Mar 28 2021 - MN 113 - The True Person - Total Non-Identification with Experiences Leads to Nibbana

Majjhima Nikaya 113, a good person. Delson, I'll leave the word to you, please. Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, everyone. I'll be reading Majjhima Nikaya 113, and the translation that I'm using is from Bhikkhu Bodhi. And this is the Sappurisa Sutta. And he translates this as the true man in this case. But here the true man can refer to also the true woman or true whatever it might be. So the true person.

So while I might be reading in reference to he and man and so on, this is referring to any being, any person. at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. There he addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus." "Venerable sir," they replied. The blessed one said this: "Bhikkhus, I shall teach you the character of a true man and the character of an untrue man. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say." "Yes, venerable sir," the bhikkhus replied. The blessed one said this: "Bhikkhus, what is the character of an untrue man? Here an untrue man who has gone forth from an aristocratic family considers thus: 'I have gone forth from an aristocratic family, but these other bhikkhus have not gone forth from aristocratic families.' So he lauds himself and disparages others because of his aristocratic family. This is the character of an untrue man." Now the Buddha uses different examples of someone who takes pride in having gone forth from a particular type of family.

So he lauds himself and disparages others because of his family. This too is the character of an untrue man. So when it comes to this understanding of going forth, there might be a person who considers themselves well-born or well-known or aristocratic or influential or whatever it might be, but there are a few ways to understand this. From this person's viewpoint, this person still identifies with that family. This is something that one must understand in the way of one's own place here in this world, in this existence, not our families. We have an obligation. We have a sense of responsibility towards them in whatever way, whatever role we play in this life, as long as we are with family.

But whatever that might be, our pride, our conceit should not arise due to our family. On the flip side of that, our pain, and our suffering and our blame should not arise due to our family either. In other words, yes, there is something to be said about having gratitude for one's parents who at the very least gave birth to us, provided us a possibility of existence here so that one can attain nibbana and get off the wheel of samsara, so to speak. To be said about that, and that is part of mundane review, or also having respect for one's elders and caretakers. If we have adopted parents or grandparents or aunts and uncles or whoever was an influence and helped to bring us up into this world, we have the gratitude for them and so on. But there are times when parents or elders or whoever it might be have been a bad influence on them and have caused terrible pain and suffering, and it would not make sense to blame them for it. There is a deeper understanding that this could be possibly karmic

we come into this family for certain causes and conditions, for certain circumstances, and we understand this pain and suffering and we overcome it and let go of it. But to hold on to it and to blame parents or elders or those who brought us up for the suffering that we experience is not fair on ourselves, nor is it fair on those elders. They did what they did, and that was their karma, and how we respond to that is our karma. One can be very bitter and unforgiving and cause oneself more suffering. In that process, one is unable to love oneself and be kind to oneself.

So if there is some form of aversion towards family, it is only because there is something within our own minds that we have aversion towards. If one can forgive oneself and then ultimately forgive others and forgive the world around, then one comes to a nature of compassion and loving kindness towards oneself, and one provides oneself that love and kindness that possibly was lacking, and learns to have a different viewpoint on what had happened with regards to family, and ultimately has compassion for such people. And then, in the context of this sutta, the idea of identifying with family for positive reasons also doesn't make sense. There is something to be said about the values an elder and family brings up in one's own self, in one's own mind, but to be proud of belonging to a certain family makes no sense. It just creates more conceit. It creates more craving and creates this identity around it, and so that creates this sense of mana. Mana, in Pali, being both conceit and comparing.

Comparing oneself and one's place in society or one's place in a family, having then gone forth and comparing one's past with others and having pride for it. And so then the Buddha says, "But a true man considers thus: it is not because of one's influential family and so on that states of greed, hatred, or delusion are destroyed. Even though someone may not have gone forth from an influential family, yet if they have entered upon the way that accords with the Dhamma, entered upon the proper way and conducts themselves according to the Dhamma, they should be honored for that. They should be praised for that."

So putting the practice of the way first, one neither lauds themselves nor disparages others because of an influential family. This too is the character of a true person. So this understanding of the true person: someone who understands the Dhamma sees that it isn't due to one's upbringing. Ultimately, it isn't due to one's family. It isn't even due to having gone forth. In fact, states of greed, hatred, or delusion are destroyed by the application of the Dhamma. It's the application of the path. So there's something to be said about this as well. One can be a householder, one can be a monk, but if one moves from being a householder to becoming a monk and carries forward that identity of being a monk, identifies with the robes and the other renunciation of the senses and sensory experiences, can happen even before going forth. The tradition of going forth formally, it's more about understanding where greed arises, where craving and ill will arise and where ignorance arises.

And so one understands the Dhamma whether one is a bhikkhu or not, whether one's a lay person or not, and follows the path. The very beginning of that path is understanding sila, that is, to maintain one's precepts, to understand the importance of one's precepts. And so one establishes the intellectual right view, the mundane right view, through which one understands about intention. And so one lets go of sensory experiences, lets go of identifying with them, lets go of ill will, and lets go of cruelty and violence or violent thoughts, and cultivates loving kindness and compassion. And through that one is able to further deepen the practice of maintaining and upholding the precepts through right speech and through right action, and using right effort in that process, not only there but also in one's own meditation. And one upholds likelihood, which means that one continues to let go of any causes of hindrances within one's mind, so that when one becomes mindful, using right effort, one is able to see things as they really are without hindrances arising too often and ultimately not arising at all. And then one's attention becomes more sustained.

and experiences collectiveness and so on, and we will talk about that a little bit later. And so it all starts with understanding first and foremost: right view, right intention, and upholding the precepts. And then the Buddha continues. Moreover, an untrue person who is well known and famous considers thus: 'I am well known and famous, but these other bhikkhus are unknown and of no account.' So they laud themselves and disparage others because of their renown.

All of these things that we're referred to right now, these are in reference to a teacher or someone who might be well-versed in the Vinaya, who might be well-versed in the suttas and the sayings of the Buddha. But if there's pride about that, pride about intellectual knowledge, then that is missing the point. That is actually further cultivating and seeking. If someone takes pride in having done the dhutanga practices, the ascetic practices, like being a forest dweller, being a refuse rag wearer, an alms food eater, a tree root dweller, a charnel ground dweller, an open air dweller, a continual sitter, any bed user, one session eater, all of these things are part of some of the ascetic practices.

It's not the external aspects of maintaining precepts that one should be proud of. It's for the sake of maintaining precepts, and understanding the deeper elements of why one maintains precepts, and so on, that one should understand the Dhamma. So if somebody has pride because they take precepts, they again are missing the point. One should have a deeper understanding of why one takes precepts, follow the path, and then ultimately allow that to come into fruition as the jhanas and as wisdom, as we see here. Moreover, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, an untrue man enters upon and abides in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. He considers thus: I have gained attainment of the first jhana, but these other bhikkhus have not gained the attainment of the first jhana. So he lauds himself and disparages others because of this attainment of the first jhana. This too is the character of an untrue person. So this goes both ways, and what I mean by that is, number one, the idea of identifying with the jhanas creates more conceit.

More craving in one's mind, but ultimately it also causes disturbance with others. Let's say you are on retreat or you are meditating with other individuals, and during a group session somebody talks about having attained a certain jhana, and you might have attained something higher and you consider yourself better in that way, or you might have attained something lower or not attained anything at all. And that could cause you to be frustrated and irritated by this quote-unquote lack of progress.

The whole point here is not to compare what attainments one has had with others, not to even compare an attainment with what one had before. One should definitely be happy and celebrate, but one should not take pride in that. Taking pride in that, by identifying with it and then considering it to be permanent, essentially, is what causes suffering, because all of these states until the level of arahatship are impermanent in so far as they will change: the sotapanna will turn into the sakadagami, the sakadagami will turn into the anagami, and the anagami will turn into the arahant. So holding on to and having pride for being a sotapanna or for being a sakadagami wouldn't make any sense.

At the same time, craving for a next level also doesn't make sense. It's more about understanding and having deeper wisdom that is cultivated through continual practice, using the mind as your teacher, using the 6R's process so that it becomes embedded through the formations to the point that any kind of craving that arises is immediately recognized and let go of, and any form of conceit that arises, any form of identification that arises, up until the level of the anagami, should be understood, let go of, and experience that relief, that mundane nibbana. So then he says: but a true person considers non-identification even with the attainment of the first jhana has been declared by the Blessed One, for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than that. So putting non-identification first, they neither laud themselves nor disparage others because of their attainment of the first jhana. This too is the character of a true person. So this is an interesting statement, it says that

non-identification even with the attainment of the first jhana has been declared by the Blessed One, for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than that. Because as soon as you identify with something, you have conceived an idea of a self, you have conceived an idea of an identity, when in fact that is not the case. That is not the nature or reality. When one enters in the first jhana, or enters in any jhana, all that is is a series of causes and conditions that have created the circumstances for those jhanas to appear and for those factors of those jhanas to be present.

to identify with any of that is missing the point is not seeing the true nature of reality which is that these jhanas are impermanent worth holding on to and therefore not so if you have the sense of i am in this jana understand it to be identifying with that jana let go of that i amness and understand it from the idea of seeing the factors of the jana present allow the mind to gradually just go through each jana on its own while watching like a spectator like a completely detached spectator

The mind, if it's given the right conditions, will enter jhana. So you know, through intellectual knowledge and through experience, what are the factors, the causes and conditions that cause the mind to get into a jhana? What are the enlightenment factors present, and so on? So if there is that understanding, just allow the mind to come into it instead of trying to get into it, creating too much effort, which will cause resistance, which will cause tension, which will cause pain, which will cause suffering and restlessness. And then he says: Moreover, with the stilling of applied and sustained thought, an untrue man enters upon and abides in the second jhana. With the fading away as well of rapture, they enter upon and abide in the third jhana. With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, they enter upon and abide in the fourth jhana. Moreover, with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that space is infinite, an untrue person enters upon and abides in the base of infinite space.

Moreover, by completely surmounting the base of infinite space, aware that consciousness is infinite, an untrue person enters upon and abides in the base of infinite consciousness. Moreover, by completely surmounting the base of infinite consciousness, aware that there is nothing, an untrue man enters upon and abides in the base of nothingness; neither perception nor non-perception. He considers thus: I have gained the attainment of the base of neither perception nor non-perception, or the other states of infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothing, and so on. But these other bhikkhus have not gained the attainment of these states.

So putting non-identification first, he neither lauds himself nor disparages others because of his attainment of the base of neither perception nor non-perception or the preceding status this too is the character of a true man moreover by completely surmounting the base of neither perception or non-perception a true person enters upon and abides in the cessation of perception and feeling and his chains are destroyed by his seeing with wisdom This bhikkhu does not conceive anything. He does not conceive in regard to anything. He does not conceive in any way. Notice here, the Buddha says that the true person enters upon and abides in cessation of perception and feeling. So all the states leading up to cessation of perception and feeling, but discounting that from the first yana to the eighth yana, untrue person, the person who takes pride, who has this false sense of self-identity, considers that they are in that jhana or that they have attained this jhana and have joy for that, a kind of arrogant joy, a kind of pride that causes them not to move on further.

So the point here is to when you have attained something, wonderful thing but it is time to go on to the next level with the understanding that one doesn't need to crave for it one just needs to allow the mind to continue to go deeper into the deeper states at neither perception or non-perception one is letting go of formations and these formations are formations related to craving related to conceit or related to ignorance and they will arise all one has to do is let go of them continue to let go of them there's a very subtle sense of self that arises in neither perception or unperception but the total cessation of identity the total cessation of any sense of self arises or is experienced when one lets go of this identification process when one lets go of the identification process by be impersonal understanding it all to be impermanent one doesn't attach to these states especially neither perception or non-perception

And because of that, one is able to then enter upon the state of cessation of perception and feeling. And so now the Buddha says, in this case of one who has become an arahant, after having attained cessation of perception and feeling, seeing the impersonal nature of the links of dependent origination, not identifying with that relief, not craving for it, those taints that cause that sense of sensory identification, that cause that sense of identification with being, and that create ignorance, are gone. They fade away because of non-attention.

That attention doesn't further fuel those formations to be fettered by that, and so they fade away without remainder. happens this kind of weekly the arahant does not conceive anything. They don't conceive in regard to anything, and they don't conceive in any way, which means that I-amness, that mana, that conceit and comparative nature no longer exists in that mind. Everything that they seem, they understand as empty of self, so there is no... it doesn't make sense then to identify with anything that is conditioned. The experiences one has in the way of the senses, the experience one has in the way of the mind, all of this arises due to conditions.

So why would it make sense to identify with it? What one experiences in the way of the outside reality, there is no comparison to that, because the outside reality and this experience within the mind are all brought about by causes and conditions, so they are all conditioned. One who completely lets go of trying to defend any standpoint, trying to defend any kind of view, trying to defend any kind of identity, because there is no point to it, all of that is impersonal, all of that is impermanent, so there is no more identification with anything. There is no more conceit, no more fetter of conceit, which means no longer any restlessness.

And now that one understands the conditioned nature of existence, one understands the conditioned nature of jhanas and the arupa jhanas, and one doesn't have any craving for them. One doesn't have craving for the formless realms or the realms related to form. And one no longer has any ignorance, because one has seen through the destruction of the taints by understanding the four noble truths. Having exercised over and over through the 6R's process, through the four right efforts, one no longer has any doubt about the four noble truths. One has complete understanding, and therefore ignorance is destroyed. And so that is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words.

Questions, comments? Delson, I have one question. The question is about the untrue man who is able to enter the different jhanas and identify with the jhanas, all the way up to perception or non-perception, and at the same time the untrue man is not able to, quote unquote, go into cessation, while the true man can because of the unidentification. Is that a big difference between the two in terms of the ability to go into the cessation mode and actually to let go of the identification of the jhanas? Yes, it's a big jump forward, because up until the level of, let's say, the anagami. Now, having said that, even the anagami, if they have the determination and practice, are able to go into cessation of perception and feeling. So one reason is because they no longer have craving. So that craving arises because of certain types of identification with the jhanic philosophies.

But in the case of an arahant, it's much simpler. It's much easier for them to attain cessation of perception and feeling if they have developed it, if they have understood it and developed it and cultivated it. So it is a big jump forward, because the mind up until that point has been so ingrained with this idea of self, this idea of conceit, this idea of comparing oneself with others.

Ever since one is in school, there's always a competition between oneself and other students, between what one does in one's work and what another person does, and so on and so forth. Even within the Sangha, there are bhikkhus who have comparison: I am better, that person still is studying, they're not as well-developed as I am, and so on. They obviously might not say it, but it's in their minds. It would be in their minds. And that can manifest in the way of conceit, manifest in restlessness and other fetters. So it is definitely very important to understand how one lets go of conceit, because it is conceit that everything else is dependent upon. Even craving in general is dependent upon conceit.

In the case of the anagami, they have let go of craving, they have let go of ill will, but these were also dependent on conceit. These are dependent upon identifying with the sensory experience, identifying with the feeling and the mental experience. Well, after they've let that go, they still have this identification with having an attainment. They still have an identification with the Dhamma itself. So there is something about being reverent towards that, not being grateful for the Dhamma but being attached to it to a point that it causes one to create an impediment from that Dhamma. Is what they need to look to us. Hello, Delson. You mentioned that in other talks, conceit or mana is another form of comparing as well.

But, yeah, that plus, the way I take a look at it is, maybe it's a big extension of this sakkaya ditthi? Is that correct? Yeah, you can definitely say that, but there's a difference, very. Sakkaya ditthi is a more superficial thing, and mana, conceit, is much deeper and much subtler. Sakkaya ditthi has to do more with the intellectual understanding, the belief in a personal self. So sakkaya ditthi has to do with identifying on a philosophical level, on an intellectual level, holding on to the sense of self and having an idea that there is a self in relation to one or more or all of the five aggregates, or outside of the five aggregates, or anything around the five aggregates.

Mana is much deeper. Mana is, for example, I mention this quite often, the Kemaka Sutta, in which you have the elderly who is basically sick, and the gist of it is he says that he isn't an arahant, because while he understands that the five aggregates are impersonal, so that means he has let go of sakkaya ditthi, he still has a relation, this sense of identification with the five aggregates, because there is still this personalizing of the experience of the five aggregates. This is deeply ingrained in the mind after many eons of having developed this and cultivated this, of identifying with the five aggregates or identifying with the mentality and materiality. So to let go of it is quite deep. It's a matter of practice, it's a matter of effort, it's a matter of recognizing every time the mind identifies, to notice it, use the 6R's process to let go of it, and understand it to be impermanent and impersonal.

So it's a constant exercise, and that is dependent upon right intention or attention rooted in reality. That's dependent upon mindfulness and understanding, on dhamma vichaya, which is to discern whenever the mind personalizes, and then being able to let go of it. The more one does this, the more it becomes ingrained in that mind. It weakens the formations that have been built up to cause one to equate any of this as a sense of self, to identify with any of this other sense of self. It weakens all of them and strengthens the purified wholesome formations that let go of that. And ultimately, when the chain is broken, the fetters are broken, there is no longer Hi Delsen.

In terms of conceit, in daily life practice, can we say that if we notice there is a body-wise attention, like a heartbeat, or you feel the changes in how you react in voices, and in terms of emotion, the excitement and restlessness is a sign? Sometimes we can feel heartbeats or a haze in conversation. Can we use those points to give ourselves a little bit more of a weight of understanding, that we are already starting there? Yeah, this is what I was kind of like, I feel flushed, right, even though in the conversation right now I already feel there is some difference in the body. So can we use this as an object, I mean an indicator, that there is already the starting of the identification? Because very often, even though during the sitting, once there is that

thought or one thing that is arising, even from observation to a thought, of a change, to a reflection, or you're kind of seeing something, that there is the difference of your body reaction. There is also a weight of, we have to let go, right? At that point we have to use the. That's a good question, because it's not only just tension or pain in the body and mind that might arise. Connection between mind and body. And so if the body is feeling flush or if there is an increase in the heart rate or you feel the blood pressure rising and all of these things, this can be an indicator of taking something personally.

It can be an indicator of identifying with that, because it can create anxiety in some people. It can create thoughts that are related to comparing, and thoughts related to fear and other discomforting thoughts, and so on. As soon as you notice all of that, you just have to let go of it and relax, because none of this is serious.

None of this is serious. That's the first thing you have to understand: don't take anything seriously. Taking anything seriously, you start to hold onto it. When you start holding onto it, you create a sense of self around it. You start to create this identity around it. So what we're doing right now is not serious at all. So don't get flush. We're having a good time. We're enjoying ourselves. We're listening to the Dhamma and we are among friends, right? So don't take anything seriously. Even the Dhamma itself, there is something to be said about being grateful, because those teachings are quite profound, but to take it seriously is where it's going to be a problem, because then you identify with the Dhamma.

And then that creates all kinds of restlessness in the mind. So that's one of the things Bhante Vimalaramsi always talks about, which is to laugh it off. You want to laugh and start to make the mind more elated, more bright, and be able to not take it seriously. Your perspective on it changes. You realize that this isn't worth holding onto. What I am thinking about, what I am seeing, I am creating, I am conceiving: that mana, that conception, that conceit, is about creating all of these ideas around it because you're taking it so seriously.

The moment you stop taking it seriously, you stop thinking about it altogether. When you stop thinking about it altogether, the mind is completely at ease and relaxed. That is predicated upon using the four right effects, using the six R's process to release your attention from that. Relax the tension, relax the mind, relax the body, and then come to that unconditioned state for a few minutes or for a few moments. You experience that mundane nirvana, and from there, if you understand reality, then you don't take anything seriously because there are no thoughts there. Okay. Yeah. Taking it seriously, from seeing myself, I can see that. Yes, well, thank you. Yes. Yeah, that's, yeah, good point for me. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

I have a question which is not directly related to this Dhamma talk, but I've been thinking about it for a couple of weeks. You often talk about the four foundations of mindfulness. And I was wondering, for instance, when you look at the foundation of the body and you see things arising and passing away, focus more or focus between quotes, but should you be more aware of the arising and passing away of physical movements, or should you be more aware of what the mind is doing at that point? Because I often notice I sometimes do that, just seeing the body: this movement is starting, now it's ending, but the mind is very calm. So it's very difficult to see movement in the mind.

So is that a good thing, or should I adjust something? Just to make sure I understand, your mind is unclear as to seeing the arising and passing away, or unclear as to seeing the movement? I watch the movements of the body, but there is no movement in the mind. There is not a very strong sense of self there. It's just like what you said, a spectator to the arisings and passings away of the movements of the body. But the mind itself is quite still. It just observes, basically.

And I'm not sure if I should be looking more to the mind, or that it's good that it is calm and I continue to observe the arisings and passings away of the physical body, so to speak. Yeah, so that's one of the things I always refer to as well when we talk about the four foundations of mindfulness. There are different contemplations, there are different ways of seeing the body and the mind, and so on and so forth. But the Buddha always has this refrain at the end of each section, which is seeing the arising and passing away, or having the bare knowledge of what is, to the extent that there is no attachment or operation in the world for the world. So it sounds to me, based on your description, that you have nothing else to do but to continue to exactly notice when the mind becomes identified with the process or gets lost in the process of the arising and passing away. You recognize it, use the 6R's, and then come back to that.

Neutral calm. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Hello, Delson. Hi. Hello. I have one comment and one question. My first comment is, in body, the changes which are happening are something which we don't have any control over, like the arising and passing away. Basically, continuously there are these changes happening without our knowing, and we can't do anything with that. So in my reflection last week, I realized that maybe we don't need to focus our attention. There will be these constant changes happening, movements happening in the body, but our attention should be just an object of meditation.

Is my understanding correct? Whatever it might be, the insight that should arise from that is the impermanent nature. So it's not just you observing the arising and passing away in the body. It's more about understanding the impersonal and impermanent nature, which will naturally arise if you are watching with attention, which you are watching with mindfulness and with investigation.

I tend not to use the word investigation. I would rather use, let's say, understanding or discernment, because investigation presupposes, in some ways, the idea that one needs to consciously make an effort to analyze and reflect, which is not the case here. It's more about observing, let's say passive observing, and discerning when something arises and when something passes away.

And yes, seeing that there is no control over the processes of the body, one has a deep understanding: self controlling the body, but there are causes and conditions that cause an effect in the body. So in the same way, when we talk about, for example, we talked a little bit earlier about the heart rate, we talked about the blood pressure and things like that, when a person is feeling craving, aversion or personalizing things, those are the causes. Those are the effects of the causes and conditions of taking something personal, of craving and so on. To let go of those effects, you then utilize the 6R's, which are nothing but causes and conditions. Which means if you do the relax step, if you do the release, relax step, and so on, you are actually helping your heart rate to lower. You are actually helping your blood pressure, but it's not you causing it. It's just you are there, there's an input of causes and conditions that negate the effects that were before, conflict. Okay, thanks. Thank you. And I have another. It is a more theoretical question. Say if somebody

somebody became not became somebody attained arahanship do you think there will be any physiological changes for him yes i mean after after he came out from that state yes there there could be and there probably would be physiological changes this can only be confirmed by medical science and of course you need to find an eye on this place but in the case of one who would be an eye there would be changes in the brain itself there would be some kind of physiological change why i say that is because there are certain components in the brain which cause one to be highly alert which and then that highly alert state causes one to become anxious and so on so the physiological change you might find in the brain is that there is this balance in the way of for example the amygdala and other components of the brain in the hippocampus and so on so you will find some kind of physiological change thank you thank you

We'll wait for a few more minutes to see if there's any more questions. Thank you. Hi, Jason. I have a question. So, last week we discussed about, you discussed about the, yeah, the mental state of non-differentiation like that. So, I think, yeah, I think it has a lot of semblance with the Zen practice like that. So, yeah, so you discussed that we should not differentiate ourselves with other, even also non-identify with the Dharma like that.

So how will those things be useful in our meditation? Will those mental states be helpful in our practice, then? It definitely will be, because it actually allows the mind to be more fluid in the practice, because there's no one in the way of the mind. There's no sense of self, or no one in the way, preventing the mind from experiencing things clearly. You see, when we have that conceit and identification process, there is this filter that happens. Everything that is occurring in the jhana, everything that is occurring in the practice, is always being compared in some way or another in relation to a self, in relation to the person, personal stuff. So if somebody, or if the mind, has an experience of the first jhana, or the second jhana, or third jhana.

They have those different components there. And then on the basic level, there's that conceit of 'I am experiencing this. I am experiencing these factors of the jhana.' Immediately, one actually comes out of the jhana when one has this. So you have to let go of that and allow the mind to just rest in that jhana and allow it to continue to flow through it.

identifying with that jhana or identifying with those factors of the jhana. As soon as you do that, you're not actually seeing it clearly as it really is. You're seeing it in relation to someone, in relation to an identity, and so that view or that understanding then gets distorted. Instead of actually seeing it as it really is, by personalizing it, the understanding is no longer, for example, the enlightenment factors that are present in that jhana. And if you identify with that, you're no longer going to be able to see them as a way of getting ahead, as a way of progressing. You're going to see it as a way of 'I have attained that,' and that prevents you from getting. But if you just let go of the sense of self and say, 'These are what are present, it will arise, it will be there, and it will cease,' why? When you refer to the Anupadhi Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 111, where one by one as they occurred, Sariputta is seeing these things, but he's seeing them not in relation to a self.

He's just noticing these states have arisen, they have come to be, and they pass away. But then nowhere in there is he identifying or attaching a sense of self. For that reason, he's able to make that classification that there is something beyond. There is a liberation beyond this, and he moves forward because the mind is very fluid at that point. So the differentiation between ourselves and others, or other beings, it also has the same effect?

Definitely. It definitely does, because when you personalize an experience or personalize a situation with a person, you're no longer able to see clearly. Now it's in relation to defending your sense of self, or in relation to satisfying the sense of self. But if you understand that all of this is a series of causes and conditions, you're not going to take what the other person says to you personally, whether it's good, bad or indifferent. You're not going to react in a way from where you feel like you were hurt, or you feel like you were praised, or you just identify with that situation. The mind will understand it as a series of causes and conditions. Understand what that situation calls for based on mindfulness and discernment, and act or speak in a way that creates loving kindness if it's required, or create understanding, or whatever it might be.

So the expression of one's speech and action will be very clear. There will be clarity in that. Instead of having it been distorted and filtered, with this central person. Thank you. Delson, I have another comment I can say. In some suttas, jhanas are being praised, and they were said to be a very good state. In fact, one who goes into third jhana, Buddha, surprises them.

And I see there are some other suttas like this, and recently we went through another sutta where it says jhana is just pleasant abiding. I feel like Buddha, based on audience, just wants to encourage people to get off from this true next state. What do you think? That's a very good point, because you have to understand the suttas are based in certain situations. So they're meant for a certain type of audience. They're meant for a certain type of mindset. So we can take the suttas as a collective, as a whole, as being the sayings and teachings of the Buddha. But individually, each sutta is catering to a certain type of mindset progress. So in the beginning you definitely want to say the jhanas are amazing, they're beneficial, they're beautiful, because you want to motivate that person getting, and then once they have let go of the worldly attachments, that go of sensory identification, and now the thorn here is the attachment to the jhanas, now he has to say, okay, now let go of the jhanas as well and come to the next level.

Thank you, thank you for that explanation. I just have a comment on that particular topic as well. I think before learning about the Dhamma, I had trouble with the word "right" in the eightfold path. I immediately think of the extreme. And then I didn't realize it is the whole spectrum. So the word harmonious makes sense to me, because as you move along the path, something may be right during the first grade, but it's not applicable to me anymore on second grade. So I really appreciate it. That's a very good point. So that's why harmonious is used, and even effective is used, meaning there is a way that is effective, the path that is effective for reaching nibbana, or harmonious towards reaching nibbana, whereas saying something to be right and wrong.

But ultimately, this idea of right and wrong is rooted in the intention to show you what is a better path. If you want nibbana, this would be the right path for nibbana. If you don't want nibbana, this would be the wrong path. So that's the other understanding. Rather than making it about, let's say, absolutely right and absolutely moral and all those other things, there is something to be said about it, because it definitely elevates the mind and it gives a very good foundation for the practice. But ultimately, it's about the practicality of it. So you can call it the effective, you can call it the harmonious, you can call it the right.

Ultimately, it's basically the highway from the bottom. That's basically what it is. Thank you. Let's just: May the suffering ones be suffering free, and the fear-struck, fearless beings. 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 acquisitions of all kinds of happiness. May beings inhabiting space and earth, devas and nagas' almighty power, share this merit of ours. May they long protect the Buddha's dispensation. Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu.