and ultimately becoming an arahant.

But he still experienced the fruits of his past deeds in that very life. People beat him with sticks and stones when he went on arms rounds, because they knew he used to be Angulimala. And the Buddha said, just bear with it. Otherwise, if you hadn't entered the stream and experienced arahantship, you would be in hell. You would actually experience the hell realms. So that's the, and yes, that's a really good point about Moggallana as well. He was somebody who committed a past misdeed, and for that he was paying in this very life as an arahant.

And likewise with the Buddha. Now, Devadatta. Devadatta is the Buddha's cousin who created a schism, and he tried to harm the Buddha. And right now, he's in the niraya realm because of what he did. But later on, after some eons, he will become a Paccheka Buddha, as the story goes. Ajatasattu was another king who killed his own father. And because of that, the Buddha said that he would not be able to have stream entry, but he would have to suffer the consequences. And in the next life, he will get stream entry, and he'll actually become another solitary Buddha, like Devadatta. So that's the complexity of kamma. You can't just keep it, you know, this is the way.

Thank you. out of the four people you mentioned in the sutra the second person who is a evil do here goes to the heaven it's committing killing living beings and holds wrong view on the dissolution after the death he reappears in a heavy happy destination how it is possible that is first one second one in the summit sn sutra you use the word negative comma did bhagda posit the idea of negative comma as a special specific doctrine.

If we accept this negative kamma as an individual, am I not responsible for others? Because in these pandemic times, also, people who are well known with that, innocent people, are also dying because of that. So in your first question, you talked about somebody who committed evil deeds and had wrong view, and then goes to a heavenly realm. As the Buddha says, it can be because he committed some previous positive actions. So when I use the words positive and negative, I'm saying wholesome or unwholesome, or good deeds or bad deeds. So he committed something that was wholesome, and at the dissolution of the body he had right view, and that caused him to go into a heavenly realm. It was dependent upon the ripening of the good or the bad kamma. Here the good kamma ripened before the bad kamma. That doesn't mean that once he goes to heaven, that's where he'll stay.

That effect of the bad kamma will still come into play at a future period of time, where he would be liable to go into a lower realm or unhappy destination, or even hell, depending upon what kamma he committed in terms of the bad kamma. Does that make sense so far? Yes, yes. OK. Correct. Yeah. So the second part-- Yeah, the second part, you're talking about the pandemic. Yeah, again, when I say negative kamma-- Negative kamma. Negative kamma, yeah. When I say negative kamma, I'm referring to unwholesome kamma. But you were talking about, let's say, people who are dying because of the disease or whatever it might be. And are you saying, is that because of collective kamma?

Is that what you're asking? Yes. Negative kamma. People who participated in that particular pandemic, and without their knowledge, they died. That is the negative kamma. The Buddha did not speak about it. Yeah, there's no reference in the suttas, and it's not within the realm of the Buddha's dispensation to talk about collective kamma. Collective kamma is more of a New Age kind of thing, the idea that there is a collective kamma society has to go through, or collective karma that a group of people have to go through, and things like that. I have never seen that come across in the suttas, as far as I've read it, or the Buddha discussing it in that way. But in terms of disease and things like that, it is on an individual level, and it's dependent upon, like I read in the Sakka sutta, which is that it's the imbalances of the body, and that could be because of individual choices and preference. So you can't obviously completely say that that's absolutely the case.

But you can say that because of certain choices somebody made, it led them to experiencing something in the way of the illness. Maybe they were not careful, and that's their individual choices. It has nothing to do with the collective. It has nothing to do with a collection of people coming together and suffering and experiencing the effects of some kind of collective negative kamma. May I say it like this?

Because of ignorance, I'm committing some mistakes on my own, and I will be taking so many births. On the same lines, the collective kamma is also coming in the way for taking so many births, or anything, births and deaths. That is the-- See, I wouldn't-- yeah. Yeah, I wouldn't say it's collective kamma in that sense. I would say that the ripening of certain kamma, whether it's rooted in the formations prior to dying, will match up with the parameters of those choices, match up with the parameters of ripening in that kamma. So, which means that being born in a certain time period, being born in a certain type of society or a status, whether you're wealthy or poor, being born into a type of religion, whether you are born a Buddhist, whether you're born a Hindu, whether you're born a Christian, whatever it might be, being born in a certain city or in the countryside, being born in a certain country, or whatever it might be, those all come together.

But that's not necessarily collective kamma. It's more that it's matching with the ripening of the kamma that is ready to be experienced in the way of that next rebirth. So, to say that you were born at a certain period, and that then caused you to experience whatever it might be that you experienced, you can say in so far as your individual choices.

But there are, yes, but that's not collective kamma. That's more related to what's happening around the world. Somehow it just matches with whatever choices you've made in that moment, or in the prior moments, or in the prior years, or whatever it might be, that it's a grouping, or it's coming together, of all these different kammic factors to cause a collective, so that you have like-minded people and things like that. I wouldn't stretch it that far, because then that would bring into account the idea that certain people suffered because of their kamma. Like, for example, there were certain genocides and things like that, so those people all came together as a collective to suffer their kamma.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that either, because it all depends upon individual choices. Thank you. Welcome. Does that clear your answer? Does that clarify? Yes. Yes, it is. This collective kamma, national kamma, was started by a Russian lady called Blavatsky, Helena Blavatsky, Theosophy. Because of that, they have become very popular nowadays. People are speaking and they are attributing it to the Buddha.

Yeah, that's wrong, actually. Yes, thank you very much. You're welcome. Hi, Delson. Thank you for the lecture, and thank you, everyone, for participating today. I had a couple of questions, and they are a little complex, given that it is a complex subject. The first one would be a bit of a stretch. The last question, and you know, obviously none of us chose really to be here, as far as I'm concerned, right? It's kind of our karma that we took this birth, in this life, in this body. And that karma and conditions, you know, being born where you are, in a set of family or religion, gives you certain situations that otherwise you wouldn't have, and it's all just kind of happening in and of itself, right? So my question is, I feel we could guide our consciousness towards positive or negative action, so to say, but how much of it is really our choice? Do we really have so much free will in the matter of life, or is everything just really happening in and of itself due to past causes and conditions?

Yeah, that's a good question. So that's really trying to understand free will and determinism, or fatalism, even going to that extent: that everything is predetermined and therefore we don't have a choice. That would not be the case. What's happening here is you look at it in the division of old karma and new karma. When we talk about karma, it means a couple of things. First, it means active actions, taking actions with intention. And secondly, it means the effects of previous actions.

So there is a Sutta in which the Buddha talks about old karma and new karma. And he talks about this, where he says that everything from formations all the way up to feeling, contact and feeling is old kamma. Everything that you experience in that way is old kamma. The new kamma is everything you do after that. So the way you're born, or maybe even not having to say the way you're born, but even now in this present time, you are this way. The body is this way. Your senses are this way. Your mindset is this way.

previous choices you made in this life or maybe even in a past life, so all of that is all kamma. You can't do anything about that except to experience it. But there is new kamma in the active sense of the word, taking some kind of action or reacting to how it arises. So if there is some kind of kamma in the way of a painful feeling, that is painful feeling, that is the old kamma. Now, are you going to have aversion to it? Then it does cause clinging and being and rebirth, which is all the new kamma. Or are you going to understand it as old kamma and use wisdom rooted in the Eightfold Path, and understand it as a process of choice, where you choose not to react to it but you choose to respond to it by saying this is all kamma and letting it be experienced without attaching any kind of identification to it? So if you look at it from the context of dependent origination, what we are saying here is formations, consciousness, mentality, materiality, the sixth sense basis, contact, feeling, and the perception intertwined with that feeling.

All of that is old kamma. Now, if you choose to have craving or aversion, then the craving, the clinging, the bhava or being, and the rebirth will be the new kamma that you produce actively through that choice. And then the dukkha that arises, the jara, marana, and the dukkha, then is actually all kamma in the way of a painful feeling or a painful experience that happens in a next set of choices that you have. So the choice is between the level of feeling or the link of feeling and between craving.

So in there, if you decide to identify and decide to have craving, then you're liable to produce new kamma and therefore liable to experience effects of that new kamma. But if you understand that kamma to be impersonal, understand it to be impersonal and impermanent, then you don't hold on to it. And whatever is experienced is experienced without creating more or adding more to that kamma.

Thank you. That's great. My second question would be: so it seems that the precepts give us a pretty clear guideline as to what could lead to good karma and what could lead to bad karma. Yet it seems that a lot of things are just completely up to the way we perceive them, what is really bad. This comes again to the way we are raised or different causes and conditions of our surroundings.

And just one example that seems very clear is that a lot of people in the world think it's wrong to eat meat and fish and whatnot, where a lot of people think it's fine and that we should even be doing that. Where is the real good or bad? It seems that even when you go to the end of the path and you experience the unconditioned, it seems that there is no good and bad. That's the way I really perceive it, at least from this standpoint at this moment.

Yeah. You have the five basic precepts, so that means in that sense that you don't intentionally kill. So that obviously would be a bad thing, I think, in terms of outside, even in the Buddhist context, depending upon, in any religion, or even in terms of just humanity itself. Killing would be a bad thing. Killing would be something that causes pain for yourself as well as towards another being. So that is pretty much a universal in the sense that you don't want to kill any being, you don't want to harm any being. Secondly, you have taking what is not given, that is stealing. That also goes beyond any context of spirituality or religion. It's more about a societal thing. It's more about what makes you feel good about understanding reality in terms of if you steal something and it makes you feel good. That's one thing.

But as a whole, it's something that people don't like in general. Your stuff being stolen, you wouldn't like that. I mean, just as a general thing, you wouldn't like your stuff being stolen. Likewise with lying, likewise with sexual misconduct or sensual misconduct, and likewise with taking intoxicants. I mean, we can all agree whether we're Buddhist or Hindu or Christian or whatever, or even just not nothing that if you have a drink or if you are on in some kind of intoxicants it is liable to cause some kind of misperception of reality you're not fully in your senses because of that it can cause heedlessness and that heedlessness can cause you to commit other breaking of the precepts so the way i would understand it or one would understand it is that these five basic precepts are universal to all of humanity.

It doesn't matter whether you're a Buddhist or not or whatever you might be, but everybody can agree upon the fact that nobody wants to be killed. Nobody wants to have their stuff stolen. Nobody likes being lied to. Nobody likes being sexually cheated or having misconduct done through because of sexual acts. And nobody likes being in a state of uncontrolled or no control because of intoxicants. Or nobody likes to be affected by somebody who might be drunk or intoxicated.

So that's the perspective one could kind of see in terms of that, that there is this kind of ground or foundational wholesomeness, foundational goodness found through that process of the five precepts. Yes, but on a broader level, someone could steal something from a store but think it's not wrong because they need it and they're poor. And then someone could steal something from a store and, well, they, and that person who's poor really perceives it as not being a problem, especially maybe if they're stealing from a big corporation, let's say, and they're saying, well, they have so much, and I have so little. And I feel that a lot of actions come down to the fruition of kamma is almost self-imposed in many ways. So it's like you could do something wrong and you really feel it's bad. If someone does something wrong, will they really suffer?

And if it's not, let's say, listed under the five precepts, it's maybe more vague. Is the kamma self-imposed because it's the way we perceive it? Yeah. When you talk about something like that, where somebody steals, let's say, food or whatever it might be, I would just say stealing is stealing. In my understanding, stealing is stealing. Whether you steal it from a local store or whether you steal it from a corporation or whatever it might be, it still affects a group of people or someone somewhere. It still has some kind of unwholesome effect on another person.

In terms of self-imposed suffering, yes, guilt, remorse, regret, these are all self-imposed in the sense of an effect of seeing something that one might have done and has guilt for. So they are creating mental suffering. They're creating the bhava, the new being or new existence, the mental existence, where they have that suffering. But at the same time, there is still an outside of the sense of self, outside of this idea of identity, where suffering arises as a result of that negative or that unwholesome kamma, because it's not the self that experiences it. It's because of certain choices, and those formations that arise from those choices give rise to a certain type of consciousness that can be defiled or undefiled.

And usually it will be defiled if it's done through unwholesome actions, that then gives rise to a mindset or nama-rupa, that then is liable to experience a painful experience at a certain point in time. Whether that's self-imposed, that could be one case, in the sense that one experiences regret and guilt and other things, or whether it's an effect from other people's intentions, choices, and other causes and conditions involved. Thank you. Maybe to add to what Jonathan said, if you steal from a big corporation it's not like

a big mountain of money that isn't really from a person. When you steal something from a corporation, maybe the lower workers will get punished for that, because they didn't pay close attention to keeping an eye on the money or the products or whatever. So you never will be able to know the consequences of that deal. Yeah, very good point. Hi Delson. Hello, hello. Hi. Thank you for the talk and for staying up late to answer our questions. I have two questions, but I want to put them into context first, of my own experience and my own perceptions. Sorry for the background noise. This idea of rebirth is something that is pretty foreign to me, and it seems it's in part of the terms of just motivation, because the way I think of it is, if there's no rebirth, then as much suffering as you have in this lifetime, once you die it's over.

So I didn't grow up with the sort of an understanding of rebirth, and so my questions are: one, sort of how important is it to sort of accept and believe in rebirth to progress on this path? And two, is there a point on the path at which you sort of see it and experience it directly, that rebirth actually does happen? Yeah, thank you.

You're welcome. So we have to understand with regards to rebirth, we're not only just talking about, let's say, rebirth from one lifetime to the next, but we can also be talking about it from one moment to the next, and the passing away of consciousness in every moment. So that is a rebirth of one iota of consciousness and a passing away of a different iota of consciousness, of the same iota of consciousness. And then there is a new consciousness that arises and passes away. And this happens in every moment. So there is that understanding of rebirth.

Taking that into context, what you're looking at is every time you make a choice, so you're making the choice at the level of contact and feeling. You have an experience, and the mind inclines towards that and has craving. That craving gives rise to a new sense of identity based on the experience of that craving, which then gives rise to bhava, bhava being existence or habitual tendencies. It's the storehouse of certain tendencies from which the mind acts automatically. So here, that process of birth is also known as birth of action, or rebirth of action, which is to say you act. Whether it's in your mind, you have a thought; you have a verbal action, so you say something; or you have some kind of physical action.

Whatever you do from there causes the rebirth of that action. So on that level, there is rebirth, because then that action produces some kind of result that you could experience in a next cycle of dependent origination, that you can experience at some point in time. When it comes to rebirth from one lifetime to the next, it's not like you need to believe in that when you start out. But when you start to see it for yourself, this arising and passing away of consciousness, you start to get deeper insights at a certain point in time, where you realize, so if there is one arising of consciousness and passing away of consciousness, what happens at death?

Using the same context, this micro-level context of the arising and passing away of consciousness, the arising of consciousness happened because of formations. Those formations being rooted in some kind of intention, which means, just using that as an inference, you're able to see that at death there is a possibility that there's some kind of intention. It could be some kind of experience that you're having just prior to death that grabs onto it and gives rise to a new consciousness, which will then dissipate when it takes birth, let's say, or establishes itself into a new mentality and materiality. This is the understanding based on that micro-level of dependent origination.

But there is another point here. When you go through the process of the threefold knowledge and you see for yourself, you go back into your own past lives, understanding based on choices you made in the past how those choices arose and how those formations arose because of previous choices, and you start to link back based on your memory, and then that sort of gets beyond this one lifetime, and you start to see things in other lifetimes than in previous lifetimes. So that gives you some kind of an experience that there is a possibility of rebirth and there's a possibility of past lifetimes, and if that's the case then there's a possibility of future lifetimes, based on the conditions for that rebirth, the fuel for that rebirth, which is primarily craving, identification and ignorance. That ignorance is basically the ignorance of not seeing the four noble truths or not seeing the three characteristics in everything that you're experiencing in the way of vedana now in the way of healing, so

The short answer to that is no, you don't need to believe in rebirth in the beginning, but you want to have an open enough mind to be able to say it is possible. As you start to deepen your practice and start to see the arising and passing away of consciousness, you start to make the connections and see it is possible, because of formations, because of previous choices, that this can happen in another lifetime. If you take that micro level and you expand it from lifetime to lifetime, it still starts to make sense, but it will only make sense when you actually experience it and when you see it for yourself. So you're not expected to believe in rebirth. You're not expected to see it for you just to take it on faith. You're only here to have the open mind to be able to say, let me try and see for myself if this is a possibility, and then your experience gives you that confirmation if it is possible.

Thank you so much. Any maybe one last question? It's a very short question, because it's 11:30 for Delson in Asia. If not, shall we all share merit, please? All right, everyone can join me if you like. Be the acquisitions of all kinds of happiness, maybe inhabiting space and earth, diverse, and that is fantastic. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you, Delson. Nice to see everyone. Great questions today, can