Apr 10 2021 - MN 1 - The Root of All Things - Deconceptualizing Reality through Non-Identification

Thank you, Khun. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, everyone. I'm going to be reading Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of Majjhima Nikaya number one, which is the Mula Pariyaya Sutta, the root of all things. Now, I will preface it with this understanding from the commentary on this particular sutta, which says that the Buddha was addressing a set of monks, a group of newly ordained bhikkhus who came from the brahmanical tradition and still held on to certain views regarding the ancient Indian Vedic beliefs, which were related to the self or the concept of a soul, and that the soul is one with everything and that the universe is basically in its essence within each soul. So with that preface, let me start. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living in Ukkattha in the Subhaga grove at the root of a royal sala tree. Here he addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus." "Venerable Sir," they replied.

The Blessed One said this: "Bhikkhus, I shall teach you a discourse on the root of all things. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say." "Yes, Venerable Sir," the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this: "Here, bhikkhus, an untaught, ordinary person who has no regard for noble ones, disciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men, and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. So he's referring to anyone who hasn't been introduced to the Dhamma and has no understanding or awareness of the concepts within the Dhamma, of the principles and teachings of the Buddha. And so he starts off with the great elements. He says, having perceived earth as earth, he conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be mine, he delights in earth. So when he says he conceives himself as earth, that's one viewpoint. He conceives himself in earth, that's a second viewpoint. Apart from earth, that's a third viewpoint. He conceives earth to be mine, that's the fourth viewpoint.

This is also in relation to the misconceptions or the wrong self-views related to the five aggregates. If you look at this, you can switch the word earth with the five aggregates: four wrong views for each of the five aggregates. One would conceive themselves as one or the other of the five aggregates, one would conceive themselves within the five aggregates, conceive themselves apart from the five aggregates, or conceive themselves as the owner of the five aggregates, as the self belonging, or rather the five aggregates belonging to a self. This can also be in reference to the target, and the way that the target is misperceived in relation to the five aggregates. But here the Buddha is referring to certain elements, like the earth element, and so on. So we'll continue with that understanding, that he's referring to these four viewpoints. And in doing so, when one perceives, for example, earth, and then misconceives themselves as earth, meaning that form, which is made up of the four elements including earth, is considered to be oneself.

Or that oneself is within one of the four elements, or that one is apart from the four elements, that there is a self apart from that, or that the earth element belongs to oneself. And in doing so, one delights in the earth because one identifies with the earth, makes it personal, and therefore delights in it, or has aversion towards anything that is not in the way of identifying with the earth, that is unpleasant in that perception.

So he says, why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives water as water. Having perceived water as water, he conceives himself as water. He conceives himself in water. He conceives himself apart from water. He conceives water to be mine. He delights in water. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives fire as fire. Having perceived fire as fire, he conceives himself He perceives air as air.

mine, and so he delights in air. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives beings as beings. Having perceived beings as beings, he conceives beings, or the idea of beings. He conceives himself beings. So now, coming out from the exposition of the four great elements in relation to these viewpoints and how that can create delight and craving, the Buddha is now going into the different sorts of beings. The idea here is somebody who does not understand the principles of the Dhamma will look at beings and take those beings as personal in relation to a self. So this is the origin of conceit, that there is one apart from the self

and that the beings themselves are a separate self. So the beings have their own sense of self, and there is one sense of self interacting with another sense of self. So, seeing beings in this way, there is a certain type of separateness, there is a certain type of comparison that's going on between this self and that self. And so this creates, whether it is the four great elements, whether it's the five aggregates, or whether it is seeing beings, if one has any sense of self that is within those beings, seeing those beings as having a sense of self, and one having a sense of self within this sense of being, one's own personal sense of being, there is the potential for comparing. And that is also a synonym for mana, or being conceit, as well as comparing. And this comparing creates conflict in the mind. This comparing creates desire and lust and craving, and on the flip side it can create aversion, hatred and ill will, and therefore delusion and misperception of reality, and a veil of ignorance of what are the Four Noble Truths, because one is unable to apply them when one misperceives

and misconceives in this way. So he says again, I'll repeat: he perceives beings as beings. So there is a being, and having perceived beings as beings, he conceives beings. He compares beings with oneself. He conceives himself in beings. This conception of oneself and beings is related to a viewpoint that the sense of self, soul, atman, is one and the same with all other atman. He conceives himself apart from being. So now there is this identity that arises that is apart from other beings. He conceives beings to be mine. So these beings can be: this is my cat, this is my pet, this is my dog, this is my friend, this is my father, this is my mother, this is my sister, this is my brother, and so on. And so because of this misconception

he delights in that relationship. And so these relationships are karmic in nature, but then because one identifies with them, one creates that round of rebirth, because one continues to have these formations that are fettered by that craving for that relationship or that aversion towards that relationship, causes and conditions which are karmic in nature. And so he says, why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. Then he says he perceives gods as gods. Having perceived gods as gods, he conceives gods. So now this is in relation to the cosmology within Buddhism. He conceives gods. He has an idea a person has, or one has an idea of gods or the devas, and so he conceives himself in the devas, he conceives himself apart from the devas, he conceives devas to be mine, and he delights in the devas. So again, going back to that understanding, that misunderstanding, that the gods also are part of oneself, or that the one or the self is within the gods, and so on, and so he delights in that understanding. And because of that misperception

one creates for oneself craving, which then gives rise to suffering and so on. And so he says, why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives Pajapati as Pajapati. Now, Pajapati comes from the Sanskrit word Prajapati, which is also equated with Brahma in the very ancient early Vedic traditions. Prajapati was equated as the creator, as Brahma. And praja means people or society or the world, that includes all of existence, and pati meaning the lord. So, the lord of all creation. So with that understanding of seeing that concept of a Pajapati, having perceived Pajapati as Pajapati, he conceives Prajapati. He conceives himself in Pajapati. He conceives himself apart from Pajapati. He conceives Pajapati to be mine, and so he delights in Pajapati. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives Brahma as Brahma. Now we're talking about the Brahma realms, so in the cosmology we're talking about the realm of Mahabrahma and the Brahmas.

And this can be equated to the understanding of the first jhana, and so delights in the first jhana. So if we look at it on the macro level, we're talking about the Brahma world, Brahma realm. But on the micro level, on the level of the mental field, we're looking at it from the idea of the first jhana. So when one is in the first jhana, the mistake here of one untaught, so to speak, is that one would be part of that first jhana, or being apart from that first jhana, or having delight for that first jhana, because one identifies with that first jhana. And so, why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives the gods of streaming radiance as the gods of streaming radiance. Now streaming radiance here is the next

realm, which is associated with having gone into the second jhana. So now one can understand this on the macro level of streaming radiance, referring to those who have attained the second jhana, but on the micro level of understanding it as the second jhana: having perceived the second jhana, if you were to switch the words and say second jhana as the second jhana, one conceives the second jhana, and one conceives themselves within the second jhana, one conceives themselves apart from the second jhana, and conceives the second jhana to be mine. In all of this there is an identification process going on, and so because of that there is a craving for the second jhana, and so one delights either in the gods of streaming radiance or the second jhana. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives the gods of refulgent glory as the gods of refulgent glory.

Here again we're looking at the macro level of the realms of the gods of refulgent glory, and this is associated with the third jhana. So again we can replace this with the understanding of the third jhana: having perceived the gods of refulgent glory as the gods of refulgent glory, or as having perceived third jhana, he understands there is present now the third jhana, but then he conceives himself in the third jhana and sees himself apart from the third jhana by looking at the different objects or the factors of the third jhana or any of the jhanas we've spoken about so far, and then taking that as an object, getting distracted and seeing that there is a self experiencing the third jhana. This is what it means to say one is apart from jhana, or one conceives the third jhana to be mine, identifying with the third jhana, and so he craves or he delights in the third jhana. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

He perceives the gods of great fruit as the gods of great fruit. So now we're looking at the gods of great fruit, the realm there being associated with the fourth jhana. So now again we can take this into account and see: having perceived the gods of great fruit as the gods of great fruit, he conceives the gods of great fruit, or having perceived the fourth jhana as the fourth jhana, he conceives the idea of the fourth jhana and conceives himself in the fourth jhana, conceives himself apart from the fourth jhana, and conceives the fourth jhana to be so. He delights in the fourth jhana. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives the overlord as the overlord. So the overlord is translated from the word abhibhu. Abhibhu means conqueror or lord or great deva; it's another synonym for a great deva. Now, in one part of the Pali tradition there is the idea that there is a being named Mahishwara, who is known as the Mahishwara, meaning the great lord, which can be translated as overlord.

who resides in the pure abodes, so this can be in relation to the pure abodes, and it can also be in relation to the state of the anagami. So he perceives the overlord as the overlord, and having perceived overlord as the overlord, he conceives the overlord, or the state or attainment of being an anagami, and so he conceives himself as the anagami, conceives himself as oneself and the attainment of the anagami, or he conceives the state of the anagami to be mine, and so there is delight in that identity, in that conceit, in that identification process. He has not fully understood it, I say. Now he goes into the formless realms, and he says he perceives the base of infinite space as the base of infinite space. Having perceived the base of infinite space as the base of infinite space, he conceives himself as the base of infinite space, he conceives himself in the base of infinite space, he conceives himself apart from the base of infinite space, he conceives the base of infinite space to be mine, and thus he delights in the base of infinite space.

Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. So now one goes into the ayatanas, or the formless realms, the formless jhanas, the arupa jhanas, and starts to conceive this idea of a sense of self experiencing the space of infinite space, or the idea that the self is in relation to the base of infinite space and that it's one with the base of infinite space, or the idea that this state of infinite space is a mind and it belongs to a sense of self identifying with it. Doing so, one has craving for it and does not arise further. And so he perceives the base, and then he perceives the base of infinite consciousness. Having perceived the base of infinite consciousness as the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself as the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself in the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself apart from the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives the base of infinite consciousness to be mine, and thus he delights in the base of infinite. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

there is a understanding but it is not complete perception of whatever is arising so that idea of perception is outside it's at that point when one comes out of the base of neither perception nor non-perception and reflects back on what happened and in that process having perceived the base of neither perception or non-perception having reflected back on it. He conceives himself as the base of neither perception nor non-perception.

He conceives himself in the base of neither perception nor non-perception. He conceives himself apart from the base of neither perception nor non-perception. He conceives the base of neither perception nor non-perception to be mine. He delights in the base of neither perception nor non-perception. substance why is that because he has not fully understood it i say so this is what happened with the buddha's second uh mentor in meditation ramaputta who basically went up to the level of neither perception and non-perception and identified with it and said that this is the end of course as we understand it the buddha went beyond that and saw that there is something beyond this from which then he understood and discovered or rediscovered the path to the four noble truths

He perceives the seen as the seen. Having perceived the seen as the seen, he conceives himself as the seen, he conceives himself in the seen, he conceives himself apart from the seen, he conceives the seen to be mine, he delights in the seen. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. So now he's referring to the experience of the sixth sense bases, having seen some form, he identifies with that form. This harkens back to the understanding in the Bahiya Sutta, where the Buddha says that one sees the seeing, in the seeing there is no self, there is just the seeing; the hearing, there is no self, there is just the hearing. So now he says one perceives the heard as the heard. Having perceived the heard as the heard, he conceives himself as the heard, he conceives himself in the heard, he conceives himself apart from the heard, and he conceives the heard to be mine. He delights in the heard. So in that process of hearing, one identifies either with that process of hearing, with the process of the hearing from the ear, or your consciousness,

or identifies with what is heard. So because of this conception of self in any of this part of that process, there is craving that will arise, and because of that craving there will be suffering. He perceives the sensed as the sensed, having perceived the sensed as the sensed. Here the sensed is referring to the other senses, the physical senses, in reference to smelling and tasting and touching. Having perceived the sensed as the sensed, he conceives himself as the sensed, he conceives himself in the sensed, he conceives himself apart from the sensed, he conceives the sensed to be mine, he delights in the sensed. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. And then he refers to the cognized. He perceives the cognized as the cognized, that is, where one thinks or reflects on and understands, having seen or been aware of something within the mind. Having perceived the cognized as the cognized, he conceives himself as the cognized, he conceives himself in the cognized

he conceives himself apart from the cognized, he conceives the cognized to be mine, he delights in the cognized. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. Then it refers to unity. He perceives unity as unity. Having perceived unity as unity, he conceives himself as unity, he conceives himself in unity, he conceives himself apart from unity, he conceives unity to be mine, he delights in unity. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. So unity here can be referred to the unified mind, one that does not get dispersed, that doesn't get distracted, a mind that is collected around its object. And so when that happens, one can identify with that collected mind, and then create craving for that collected mind. He perceives diversity as diversity. Having perceived diversity as diversity, he conceives himself as diversity, in diversity he conceives himself apart from diversity, he conceives diversity to be mine, he delights in diversity. Here diversity would refer to the experience of the sixth sense basis and, in reference to all that one is experiencing,

why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. He perceives all as all. Here the all is, in reference again, the experience of the sixth sense basis, experienced through the five aggregates, the experience through the sense receptors, and the experience of feeling and perception. So it includes basically the mentality, materiality, the contact, feeling and perception. He perceives all, and the sixth sense basis. He perceives all as all, having perceived all as all, he identifies himself with this whole process. He conceives himself in all. He has a sense that there is a self within this process. He conceives himself apart from all. So he has this idea that he is the perceiver, he is the feeler, or he is the possessor of the sixth sense bases or the mentality, materiality and the processes therein, and so he has this idea that he conceives to be mine, and he delights in all. He has craving that arises because of that identification process.

why is that because he has not fully understood it i say he perceives nibbana as nibbana so here one can understand not perceiving nibbana because nibbana is beyond conventional understanding of perception but he perceives the idea of nibbana he has some kind of understanding of nirvana as being void of craving void of delusion void of hatred and so on and so having perceived this idea of nirvana as nirvana he conceives himself as nirvana so this goes back to the understanding where one considers the self to be uh the all one considers the self to be nirvana to be the end goal of the practice himself in nibana he conceives himself apart from nibana he conceives nibana to be mine and so he craves for nibana here one can understand that craving that arises for nibana because one has a sense of self or that nibana when one is in neither perception or non-perception and one is with the quiet mind as the object

There are expectations of when this nibbana will come. There is still the subtle sense of when will I experience this nibbana. This subtle sense of I experiencing nibbana has to be let go of in order for the experience of nibbana to arise. And why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. So now he is going to be talking about the disciple in higher training, whose mind has not yet reached the goal and who is still aspiring to the supreme security from bondage, who directly knows earth as earth.

Having directly known earth as earth, he should not conceive himself as earth. Now the Buddha is instructing one who understands the path, at least on an intellectual level. One is one who is in higher training, having experienced the path, having experienced the different elements of the eightfold path, having some grasp of the four noble truths, having practiced sila, having maintained one's precepts, and so on. Now this is the instruction of what one ought to do in order to attain the final fruition of arahatship. So he says, having known earth as earth, one should not conceive themselves as earth. One should not conceive themselves in earth. One should not conceive themselves apart from earth, and they should not conceive earth to be mine. So again, letting go of these four wrong viewpoints related to a self, in relation to the four great elements, in relation to all conditioned things, in relation to even nibbana itself, as we will see. And he should not delight in earth. Why? Because as soon as you disidentify, you no longer identify.

With any of these elements, with the five aggregates and so on, there is no personalizing going on. So there's no craving for them, or craving arising because of them or through them, and so on. Because there's no identification going on, no craving will arise, and there won't be any suffering that will arise. So there won't be any delight in earth, as he says. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it, I say. But this is what one needs to understand in relation to conceit. And then he goes through each of the four elements. He goes to the understanding of the devas through the brahma realms, which are associated with the first jhana; through the gods of streaming radiance, which are associated with the second jhana; the gods of refreshing glory, which are associated with the third jhana; the gods of great fruit, which are associated with the fourth jhana. And then, of course, the overlord can be associated with the state of an anagami, and then the ayatanas, which are the four arupa jhanas as we understand them, and then, of course, nibbana itself.

He directly knows nibbana as nibbana. So one has the experience of nibbana. Here he directly knows nibbana as nibbana. Having directly known nibbana as nibbana, he should not conceive himself as nibbana. So here's what happens when one first has the experience of nirvana. That experience, that relief that arises, one identifies with it, and one conceives a self around that relief that one experiences. So one should not conceive themselves in nirvana or apart from that nirvana, apart from that relief arising from nirvana, and one should not identify it as being my relief. Because of that, there won't be any more craving for that nirvana, for nibbana. There won't be any more craving for that relief that arises. Why is that? Because one must fully understand it, I say. So now he refers to what the arahant perceives and how the arahant conceives, which the arahant doesn't, as you'll see. Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge.

He, too, directly knows earth as earth. So an arahant will perceive the four great elements, will perceive the four jhanas, will perceive the ayatanas, will perceive the sensed, the cognized, the seeing and the hearing, and so on. And so he, too, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth. He understands earth to be just an impersonal process made up of causes and conditions. So where in that can there be a sense of self? Therefore he will not conceive himself in earth, and he won't conceive there to be a sense of self apart from earth. He does not conceive earth to be mine.

He does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say. So the Buddha then talks about the other elements and all of the other things he's discussed up until nibbana. Even with reference to nibbana, there is just the experience of nibbana, but there is no self experiencing it, or self having experienced nibbana. So the relief that arises, there is no identifying going on with it. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say. Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant, completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth. He does not conceive himself in earth. He does not conceive himself apart from earth, and he does not conceive earth to be mine. He does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he is free from lust through the destruction of lust. So when one sees that experience of nibbana, for example, one doesn't have lust or craving for that experience of nibbana. One doesn't have lust or craving for the relief that has arisen.

One has let go of ill will at the level of an anagami already. So all that has to be done now is let go of the identification process with that sense of relief from the contact with the nirvana element. When one has this, one is already free from ill will, because one has destroyed it. Then he says, a bhikkhu who is an arahant, completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows earth as earth and all of the other elements and so on. Having directly known these elements and so on, he does not conceive himself as them. He does not conceive himself in them, and he does not conceive himself apart from them. He does not conceive them to be mine. He does not delight in them. Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of delusion. So this delusion is that process of identification that arises because one doesn't understand completely the four noble truths. But here

what has been destroyed is ignorance for an arahant, which means there is no more delusion that will arise. There will no longer be any misperception of reality as self or any other way. One understands the four noble truths. One understands that there is suffering. One lets go of the causes and conditions for that suffering, understanding the links of dependent origination, and specifically how craving can cause suffering. Craving, clinging, being, leading to rebirth, of action, which can cause suffering. One has an understanding of karma. One has an understanding of rebirth, and so one lets go of all the conditions for that craving and that rebirth, and experiences the cessation of suffering, having practiced and cultivated and developed and finally perfected the eightfold path and experienced right knowledge and liberation.

So the arahant understands it fully, having walked the path. The difference here is in terms of the state or the attainment. In terms of understanding reality as it is, there is no difference between the arahant and the Tathagata. The key difference here is that the Tathagata has rediscovered the path. And so, having rediscovered the path, he is the one who initiates others into the path, so to speak, through teaching. So the arahant is one who follows the Tathagata's teachings. Having followed the Tathagata's teachings, he then experiences that same nibbana, and he experiences that same understanding of the four noble truths. But we'll go a little further in understanding what it means when he says he has understood it fully, to the end, to the understanding that the Tathagata possesses certain powers, certain understanding that not all arahants would possess.

And this is in reference to Majjhima Nikaya 12 and Samyutta Nikaya 12. So I've listed it down here. He has the knowledge of all that is possible and impossible that can arise in the future. He has the understanding of actions and kamma in the past, present, and future, and costs he has the understanding of all paths and the destinations that they would lead to. He has an intricate understanding of the universe in existence and its many different kinds of elements. He has an understanding of the different inclinations of beings. He has an understanding of the various faculties that beings possess. He has a knowledge of the jhanas and the different attainments and the defilements

that are there present within, along with their cleansing and emerging from the jhanas, and so on. And then he has, of course, the threefold knowledge: the recollection of previous lives, the knowledge of the arising and passing away of beings, and the knowledge of the destruction of the taints. Now, along with this, I'm also going to refer to the Simsapa Sutta, where the Buddha explains that he possesses knowledge that is beyond the four noble truths as well. He refers to the tree which has many leaves, and he possesses in here a handful of leaves, but he does not teach all that because it doesn't lead to direct freedom. So this is another understanding one should have: that the Buddha possesses certain knowledge, he's able to see things through to the end, but it's not necessary to understand the four noble truths. Then finally, the Buddha says, "Bhikkhus, the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened, directly knows Earth as Earth."

Therefore, Bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of cravings, awakened to supreme full enlightenment. I say so. Here the Buddha is giving the understanding that he rediscovers this understanding of dependent origination, and so, having first rediscovered this, he teaches this to others, who, when they have walked the path and understood for themselves, also become arahants. And then he refers to the other elements and so on, and then he says he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being as condition, there is birth, and that for whatever has come to be, there is aging and death. Therefore, Bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of craving, the Tathagata has awakened to supreme full enlightenment, I say.

This is what the Blessed One said. But those bhikkhus did not delight in the Blessed One's words. So here, the bhikkhus who are listening, as I mentioned earlier, there are two understandings of the statement, did not delight. This is probably the only sutta in which you will see that the bhikkhus did not delight in the Blessed One's words.

So the first understanding is that those bhikkhus who the Buddha was instructing came from that Brahmanical standpoint, and so they did not delight in what he was saying because they were not able to fully comprehend his statements and his discourse. The second understanding is that they did understand, and having understood, they did not crave for or identify with his words and his instructions, and therefore did not delight in it, and experienced the fruit of arahatship. Questions?

Sorry, questions or any comments? Hi, Dilson. I have some comments on this Sutta. First thing is, I want to give some perspective of my understanding through the lens of Bante Punnaji size. So what he says is that like the four cases, he says that I am not this or I am not apart from this, whatever the four cases is there in all those four cases there is this belief that he exists there is like uh but he doesn't he he don't have this understanding that he's actually not existing but the process is going on he himself is a process yes due to this lack of understanding uh this identification happens

Yes. And what I believe is that the meditation practices, what are there in the Hindu tradition, even before the Buddha maybe, even now, I feel they also go into jhanas. But they identify with jhana, that is the only problem. So maybe they also practiced these jhanas before, but they identified with jhana, that's why they might have been not happy after the teaching. - Yeah, that's a good point, actually. Those points that you just mentioned are very good, because understanding how one understands, when one is identifying, when the mind is identifying, when one forgets, has the ignorance that this is a process. So that's a very good way of putting it. Secondly, yes, the understanding of the jhanas is not unique to the Dhamma, is not unique to the Buddhist path.

There is understanding of samadhi in other traditions as well, but the Buddha talked about what he referred to as samma samadhi, meaning correct samadhi, or harmonious samadhi, or effective samadhi, or whatever you want to call it. There is a wrong type of samadhi where one gets fully absorbed in it, and then is unable to experience anything further.

So you can experience samadhi by listening to a piece of music. In fact, in some traditions, they do that, or through art or whatever it might be. But that's using the senses and then identifying with the senses, becoming fully absorbed. So that's a wrong type of samadhi. So the whole process culminates in right samadhi, and then intention and so on, and all of that then gives rise to the correct form of samadhi according to the Buddhist path. So yes, that's true. It is used in the beginning, Prajapati, and fourth jhana it was used, Mahesha.

Is there any relevance with Hinduism type of people which are explained in the certain Upanishads or something, Mahesha particularly? There they went wrong and something happened. And in this also, they did not mention dependent origination right from the beginning, but it started somewhere after puthujjana. - Yeah. Please explain. - So, Prajapati is mentioned in the Vedas, in the Upanishads, and in the Vedas. He is, yeah, as you say, a Hindu deity. Now, I remember the Buddha was explaining this, probably, as the commentary says, to a group of Brahmins or bhikkhus who were Brahmins. And so their understanding was of Prajapati.

But he also took into account the understanding of Brahma, which is separate from the idea of Prajapati. Here, Prajapati is the lord of all creation, but Brahma is the creator, the mighty creator. Mahesha, Maheshwara, is associated with the understanding of the overlord. So that is beyond the four jhanas; it can be understood as beyond the four jhanas or associated with the four jhanas. But the way I tend to see it is that it's associated with Maheshwara, who is another name for Shiva or Rudra, who is in the Vedas, in the Upanishads. And according to this understanding, that Rudra or Shiva is associated with the state of the pure abodes, at least that's one understanding that's there. And then this idea of dependent origination, he's explaining it in this way: only after having seen all of these as a process, having seen that these are impersonal and that there is no self related to it, one is able to see how the links of dependent origination create that sense of self, create that wrong sense of self, so having personalized feeling, for example,

one then has craving. Having craved, one creates stories around that feeling, that sensation, or mental or physical experience. It creates ideas and stories, and one identifies with them. That further culminates into certain tendencies that one has, creating and building up a sense of self in this existence. Then from there, one acts, and this is the rebirth of action. That kind of action causes abhisankharas. These sankharas, which are karmic impulses, which are related to the old kamma that one has produced, because of this rebirth of action, these kinds of sankharas will give rise to ignorance, or rather are fettered by ignorance, will give rise to cravings because they are fettered by craving, will then give rise to conceit and being because they are fettered by conceit. And so when one acts from this, one causes for oneself, so to speak, because one identifies with it, the suffering that will naturally arise, which is the birth, which is the aging and death, and so on. This, yeah, what I was referring to. Yeah, what I was referring to is that the anagami, the state of the anagami

The reason I refer to the anagami is because the anagami then takes one more rebirth in the pure abodes, and the understanding is that in one of the pure abodes there is resident Maheshwara, which is another name for Rudra or Shiva. And so Maheshwara can be translated as "Overlord", as it's translated here in English. - Thank you. - Hi, Delson. I have an observation, maybe a comment per se. So it is in the path. It is very important for ones to understand intellectually when you are practicing as well, right?

That understanding, it can be very easy, without, to come, ignorance to come in and overcome you. Am I understanding correctly? - Yeah, yeah, because the way I understand ignorance is this: there is the ignorance where one doesn't have any knowledge of the four noble truths, doesn't have any knowledge of the path, doesn't have any knowledge of the Buddha's teachings. But then once one is introduced to those teachings, once one has an intellectual understanding of the four noble truths, an intellectual understanding of the path and what the path contains and how to follow that path, and so on, there is one veil of ignorance, so to speak, that is gone, that is dispersed.

Because now one is following that path, and there is higher training where one actually walks that path. There is still some deep-embedded ignorance in reference to not completely seeing the four noble truths in every moment. That is a deeper sense of ignorance. But you could say there are two levels: there is the intellectual ignorance of not knowing the path itself, and there is the deeper ignorance where one is unable to see the four noble truths in every moment. Thank you. - Hi, Delson. - Hello.

Yeah, in regard to the state of the overlaw that you had just a conversation with the other practitioner, as I was from the, I was, my learning is more from the Mahayana in the younger age, and we're now related that this is the widespread of the Pure Land belief in the Mahayana practice and the sectors. So, what they are promoting, or what they are telling the layman, the people who practice, is that there is a chance that you just have to tie yourself in every thought with this Mahara suit. There is this

level of the maharula, the law or the overlord, that has this 48 special wishes, his own wills, to take them aboard, so they can be finally at the end of their state of dismantle, like death, that they are able to get onto at least this Pure Land, the pure report. So what do you think about it? I still have this very widely told, and I was, has been not able to understand. I mean, from the very beginning, that's why it's been through a very long path for myself. I wasn't not understanding that at all, and I couldn't just stick myself and believe into it.

Now I got to that understanding, and how, but we still have the big public, like people, and I have family members that have only this thought. I was also basically listening to another monk who understands well enough all of this mindfulness, the foundations from the Agamas, like from the Chinese version. But he's still finally asking whether this is maybe the better resolute to stay with an everyday thought of this state of the mind, to stay with the Pure Abode or whatever, that 48 wishes, that was like the will of this overlord to take you. That was a very huge thing in the Mahayana practice, and this is overpowering everything, so this is always my puzzle. Yeah, can you comment on it? I can.

I can just say that I can't say so much about the Pure Land belief system in the Mahayana, but I can understand it in this way, and say, or ask the question, or one can ask the question for themselves: what is better? No rebirth into samsara ever again, or rebirth again in the Pure Lands, go into the process of attaining arahatship and completely destroy all fetters so that it doesn't lead to any more rebirth, rather than still having an identification process that can still lead to rebirth in the pure abodes. Of course, granted, that's just one more rebirth. But why not go all the way to the final end, where there is no rebirth at all?

Because I think there is this difficulty for a general follower, lay follower, to really get to the deep understanding of the dependent origination and the process of how all these five aggregates going through. way that they can let them to one of the minds they I think finally right now for me is trying to get them at least to that level of that mindset or that it's more of like a confined conception of staying to that more of like just aspire to that i think that's how they are trying to do it's i i don't know i don't know i'm just trying to analyze here for myself and for like those people that i have relationship with and there's still sticking on to it i want to understand better so that there is yeah thank you anyway that is good question that's been not i've been asking and i wasn't able to know what to do you know i was not this is very new to me and thank you so much and still of course a lot to there is all this like uh letting go or like how to be disidentifying and

but anyways, it's a very good way of leading me. Thank you. Yeah, so I'll just add one more thing, because you were talking about dependent origination, and it is a difficult and very deep and profound subject and process to understand. But my suggestion here would be, for oneself and then also suggesting to others, is to start off with the four foundations of mindfulness, so understanding using the process of mindfulness, come back and see how mind moves its attention, and then seeing whether craving arises because of a physical experience of the way of the senses, or perception of that, or because of some kind of mental experience. This is how you get deep into understanding dependent origination on a moment-to-moment basis, if you will.

Meaning, if you're able to use the practice in such a way that you can recognize any time that something arises in the way of some physical experience, in the way of the senses, and you see that there is craving arising, maybe a harsh noise, again, that makes contact with the ear and the ear consciousness, and that gives rise to an unpleasant sensation, then you can recognize if the mind is attaching to it and having aversion to it. So in that process you are seeing the links of dependent origination. The only difference is you're not able to really pinpoint and divide between perception and feeling and contact, and so on. But every time you do the 6R's process, where you're able to notice when craving arises or aversion arises, then when you let go, take your attention away from it and relax in that relaxed process, you're also letting go of the craving, but you're also letting go of the identification process of that experience. The process has to be like thinning and thinning and thinning. Yeah, I understand. Yeah, it's a long process. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you so

I think we can share some merit now. May suffering ones be suffering free, and the fear-struck fearless beings. May the grieving shadow grieve, 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, diverse and nagas, almighty power, share this merit of ours. Protect the Buddha's dispensation.