The Arhant & Khemaka Sutta with Delson Armstrong-(Revised)

I have two suttas in mind today. One is called Samyutta Nikaya 1.25, the Arahant, and the second is Samyutta Nikaya 22.89, which is called Khemaka. I might have done the Khemaka sutta at some point before, but these two are related, and I've been having an interesting email discussion with John about this, about the sense of self, and basically that there is no controller as such, but then what about our relative existence? So I thought these two suttas might be relevant to that discussion and might be helpful to everyone here. So let's share my screen.

Can this be seen? Can everybody see this? Okay, looks good. Good. This is where we're starting from. The Arahant. This is actually a deva who's asking. I believe it's a deva who's asking these questions to the Buddha. In fact, the Samyutta that we're talking about is called the Deva Samyutta, which means the collection of discourses related to devas. So this is a discussion between the deva and the Buddha. If a bhikkhu is an arahant, consummate, with taints destroyed, one who bears his final body, would he still say, "I speak"?

And would he say, they speak to me this is a question from the deva if somebody is not somebody has been fully awakened somebody has destroyed the taints which means they have let go of all all uh taints of sensual desire of ignorance and uh the craving for existence and they bear their final body which means after the dissolution of this body they will enter into prior nibbana with such a person who has basically destroyed conceit you know we need to define what that means when we say conceit there are two aspects one is called self-view and the second is called conceit self-view comes from the pali which is sakaya ditti sakaya ditti so sakaya means with body.

Kaya is body or form, but generally it's body. Ditthi is view. So really what it's pointing out is the twenty different types of self-view. When we say twenty different types of self-view, we're talking about the five aggregates: that's form, or the body; feeling, or sensations; perception, or recognition of experience; sankharas, or what we would call formations, which you can also call things that create the conditions for certain experiences to arise; and finally we have awareness, or consciousness. So these are the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, intention or sankharas, and awareness, multiplied by the four kinds of self-view. What are the four kinds of self-view? The view that any of these five aggregates are me, mine, or myself. Generally, let's just start with me: that there is this idea that I am the body.

The idea that I am, I am experiences or sensations, I am the faculty of perception, or that I am the intention, or I am awareness. There is the view that this body belongs to a me, that this sensation or experience belongs to me, this perception or process of recognition is mine, belongs to me, this intention or formation belongs to me, and this awareness belongs to me. Give me one second, it's getting hot here.

That's the second type of self-view. The third kind of self-view is that there is something known as a self, or an Atman, right? That's the idea of a soul that is within the body, that somewhere in the body, at the size of a thumb, some people say, the Upanishads say, resides the Atman. Or that the self is in experience, that the self is basically prevalent through different experiences.

Or that the self is in the process of recognition. Or the self is in the intentions themselves, in the choices themselves. Or that the self is in awareness. And then finally, that the self, as we call Atman, is separate to or separate from the body, separate from feeling, separate from perception, separate from intention, separate from consciousness. In other words, there's an independent self here. In some cases, the alternative to that is that this self is an all-pervading self within which the process of the body, the process of feeling, process of perception, intention, and awareness are functioning.

For somebody who has stream entry, as it's understood, there are three things that go away. First is the doubt in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. There's the experiential confidence in the understanding that this particular path is leading to awakening, leading to one's liberation. Then what gets destroyed is the belief in a personal self. This is self-view. And then, of course, the rites and rituals, the attachment to rites and rituals.

So when we say that self-view is destroyed, what are we meaning by this? When somebody has a deep experience where they realize or see for themselves the building blocks of causes and conditions that create one's experience, so to speak, that create the concepts in the mind, this is what we call dependent origination, then they realize that there's no self in that process. There's no controller in this process. In effect, it is all an impersonal process that gives an experiential understanding of, yeah, actually this body is not me or mine or myself.

And there is no controller outside of the body. Likewise with the other four aggregates. And yet there is a sense of conceit. This gets destroyed much later. So intellectually, because of that deep experience, or even because of reflection and investigation and contemplation, there's the realization: yeah, there is no permanent independent self in this process. There's a great book, which I recommend to a lot of advanced students. It's called Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness.

It's written by a Tibetan monk, but it's a wonderful book. The first section of the book relates to the anatta of the five aggregates, and it's a really well presented process of investigation and method of meditation on this. If you do it right, and this is really when you're doing the five aggregates meditation that's available on the channel, you can get a very deep anatta experience. Yet there's still some process of relating to the world as being separate, as something that is in control. In every moment there is a sense of a self that arises

that compares. This is what mana means, which is what the word conceit comes from. Mana, or man, also means pride. There's a sense of pride in terms of spiritual ego. So if you look at it from those terms, we may say that the ego is cleansed of this identification process with the body, mind, feelings, sensations, and so on, but there is still a spiritual ego. There is pride in the Dhamma. There's pride in being a Buddhist. There's pride in being a great meditation practitioner. There's pride in being the best at whatever it is, and this pride, the spiritual ego, is that conceit. So transactionally, conventionally speaking, in terms of the relative world, a self arises and goes in dependence upon the causes and conditions that arise. But the mind that is able to see this, and reflect on this, and is able to capture and realize this, is just a transactional sense of self that is relating to the world rather than taking it personally. How do we take things personally? How does the mind take things personally,

because it feels like it is separate from everything else? Going back to the Maya Sutta, right? This is the sutta that we did a few weeks ago, the very short instructions. In the seeing, there's only the seen. In the hearing, there's only the heard. In the sensing, there's only the sensed. In the cognizing, there's only the cognized. That is an experience that has no self in it, and yet there is experience.

That is an experience in which there is no inside or outside, no subject or object. There is just pure experience. You see, the traditions before the time of the Buddha, or even concurrent with the time of the Buddha, which has been known historically as the Vedantic tradition, stem from the Upanishads, which discuss the idea that there is something behind the hearing, behind the seeing, behind the sensing, behind the cognizing, and that is the Atman. But then it gets a little more subtle than that, where it says, actually, there is no self, or there is no knower. It's trying to collapse the duality between object and subject.

And the Buddha says, basically, it's just an impersonal process. And the virus, let's say, defect in the coding and the operating system of the mind is to relate to every experience, internally or externally, as me, mine, or myself. And the only reason is because of conditioning. This is why, when we talk about the Buddha Dhamma, the process of destroying conceit takes a long time, because it's a process of continuous application of the Dhamma and reconditioning of mind until you let go of what we would say is the identification with the Dhamma, what we would say is the raft.

We're not letting go of the Dhamma itself. The Dhamma is there, whether we practise it or not. But what goes away is our spiritual pride, our spiritual ego. Yeah, so we have this understanding, let's say, that ultimately there is no controller. Ultimately, it's just a series of processes. But in every given choice, or in every given moment, there are choices available.

Who are those choices available to? Or are the choices available to someone? This is what we should reflect on. This is a modern-day kind of reflection, because in the time of the Buddha there wasn't much in the way of an explicit idea of free will or predeterminism. The closest that comes to it is something called niyati vada. Niyati vada means the idea that there is only predeterminism. It's like throwing a ball of yarn and it unfurls, and the string unfurls until it's the end. So the idea is we are not in control of our enlightenment, we're not in control of our thoughts, we're not in control of when we get enlightenment, and so on. But the Buddha comes along and says that is in direct conflict with the understanding of karma, because karma is ultimately intention, karma is ultimately choice. And there is a sutta which is called the

Maha Punnama Sutta, the Greater Discourse on the Full Moon, or something like that, in which somebody does reflect and think, okay, we say the five aggregates are not self, then by which self is one experiencing that not self? Right, because there's still this idea that the ego is there. There's still this idea that there's some kind of self that's present outside of all this. This is where it gets very tricky. It gets very subtle, and only experience, direct experience, can really help to collapse all of it.

But I will try as best as I can to explain this in a way that might be understandable, and the way I would explain it is: in every given moment, what happens is it's like every action or choice that we take, it collapses everything in that moment, and all that's present is just the action. And by taking that action, there is a flow of experience. There is: I will pour this coffee into the cup. Or the next day I choose to say, I don't want this coffee.

And so we are presented generally with binary choices, but a multitude of choices in every given moment, and it's the conditioning of the mind that almost automatically deviates to a specific choice or outcome, because it's been conditioned that way. This is what we mean by birth of action and bhava. The habitual tendencies, the habitual tendencies, are the library of possible choices that the mind inclines towards almost automatically due to previous conditions. So if I prefer, let's say David and Kirshan take me out for lunch and they say, do you want to go for fried chicken, or do you want to go for steak, or do you want to go to have Indian food?

What do you think I will choose? Obviously Indian food, because it is the best, right? And that's not my personal opinion, it's a fact, it's the best. Why do I do that? Because it's my cultural condition, it's my conditioning of the tongue, it's my conditioning that has been brought up in that way. So I will choose that in particular. But if I'm aware of that, see, it's the awareness and mindfulness that's the gatekeeper that allows the mind to see when the sense of self arises. In ignorance, in the lack of mindfulness, the mind automatically identifies with it and says, no, I want Indian food, because this is what I want. And let's say the Indian restaurant is closed, but myself, my sense of self is strong, and the Indian restaurant is closed. How do I feel? I feel upset. I'm like, I wish it was open, you know? And I begrudgingly go for fried chicken or for steak, right?

But my mind is always on Indian food. It's the conditioning that causes that sense of self to become so deeply ingrained. And where does it come from? This sense of self comes from the moment that we are born into this world, physically. Because there is this sense of security in the womb, for the most part. And when we come out and we are born on that particular day, we are met with all forms of insecurity. Where am I? What is this light? What is this person who's holding me? And whatever it is, there's always this sense of relation to the outside world. Before in the womb, there is no separation, there is no sense of separation, there is sound, there is mental activity going on, and indeed for children, they don't feel separate from the mother for quite a while until they have their own separate identities.

But that's built over time as the sense fields, the sense bases, are taking in information and we start creating preferences. So the conditioning starts from day one. Indeed, the conditioning starts from the moment there's mental activity in the womb. And it's better to understand that when we talk about conceit, it is the desire for a certain kind of safety, certain kind of security.

And the only way we can have that security, for many people, is to be on top, is to be the best, is to compare with the outside world and the inside world. Because that sense of separation creates, ironically, both security and lack of security. Because we can't know any better. As soon as all duality collapses in that form, then there's only the seeing, there's only the hearing, there's only the sensing, there's only the cognizing. And I'm not saying that in the case of somebody fully awakened, and this is just my understanding of this.

that experience is completely permanent, because a lot of people will reflect on that and say that the experience of non-duality, which is the collapse of all duality, is happening all the time for somebody fully awake. That's an idealization. But what changes is the irreversible understanding that whenever there is identity coming up, it is just a process. Whenever craving comes up, it is just an impersonal process. So it's not like now they're just floating awareness all the time, and that they are, I'm saying for a fully awakened being, that they're floating awareness all the time, or that there's no sense of me and mine and the world at large. And this is what the Buddha is referring to. He says, let me go to that. He says, if a bhikkhu is an arahat, consummate with taints destroyed, one who bears his final body, he might still say, 'I speak,' and he might say, 'they speak to me.'

skillful knowing the world's parlance, he uses such terms as mere expressions. So in other words, it's like, this is where your spiritual ego can come in as well. Somebody may believe that they are fully awakened and they'll just say, this body is feeling hunger, or, there is hunger arising, or whatever. When you're in the world and you're communicating with the world, just say, I'm hungry. I'm feeling hungry. That's it. What's the big deal of that? So the words aren't necessarily the reflection of the understanding. But deeper than that, when we say that there are certain choices in every given moment, what is happening is that in every given moment, when those choices are present,

as simple as whether I want to drink a cup of coffee today or not, as simple as whether I want to go to an Indian restaurant or to a steakhouse or I just feel like fasting, all of those choices are already preconditioned. This doesn't negate free will in the sense of you don't have a choice. You see, when we say free will, there is this idea that free will means that whatever I choose is outside of the realm of causality and conditionality, completely free. What there is is conditioning and conditioned will. And this is why the Buddha says, if we say that everything is predetermined, then why do anything at all, why make an effort at all, why meditate at all? And this is where the understanding of the relative and the absolute arises. In the relative world, so long as there is a body, so long as there are senses, so long as there is a mind, so long as there are relationships, so long as there is this world and the other, there are certain guidelines, i.e. karma, to be faced, to be reckoned with.

In the very absolute sense, and we talk about the absolute, which refers to the nibbana dhatu, which refers to that nibbana ayatana, that realm, so-called realm, that dimension, so-called dimension, that is referred to as the nibbana dhatu. There, no karma exists, no self exists, no I, me, mine, no dualities of this lightness or that darkness, this or that, none of that exists.

So in that absolute world, so to speak, in that absolute dimension, there is nothing going on at all. And yet there's no one to know that nothing is going on at all. So how do we know that nothing's going on at all? Because when we reflect from the relative, we can see that in the relative world, there's choice present. There is a sense of transactional self present when it comes to engaging with the world. This relative idea and the absolute idea, this you will find in many schools of Buddhism and across many Indian traditions, and it's the way of understanding that the relative world, so long as we are in the body, so to speak, so long as there is a body and there are sense experiences, then there is meditation.

When we meditate, for example, we go into jhanas, we take loving kindness as an object or we take awareness as an object, then that means there's still the sense of duality. There's a me and there's an object, there's a meditator and there's an object of meditation. But when you meditate, like somebody like Sariputta, he will say, it did not occur to me that I was meditating, it did not occur to me that there was an object of meditation, there was just meditation going on. Oftentimes people will ask me this question. We talk about there's no sense of separate self or personal self or independent self, and so on and so forth. Then who are we sending loving kindness to, and who is sending loving kindness, right? Well, in the relative world we still send loving kindness because karma still is present, vibrations,

which are basically karma, sensory experiences, which are basically vibrations, mental thoughts, emotions, which are basically vibrations, all of them exist in the relative world. And so for the relative world there's a relative sense of self, transactional sense of self, that sends loving kindness to other beings, that receives loving kindness, and so on and so forth. If you have full understanding of the absolute, then by all means don't send loving kindness. But see how you feel, see how the mind feels. It will say, okay, there is no sense of self, so there's no need to send any loving kindness. Okay, maybe a day without loving kindness, you might feel okay, it's fine. A week without loving kindness, now things get irritating. Now people irritate you. So what happened to the sense of self there? If there's no sense of self, why are you getting irritated? Why are you getting annoyed?

If there's no sense of self, why are you feeling compassion? Why are you feeling happiness? Why are you feeling bliss? Why are you feeling joy? Because in the relative world these things are present in the form of impersonal processes, which are impersonal vibrations, which are nothing but impersonal karma that arise due to previous causes and conditions, dependent on previous choices. And so the process of reconditioning, which is the eightfold path, continues to happen, continues to happen until at some point that becomes the default mode of function, and eventually

there is just process going on in that moment between the feeling or experience and craving, that is broken, and what is presented is complete and full acceptance of things as they actually are. Does that mean that you make no choice anymore? No, it means that you understand what conditions are present and how the conditioning leads to a certain particular preference, but you don't identify with that preference, so you don't control the outcome, you don't control what arises. The only thing you are quote-unquote in control of is, in that moment, what choice is made in reference to the relative world. But if you function from as an arahat would, as somebody fully awakened would, from the absolute, then even the choices are just seen as child's play. They're just transactional processes, conventional processes that happen.

So when one is an arahat, consummate with taints destroyed, one who bears the final body, is it because he has come upon conceit, that he would say, I speak, that he would say, they speak to me? Right? Are we saying here, this is the Deva asking, fine, so somebody has become fully awakened. So when they say, I speak, or I do this, or I prefer this, or they're doing this to me, is that being involved through conceit? And the Buddha says, no knots exist for one with conceit abandoned.

For him, all knots of conceit are consumed. Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, he might still say, I speak. He might say too, they speak to me, skillful knowing the world's parlance. He uses such terms as mere expressions. So let's break this down. No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned. For him, all knots of conceit are consumed. Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, he might still say, I speak, or he might say too, they speak to me. Conceived and conceiving. What does that mean when we say conceiving?

In a couple of weeks, we're going to go through the Majjhima Nikaya 1, which is the root of all things. And there it talks about how somebody who is in the world, doesn't practice the Dhamma, sees the earth with reference to earth and so on and so forth. But somebody who is on the path is making an effort to see earth just as earth, with no conceiving of earth as earth. And one who is an arahat, or fully awakened, or one who is a Buddha, just sees earth as earth without any conceiving. So what do we mean by conceiving when we say conceiving? We're talking about conceptualizing. We're talking about relating from a sense of self.

And this is, again, very subtle to explain. Unless you have had a deep experience of anatta, especially when you do the reflection of the five aggregates, you will see, you, I'm using transactionally in terms of the parlance, you will see for yourself that there are no thoughts in reference to what is being experienced. There is no conceptualizing in reference to what is being perceived. There is no feeler behind the felt. There is no perceiver behind the perceived. There is no conceptualizer behind the conceptualized. There is no walker behind the walking. There is no actor behind the acting. There is no doer behind the doership or doing. There's no doership behind the doing. There is just process going on, and a lot of people, when they have this deep experience of anatta, will say it feels like the mind has no thoughts.

It's not that the mind doesn't have thoughts. It's that the mind is so fully engrossed in every single moment that it just goes with the flow, so to speak. And so it is truly experiencing, quote-unquote experiencing, that understanding, that collapse of duality, as the seeing, there's only the seeing, in the hearing, there's only the hearing. Why does that happen? Because there is a deep reflection in every given moment. If you can do this as a practice, as a reflection, that when you're walking, who is walking, what is walking,

when you are eating, who is eating, what is eating, when you are reflecting on the five aggregates, when the meditation is happening, who is meditating, and what are you meditating for? Are you meditating for the conceived idea of Nibbana, or is there just meditation going on? That is the experience of the signless. That is the experience of the emptiness. That is the experience of the undirected.

Where the mind has no desire for a particular outcome, no control for a particular outcome. The mind is empty of any sense of this is me, mine, or myself. And the mind is not taking anything as an object, because all objectivity, or let's say taking of an object, has collapsed. And there is just free flow of processing and experience going on. And yet in that, there can still be words used like I, me, or mine.

So I'll end this one and we'll move to the next sutta. Let's see if I can get to that, 22... I think it was 80 something. Yeah, I think this is it here. So it's a little longer, but it's definitely worth listening to, because this is even subtler, where Khemaka is talking about this. On one occasion, a number of elder bhikkhus were dwelling at Kosambi in Gosita's park.

Now on that occasion, the Venerable Khemaka was living at Jujube Tree Park, sick, afflicted, gravely ill. Then in the evening, those elder bhikkhus emerged from seclusion and addressed the Venerable Dasaka thus: Come, friend Dasaka, approach the bhikkhu Khemaka and say to him, the elders say to you, friend Khemaka, we hope that you are bearing up, friend, we hope that you are getting better, we hope that your painful feelings are subsiding and not increasing, and that their subsiding, not their increase, is to be discerned. Yes, friends, the Venerable Dasaka replied, and he approached the Venerable Khemaka and delivered this message. The Venerable Khemaka answered: I am not bearing up, friend. I am not getting better. Strong, painful feelings are increasing in me, not subsiding.

And their increase, not their subsiding, is to be discerned. Then the Venerable Dasaka approached the elder bhikkhus and reported what the Venerable Khemaka had said. They told him, Come, dear friend Dasaka, approach the bhikkhu Khemaka and say to him, the elders say to you, friend Khemaka: the five aggregates subject to clinging, friend, have been spoken of by the Blessed One. That is the form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging.

Among these five aggregates subject to clinging, I do not regard anything as self or as belonging to self. So what is he referring to here? He's saying, I do not see any self view in relation to the five aggregates. This is what we're talking about when we say sakkaya ditthi. I know intellectually, based on my experience, that none of these aggregates are me, mine, or myself. I know for a fact that this is the case from my experience.

Interesting. What does he mean by this? The notion I am, when you say I am, this is the ahamkara, the I-making, the me-making, the my-making, has not yet vanished in me in relation to these aggregates, but I do not regard anything among them as this I am. So there's a difference between regarding and the notion. When he's referring to the notion, he's saying the deep-seated, deep-rooted idea that there is still a sense of this I am. Why is the I am present there? Why is the ahamkara there? Why is the I-making there? Why is the my-making there? Why is the me-making there? Let's explore this. Then the Venerable Dasaka approached the elder bhikkhus and reported what the Venerable Khemaka had said.

These are long, very subtle, complicated questions, and he's able to go and deliver them exactly. Finally, Khemaka has had enough, and he says, Enough, friend Dasaka. Why do you keep running back and forth? Bring me my staff, I'll go to the elder bhikkhus myself. So he's a bit annoyed now. Then the Venerable Khemaka, leaning on his staff, approached the elder bhikkhus, exchanged greetings with them, and sat down to one side. The elder bhikkhus then said to him, friend Khemaka, when you speak of this I am, what is it that you speak of as I am? Here we go, friends. I do not speak of form as I am, nor do I speak of I am apart from form. I do not speak of feeling as I am, nor of perception as I am, nor of volitional formations as I am, nor of consciousness as I am, nor do I speak of I am apart from consciousness. Friends, although the notion I am has not yet vanished in me in relation to these aggregates, still I do not regard anything

He's saying that when we talk about the notion I am, when we talk about the idea that, okay, we have understood intellectually that there is no ultimate controller here, we have understood anatta to some extent, and yet there is still something that belongs to that scent of the flower, or that scent belongs to the flower, and that is the notion of I am, which belongs to conceit. That conceit that we talk about is that sense of comparison, that sense of separation. It's only when you have the sense of separation that there is a me and an other. Oh, what happened here? I didn't even look at that. Anyway, there is a sense of me and the other. There's a separate sense of self still present. That's not because intellectually I see that. That's because over a period of time, over even lifetimes, the notion of I am, the notion that there is a doer in relation to these aggregates, is still present. There is a sense of function

that I am this in reference to how I act, how I behave, how I do things. That what is seen as process is seen as my doing, that I am doing this. I realize that this can be very subtle, and I realize that we may not fully understand what all of this necessarily means. But when you have a deep experience of this, when you have a deep glimpse of this, you see that collapse of duality, and there is no notion, there is no thought, that I am doing this. That there is just doing happening, or there is just experience happening. And at the very absolute level, when there is Nibbana, right, there is no doer, there is nothing being done, and there is no object of being done.

In other words, there is no meditator, there is no meditation object, and there is no meditation happening either. There is just that. And just that, when we say that, that is what we refer to when we say the Tathagata. The Tathagata is one who has gone to that. What is that? That is the Nibbana dhatu. It's the total collapse of all experience.

And in the relative world, somebody who is fully awakened understands and sees this, that all doing is just a doing, it's just a process. While I may experience the doing as just the doing, there can be notional... when we say notional, we mean in terms of parlance, in terms of designation, that I am doing this. But deep in the mind, there is the realization that there's just doing happening. There's choosing happening. There's just choice.

The sense of I, me, mine, or myself is projected onto that choice as me, my, or myself, due to that conceit. So let's continue. He says, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, that is, somebody who is an anagami, still, in relation to the five aggregates, there lingers in him a residual conceit, I am. A desire, I am. An underlying tendency, I am, that has not yet been uprooted.

Sometime later, he dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates. Such is form, such is its origin, such is its passing away. Such is feeling, such is its origin, such is its passing away. Such is perception, such is its origin, such is its passing away. Such are volitional formations, such are their origin, such are their passing away. Such is consciousness, such is its origin, such is its passing away. And he dwells thus contemplating the rise and fall in the five aggregates.

subject to suffering and not me, not my, not myself. This is one level, this is one layer. Right, one has let go of that self-view. But one, when one continuously contemplates, continuously starts to see the aggregates as arising and passing away, that deep... I'm not talking about just saying, oh, the form aggregate is impermanent, the feeling aggregate. The deep understanding that this is impermanent. If you have a very deep meditation where you see the impermanence of all experience, of all relationships, of all karma, of the world itself, you contemplate the existence, to the experience, or to the extent that even the existence of the world is impermanent.

Then you will drop all notions that anything belongs to you, or you belong to anything, that it is all just a process. It's like when the fruit is ripe enough, it will fall on its own. When the perception of impermanence is ripe enough, the notion of I am is dropped. And how do you ripen impermanence?

How do you ripen the understanding of impermanence? Deep contemplation and meditation of seeing the links of dependent origination. I will let you in on a little practice that I do, or I have done in the past. I would reflect and contemplate on each of the links of dependent origination, and I would look at the links of dependent origination in the forward order and then the reverse order, and in the forward order and the reverse order, and I would do this continuously. When you do this, it's not for anything in terms of trying to memorize or remember each of the links. However, as a side benefit, you do see that. But it's a deep awareness and realization that it is really just a process, and when you see that there is

the realization that yes, everything is impermanent. Everything that we see, everything that we experience, all experiences that we have, is impermanent, because they're all dependent upon causes and conditions. There is a sutta which is the simile of, I think, the greater footprint elephant, the Greater Discourse on the Elephant's Footprint, and there Sariputta talks about the destruction of the world. If you really see the impermanence of everything, you contemplate your own body's impermanence. You contemplate the impermanence of all feeling. You contemplate the impermanence of all perception. You contemplate the impermanence of history itself. I mean, how many times have you experienced in history the things that we're experiencing now, countless times, just an arising and passing away? The problem is we take it so personally, but one day we will all go away. For some of us it'll be 10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road. Some of us it'll be 50 years. On their own, we'll all go away.

Nobody will remember our names. Maybe our grandchildren, if they have grandchildren, maybe our great-grandchildren. After that, we're gone. Nobody will remember us. This planet one day will be destroyed, whether it's through our making or through, billions of years later. When you have this deep understanding of impermanence, then there's nothing to cling to. There's nothing to hold on to.

You just see it as a process. This understanding isn't for beginners. I wouldn't give this instruction to beginners, because they will have panic attacks. They will have, like, oh my god, you mean everything is impermanent? Then what does that mean about my life? What does that mean about my achievements? What does that mean about this and the other? But one who has matured to this through this practice, when their mind is ready and they see it in this way and they contemplate in this way, they take things less seriously. They take things less as me, mine, or myself, and there's freedom. That is the freedom: the realization of such as form, such as feeling, such as perception, such as formation, such as consciousness, such are their origin, and such are their passing away. The fruit of that is the ripening of wisdom, and the mind no longer has any notions of this is me, my, or myself. It will continue to speak in local parlance, but the idea that anything belongs to me, no

For some people, that might seem like it means you don't have any emotions anymore. You can't relate to the world anymore, or you become like a zombie or an android or something like that, you become an emotionless being. No, not at all. What you let go of, and what you experience, is the total freedom from suffering, cessation of suffering. So the relation with people, the relating to people, may seem heartless, may seem cold, may seem like you're aloof. But that's to the world, that's already mired in emotion, mired in attachment, mired in this idea that this is me, mine, or myself.

But when you are truly free, you can still live in the world and be outside of it. That's how you are as the lotus. The lotus grows out from the mud and yet remains pure, retains its purity. In other words, the sense of you being in the world is there, but the sense of me, mine or myself, that is, the mud doesn't stick. So in a world that is mired with suffering, you continue to function without that suffering, and eventually that rubs off on other people. That has an effect on other people. You don't have to do anything. People will just see it and they'll realize, and they'll want to know more. Maybe they'll ask you, or maybe they'll go and see what TWIM retreats are available and see for themselves, whatever it is. So then he goes on to say, suppose friends, a cloth has become soiled and stained and its owners give it to a laundryman. The laundryman would scour it evenly with cleaning salt, lye, or cow dung and rinse it in clean water.

Even though that cloth would become pure and clean, it would still retain a residual smell of cleaning salt, lye, or cow dung that had not yet been vanished. The laundryman would then give it back to the owners. The owners would put it in a sweet-scented casket, and the residual smell of cleaning salt, lye, or cow dung that had not yet been vanished would vanish. So, true friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, still in relation to the aggregates there lingers in him a residual conceit, that desire, that underlying tendency of I am, that has not yet been uprooted. As he dwells thus contemplating the impermanence, the conditionality, the rise and fall of the aggregates,

then that residual conceit I am, the desire I am, the underlying tendency I am that had not yet been uprooted, this comes to be uprooted. In other words, keep practicing. When this was said, the elder bhikkhu said to the Venerable Khemaka, we did not ask our questions in order to trouble the Venerable Khemaka, but we thought that he would be capable of explaining, teaching, proclaiming, establishing, disclosing, analyzing, and elucidating the Blessed One's teachings in detail. And the Venerable Khemaka has explained, taught, proclaimed, established, disclosed, analyzed, and elucidated the Blessed One's teachings in detail. This is what the Venerable Khemaka said. Elated, the elder bhikkhus delighted in the Venerable Khemaka's statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of 60 elder bhikkhus and of the Venerable Khemaka were liberated from the taints by non-clinging. What a beautiful example of somebody who just teaches, and by teaching experiences full awakening.

Now I will open it up to comments, questions, whatever it might be. Hi Delson, are you there? Yes. Hi. Um, could you repeat? I wasn't recording at first, but now I am. Could you repeat the name of that book again, about the aggregates? What was that, by... progressive stages of meditation on emptiness? Okay, so my understanding of an impersonal process, correct me if I'm wrong, is based on what I experience as everything arising spontaneously, if everything is arising, thoughts and emotions, if they're all arising spontaneously.

I mean, how can there be a doer? What do we mean by spontaneous? Well, I'm sitting meditating and all of a sudden the thought comes out of nowhere, so that's arising spontaneously. When I'm walking, I might have an emotion, a memory, and I'm experiencing that it rises, arises spontaneously, right? So if everything is arising spontaneously, is that the same as it's all a person, an impersonal process? That's basically what I'm asking. Yes. I mean, when you say spontaneously, to my mind what that refers to is that I don't have control over what thoughts come and go, right? I'm not in control of the kind of thoughts that might arise and pass away. So what might seem spontaneous, which is really dependent on various conditions, I'm not in control of. So there's no me thinking that, right? There's no thinker going on, there's just thinking going on, right? And so there couldn't be a doer based on that analysis, right? Right, exactly. Then going on to the part where you were talking about, I just speak, or using the word I

To me it's, I don't give any credence to that because it's just a thought that comes and goes. Yeah. So I'm using transactional sentences. Yeah, just right. But it's just a thought that comes and goes, so there's no energy put into it. There's no, that's right, that's right. Then the last thing is, when Buddhists, when Buddhists talk about Buddha nature a lot, is that the same as nibbana? Yeah. Some certain Buddhist communities will talk about Buddha nature, which is actually what's referred to as the Tathagatagarbha, which is the womb of the Buddha, the arising of that Buddha nature.

That's essentially just a way of saying. Yeah, okay. Yeah. So there, if there's just no me, if there's just meditating going on, there's that, that's just happening. Exactly, and that's the practice. I would urge all of you to see that, maybe in the beginning superficially, but as you start to deepen the practice of seeing the aggregates as just an impersonal process, your meditation will be very, very different. It will just be meditating going on, and because there's no expectations in it, there's no I in it, there's no doership in it. I mean, I would be surprised if you don't experience nirvana. Okay, thanks, Delson. Thank you, Christopher. Hi Delson. Um, I wanted to, my question is, what is the difference between predetermination and free will that you mentioned, because it's one not fully clear for me. Um, what you mentioned, my understanding is that because everything is causes and effects,

that would lead more toward kind of like a predetermination, because the tendencies guide actions towards some place, so we could kind of trace it all back to the beginning, we could predetermine the future, right? In some ways, at a high level, but I don't think it was purely what you will describe. So if you can clarify that aspect, if that is correct or not correct? Yeah, this is a good question. So when we talk about, like, predeterminism in terms of the understanding of niyativada, that's the philosophical standpoint that was available to people at the time of the Buddha, that niyati literally means destiny. So there's a certain kind of destiny that someone has, and so, if they're, and so, like, just as a ball of yarn is unfurled, there's no control over what you'll experience, when and how. But there is the understanding in Buddhist philosophy, or the Buddha Dhamma, that in every given moment, though, there are causes and conditions. There is, because of the conditioning of

the, let's say, you throw, like, let's say you have, like, gears of things that are going on in the machinery, right, and it's just doing its own thing, when, and that's the, the engine or machine of craving. And you throw a wrench into the machine. That's the eightfold path, that's the Dhamma. And now there's no longer the functioning of, you know, I still continue to choose things that cause me suffering, so to speak. Now, because of the conditioning of the eightfold path, the conditioning of my practice of meditation, the conditioning of my letting go, certain sankharas become stronger

and they overtake the sankharas that would cause me to take certain actions that lead to my suffering. So it's like, does that mean that my introduction, let's say, to Buddhism, my learning of the eightfold path, was predetermined? Somebody could say that from a certain perspective, but when we talk about moment to moment, that is some fresh new information that's coming in, and we can choose then whether we want to accept it or we want to reject it. And by accepting it, what we're doing is, now the wrench becomes a part of the machinery, and instead of the machinery moving in a certain direction, which leads to further craving, now the machinery is moving in reverse, where the craving and the clinging and the becoming and all of that is subverted, is sublimated, is let go of and is transformed into the machinery of the eightfold path. So this is one way of understanding it. Maybe if I can just have a follow-up question regarding that.

I think the aspect of when you say you choose to accept it or not to accept it, it's still a little confusing, because the way I would think of it at this moment is that if your machinery is adjusted in such a way that the gear that comes, the Dhamma, fits in, then it would start changing, matching the machinery, as you mentioned, and they will go into that process. But if it is not tuned to that, it will reject it, so there's also not a choice. It's just a matter of what is the state of that machinery at that moment in time. That's what I'm saying. In the ultimate sense it all seems like it's predetermined, but when we're talking in the relative, it feels like we made a choice there. And also, I will say this: the only reason why we will choose to accept the eightfold path or anything like it is because we've had enough of suffering.

So in other words, we're so conditioned by looking for a way out of suffering, by sex, drugs and rock and roll, or whatever it might be, that eventually we realize there must be a way out of this. And that's the surrender that we talk about. That's the beginning of taking refuge that we talk about. In that process of surrender, which we can again say is conditioned by the realized, by just the suffering itself. And that is true, because the suffering leads to faith.

There is conditionality and causality. But there is in every moment some kind of sense of conditioned will, conditioned action. So everything is conditioned, but it's not predetermined. It's not absolute predeterminism. Understood. Thank you, Delson. David. Thanks, Delson. Good to see you again. Yeah, this is wow. This talk, yeah, it's not absolutely predetermined, because I guess to think of it as determined and conditioned already places it back into the wheel of samsara. So we're lost again. But I just want to say something in terms of my own process, because I feel like you're part of the algorithm for me, in that I've been listening to Nisgardata and you're reading about it. I've been doing Mahamudra practice around some of this.

And it's like, this is really, I feel like the dharma is just, did I choose this? Did it choose me? There's no doer. It's being done to me. But even saying that, I want to try to stay out of sort of discursive thinking that I'm so accustomed to doing as an analyst. And just say, finally, there's a teacher. His name's Jim Newman. He wouldn't even describe himself as non-dual. It doesn't matter. But when I talk to him and I get sort of pointers, he'll say to me, you still think you're talking to someone. And that cuts through me like a knife. So as I was listening to you, my discursive mind, small mind, I also do a lot of Zen and Zen really helps me with this.

It wants to follow you, understand you, know it, the knowing mind. And then I'm like, I still think I'm listening to someone, Delson, this self that's talking to me separately. I have this self that's going to know something, discover it, and yeah, just cut. So I say all this. There's still part of me attaching to this thing called dharma that brought me here to you today to listen to this, that, like I said, thinks you're part of the algorithm, which you are, we all are. That's dharma, datu. So it's like, oh okay, trust. And as my Dzogchen teacher says, just relax. You've told me this many times. You've said this to me more times.

I'm like, is he a Dzogchen practitioner? He does not sound Theravada to me, but in any event, thank you. I just wanted to share that. I don't know if it resonates with anyone, if it pops anyone else open, but yeah, this has really been truly beautiful. So thank you. Thank you. That's very useful. Yeah. I cut through all the red tape of, am I doing something or not doing or whatever?

Thank you. I'm just going to look at some of the questions in the chat. Let's see if I can see what here it says: I feel like I'm always reflecting on myself as an agent in my experience. Is this the conceit of 'I am'? Yes, exactly. Always reflecting on yourself as an agent, so the sense of agency. Yeah, this is very interesting, because the language here is a little tricky. The sense of doership, that's what I like to say or use, because then it's like there's no one doing anything, you know. And it sounds so absurd to a person just mired in the language of me, mine and myself, but in reality there's no one doing anything. And if you can reflect on this by seeing each action as related or dependent on causes and conditions, and each action ultimately being impermanent, then you lose or let go of that sense of agency or that sense of doership, and it's just seen as action, as action, or thinking as thinking, or experiencing as just experiencing. Oh, just follow up. Yeah. So, but even the sense that

as a not even an agent, a doing agent. I mean, I just, I feel like I'm like the person experiencing this sound, or you know, it's not, it's just like there's an entity or something that I feel is hard, and I'm always reflecting on it and looking for how things affected, and that kind of thing. Yeah. So then my suggestion to you would be to find where that entity resides. Can you find where that entity is? Okay. And, but is that what you mean by conceit? Yeah. So the moment you look for that, it disappears.

that's that's the spoiler alert but you'll see okay it says uh hi delson can we do once together such a meditation on the links of dependent origination forward yeah i think i can uh i can do a meditation at some point maybe uh in one of the retreats or some setting i'll do a guided meditation on this and we can put it up on uh on the channels uh did buddha create buddhism as a religion why do people call it a religion why do we call it a blism i you know you're right with me man when i when you think of these things like i don't i i don't consider myself as a buddhist uh or anything right all isms are just um spiritual ego at the end of the day so why do they call it a religion that's the world that's the world we live in they always want to uh typify something as uh or categorize something as something or another buddhism as um buddhism in terms of like what the buddha taught really it's a

it's a mechanism for us to let go of suffering it's a list or set of lists that are lifestyle practices for easy living and freedom from suffering but it gets corrupted into a religion because that's just how the world functions is it accurate to say that depend origination is the foundation for the three marks of existence yes that is accurate uh oh was there two books you mentioned and can you please write the name and author of the book um i don't know i think i just mentioned the one book which is uh progressive already write it down progressive stages of meditation emptiness um okay so

Then, in quantum physics, it is said that what we do in the present can change the past. Just thought this might relate to the talk today. Okay, that's interesting. It is said that what we do in the present can change the past. I think, if I reflect on what that's saying, I think from a subjective experience we could say that how we experience the world, and how we change how we experience the world, also changes how we relate to the past. So the past is not me, mine or myself. It was just a process or series of events or experiences. Okay, please deconstruct the self in view of the uniqueness of experience. Can you give a little bit more on what you mean by uniqueness of experience? Thank you, Delson. Well, my experiences are of my own. They can't be experienced

by others. They can be shared in a certain sense, of someone relating to or in some way feeling it, but the experience is still unique. And so in a sense there is a self there, even if you see it as a process. Can you help deconstruct that unique self that has experience, or that you know, experience and karma are kind of interchangeable here? Yeah, yeah. So that's the thought process when you were saying that, that led me to think about karma in terms of karma, because everyone's karma is their own, so to speak, right? We've heard it said that we are inheritors of our own karma. We are subject to our own karma, and it is unique in the sense of the choices that are presented and the choices we make, or the paths that we choose to take.

That is unique, and the, let's say, the complexity of samsara allows, when I talk about algorithms and things like that, coding allows for multitudes of permutations of various different kinds of experience, and those experiences will be exactly what is required based on the fructification of that particular karma. And so that karma is unique to us as the self, but in reality even that is just a process. It's just another permutation that happens that seems unique. Emilio. All right, that's, thank you. Thank you for the talk. I have a couple of questions. One, if I understood, in summary, this talk, that was almost dividing, was almost divided in two parts. That says one part, say, the sense of self, which is mainly related to the aggregates, and because the aggregates come and go

And by looking at them, by meditating on them, you realize that there is not a self, in essence. But then almost the discourse was going to a deeper understanding with this conceit. So almost an additional level, a progression, let's say. And in this conceit, the only thing I understand, I know, from a mundane level, is if you have the tendency to compare yourself with other, or compare the town you live in with another, or the nation you're living with the other, you should pay attention, because there is probably view and conceived in doing that. Yes. Okay. Uh, because it's important sometimes to have this ankle that tells you be careful. You have to work on this, on this progress. All right, so you confirm my understanding on that. The other question I have there, soon, is

We were talking before about the aggregates, that volition and thought and perception come and go, so you have little control. I would argue you definitely don't have control in them arising. You have some sort of control in them going away, especially when you have it, when you are a Dhamma practitioner, you have a certain control in letting them go. So disappearing, is that a true statement as well? Insofar as when we let go, right, when we let go. Exactly. Yes, yes, that's really the mechanism. All right. Thank you for confirming my understanding. Absolutely. Okay, I think that should be it. Let's do some sharing of the merit. No one is sharing, and nothing is being shared, and

there's no sharing to anyone. So, yet we share. Should I share the screen, please? Yeah, I think I've got it. Okay. 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. Okay, thank you everyone. I will see you around. Take care. Thank you, Delson. Thank you, Delson.