Online Retreat 20 Dec 2021 Dhamma talk MN 38 and Q & A With Delson Armstrong

So today we're going to be exploring dependent origination, and we're going to be reading from Majjhima Nikaya 38, Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, The Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving. So this view that he has, that it's the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, and not another. It means that it is the same singular self or the same singular consciousness. There's no impermanence to consciousness. It does not arise and pass away. It only moves, transmigrates from one being to the next being. But this is a pernicious view, which means it's a wrong view, not the view that is understood as being rooted in the Dhamma.

Yet, although pressed and questioned and cross-questioned by those bhikkhus in this way, the bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, adhered to that pernicious view and continued to insist upon it. Since the bhikkhus were unable to detach him from that pernicious view, they went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, they sat down at one side and told him all that had occurred, adding, "Venerable Sir, since we could not detach Bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, from this pernicious view, we have reported this matter to the Blessed One." Then the Blessed One addressed a certain bhikkhu thus: "Come, bhikkhu, in my name, call Sati, son of a fisherman, that the Teacher calls him." "Yes, venerable sir," he replied.

And he went to Bhikkhu Sati and told him, "The Teacher calls you, friend Sati." "Yes, friend," he replied. And he went to the Blessed One and, after paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked him, "Sati, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you? Quote, as I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs around and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another."

...experiences the results of karma, and it is that same soul that Sati is equating with consciousness. But the Buddha has something else to say about that. He says, "Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit, for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time." Whenever the Buddha uses the words "misguided man," that's a pretty harsh admonishment, because really what he's saying is, you are foolish, you are misguided, you don't have a grasp of what the Dhamma is. And for the Buddha to say that means that the person has really messed up big time when it comes to professing the Dhamma and teaching the Dhamma or talking about the Dhamma.

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think? Has this Bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, kindled even a spark of wisdom in this Dhamma and discipline?" "How could he, Venerable Sir? No, Venerable Sir." When this was said, Bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, sat silent, dismayed, with shoulders drooping and head down, glum and without response. Then knowing this, the Blessed One told him, "Misguided man, you will be recognized by your pernicious view. I shall question the bhikkhus on this matter."

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus, do you understand the Dhamma taught by me as this Bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, does when he misrepresents us by his wrong grasp and injures himself and stores up much demerit?" "No, Venerable Sir." Obviously they would say no, because they don't want to be equated with Sati and be considered to be misguided. But what they say is: "For in many discourses the Blessed One has stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness."

"Good, bhikkhus. It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me thus, for in many ways I have stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness. But this Bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, misrepresents us by his wrong grasp and injures himself and stores up much demerit, for this will lead to his harm and suffering. For this will lead to the harm and suffering of this misguided man for a long time."

When consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind objects, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it burns: when fire burns dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns dependent on cow dung, it is reckoned as a cow dung fire; when fire burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire. So too, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it arises.

The mind and body would not be able to function without consciousness, but it is not the same consciousness that continues to run through the mind and body. It is arising and passing away dependent upon every iota of experience. So whenever we talk about eye consciousness, we are saying that the eye and form make contact, and dependent upon that there is eye consciousness. Form and eye consciousness is eye contact, likewise for the other six, the rest of the six sense bases. So you have to reframe your understanding and see that when we talk about consciousness within the context of the Dhamma, we're not talking about anything other than the awareness of an experience, the bare knowledge of an experience dependent upon which arises contact, feeling and perception. There's consciousness. There is this interdependency, there is this rotation between the three, especially feeling, perception and consciousness. That's why when we say the cessation of perception, feeling and consciousness, the reason we say there is no more consciousness, which is accurate, is because you have no awareness of what happened in that experience of cessation.

is because consciousness was dependent upon the experience of the mind when you get deeper into the jhanas and the formless realms. Because do you see this has come to be? Yes, venerable sir. Because do you see its origin occurs with that as nutriment? Yes, venerable sir. Because do you see with the cessation of that nutriment what has come to be is subject to cessation? Basically, he's talking about the four noble truths: this has come to be; the origin of that is its nutriment; with the cessation of that nutriment is cessation of what it has come to be.

And of course, the way leading to it is implied, is the Eightfold Path. Bhikkhus, does doubt arise when one is uncertain thus: has this come to be? Yes, venerable sir. Bhikkhus, does doubt arise when one is uncertain thus: does its origination occur with that as nutriment? Yes, venerable sir. Because this doubt arises when one is uncertain thus, with the cessation of that nutriment is what comes to be subject to cessation? Yes, venerable sir. So in other words, if anyone has doubts about, or is unable to understand, and it is uncertain of what is the cause of something, what is its arising, what is its cause, what is the cessation of that, and what is the way leading to it, there is an experience of doubt, there is non-understanding or non-grasping of what is.

The four noble truths, or what are the four numbers? And that is basically ignorance, Bhikkhus. Is doubt abandoned in one who sees as it actually is with proper wisdom, thus: "Thus this has come to be"? "Yes, Venerable Sir." Bhikkhus, is doubt abandoned in one who sees as it actually is with proper wisdom, thus: "Its origination occurs with that as nutriment"? "Yes, Venerable Sir." Bhikkhus, is doubt abandoned in one who sees as it actually is with proper wisdom, thus: "With the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation"? "Yes, Venerable Sir." Bhikkhus, are you thus free from doubt here, "This has come to be"? "Yes, Venerable."

Bhikkhus, are you thus free from doubt here, "Its origination occurs with that as nutriment"? "Yes, Venerable Sir." Bhikkhus, are you thus free from doubt here, "With the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation"? "Yes, Venerable Sir." Bhikkhus, has it been seen well by you as it actually is with proper wisdom, thus: "This has come to be"? "Yes, Venerable Sir." As it actually is with proper wisdom, thus: "Its origination occurs with that as nutriment"? "Yes, Venerable Sir." Bhikkhus, has it been seen well by you as it actually is with proper wisdom, thus: "With the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation"? "Yes, Venerable Sir." Bhikkhus, purified and bright as this view is, if you adhere to it, cherish it, treasure it, and treat it as a possession, would you then understand that the Dhamma has been taught as similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping?

personal vested interest in the Dhamma, even you have no attachment to the Dhamma, even then you attain arahatship. So there's a story of Sariputta in the Sutta about the Dighanakha, that is Sariputta's nephew, who comes to the Buddha. And the Buddha gives him a discourse on understanding feeling. I believe this is Majjhima Nikaya 74, Dighanakha. And Sariputta is fanning the Buddha while listening to this discourse, and what is taught is that the Buddha has no attachment even to the Dhamma.

And it's understood that as soon as he understood that, Sariputta attained arahatship in between that and the Buddha. And so the Buddha continues: Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that already have come to be and for the support of those about to come to be. What for? They are physical food as nutriment, gross or subtle; contact as the second; mental volition as the third; and consciousness as the fourth. So, physical food as nutriment, gross or subtle: gross here means solid food, food that we have here on this human plane of existence, the human animal plane of existence. The subtle food refers to deva food, food that is experienced by the devas, body, and gives health and vitality to the body, to the mentality and materiality, to the nama-rupa, to the mind and body.

Contact as the second. That means when there is contact, it gives rise, or gives nutriment, to feeling, gives rise to an experience. When you are listening to my voice, there is contact between your ears and the sound waves traveling to the nerve endings of your ears. And the contact of that gives rise to the feeling, which is the experience of listening to my voice and what I am saying right now.

And along with that is perception, the recognition of what is being said based on your understanding of language and context. Mental volition as the third. This is intention. This is choice. This is decision-making. Mental volition, in other words, is also understood to be formations. Rise to consciousness, or the awareness of the action, awareness of the thought, awareness of the thinking process, awareness of the speaking, the verbalizing, the awareness of action of moving from one place to the other. But this gives rise to consciousness, and consciousness as the fourth, consciousness gives rise to mentality, materiality, to nama-rupa, to mind and body. And body would not continue to exist with the cessation of consciousness; it would be the cessation of mind and body and all of the processes that are dependent upon mind and body, including the six sense bases, the contact, the feeling, the perception, the intention and attention, and the body itself. Now, Bhikkhus, these four kinds of nutriment have what as their source? What as their origin? From what are they born and produced?

These four kinds of nutriment have craving as their source, craving as their origin. They are born and produced from craving. How is this the case? Physical food is craved for, and thus there is a need for food, a desire for food. And the desire for food can become further craving, which can cause attachment to food, all kinds of things that people do to obtain food. Contact has craving within it, in the sense that contact, when you see something or when you experience something, when there is the arising of an experience, that is to say the arising of the sense objects, and it meets with the six sense bases, that contact. If there's identification with the six sense bases, they themselves give rise to contact imbued with craving. Intention itself, if personalized, if seen as "this is my intention, this is me, this is mine, this is myself," that can give rise to craving, and if there's craving in that intention, it can give rise to a consciousness that is imbued with that craving as well. And then, on the macro level, when you talk about craving, there is

there is, at the point of dissolution of the body, some thoughts that arise, some images that arise, some ideas, concepts and notions that arise, and this is because of some level of regret or remorse or attachment or aversion, and the mind takes that to be me, mine, or myself. Craving or aversion towards it or against it, is craving itself, is that link of craving. That craving then gives rise to formations, that is to say an intention: "I don't like this, I don't want this, I want to push this away," or "I want more of this, I want to live my life more, I want to live this kind of life," and so on. That craving-rooted formations give rise to a certain kind of consciousness.

That consciousness then, which is known as the rebirth-linking consciousness or the evolving consciousness, the patisandhi consciousness, goes from that nama-rupa and enters into a new nama-rupa at the point of conception. That whole process began because of craving. This is why it's said that these processes have craving as their root, craving as their origin. They are produced and born from craving.

And this craving has what as its source? Craving has feeling as its source. So what is feeling? Feeling here comes from vedana, that is to say, veda, which comes from the word vidya, which is to know something. It is sensing something, it is understanding something, it is experiencing something. So anything that we experience right now is a feeling.

Tied to that is perception. Perception is that part of the mind that recognizes what is being experienced. So here I am speaking, and your mind is processing it as feeling in the form of sound, in the form of words, and recognizing what those words are, and then recognizing, or perceiving, that it is Delson that is speaking, through this medium of Zoom and so on and so forth. So, recognizing this perception.

Feeling can be sixfold, right? It is dependent upon experiencing vision or forms, seeing. The feeling can be seen. Feeling can be hearing. Feeling can be smelling. Feeling can be tasting. Feeling can be touching. Feeling can be thinking or pondering, or forms of idea, creating ideas, or any kind of mental processes can be feeling; thoughts are feeling. Feeling, and this feeling has what as its source? Feeling has contact as its source. As I said, contact is also sixfold. With the meeting of the form and the eye, there is contact. With the form and the eye, there is eye consciousness, and these three together constitute eye contact. With the meeting of sound and ear, there is ear consciousness, and with the meeting of these three, there is ear contact. Likewise for smells and the nose, tastes and the tongue, the sensations of the body, whether it's temperature or pressure on the body, or wind, or clothing, or any kind of tangible.

And the meeting of that with the body brings up body consciousness, and the meeting of these three constitutes body contact. Same with the mind. When you're meditating, you have the object of meditation, which is the metta, whatever it might be, and you have the mind. The joining of those two brings about mind consciousness, and together these three are mind contact, which gives rise to the feeling of the meditation, of the experience of the jhana. Contact has what as its source? Contact has the six-fold base as its source. What is the six-fold base? That is to say the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the mind. These constitute the six-fold base. And this six-fold base has what as its source? The six-fold base has mentality-materiality as its source. When we talk about mentality, what we're talking about are the processes of the mind, that is, that they're made up of five things: contact, feeling, perception, intention and attention.

The mind has the potential to experience contact. Mind has potential to experience feeling. Mind has experience, has potential to experience perception. Mind has potential to experience intention, and the mind has potential to experience attention. So when we have contact, that is to say the contact between the sixfold bases and its sense objects, and in the arising of the sense consciousnesses, that happens because of the fact that we have mind, that is mentality. When we have mind, we can experience feeling. It is because of mind that we can experience perception and have intention and attention. Attention is that through which consciousness flows. So these work in tandem to create the experience. Materiality is the body itself. The body here is made up of the four great elements.

That is to say earth, water, fire, and air. Say that the body is made up of different kinds of states of matter. You have a solid state of matter, you have a liquid state of matter, you have a gaseous state of matter, and you have a plasma state of matter. Plasma here doesn't refer to plasma in the blood but rather to heat, the fire element. And this mentality-materiality has what as its source? Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source. So consciousness is, as we said, sixfold. There is the eye consciousness, the ear consciousness, the nose consciousness, the tongue consciousness, the body consciousness, and the mind consciousness.

But consciousness, also understanding from the macro level: when there is consciousness that arises and descends into a new nama-rupa, into a new mentality-materiality, there is then that new mentality-materiality, upon that consciousness which arises in it. And then once that consciousness dissipates, there's further arising and passing away of consciousnesses dependent upon the experience of that mentality-materiality. That is why there is that interdependency. And this consciousness has what as its source? Consciousness has formations as its source. So formations are threefold. Formations come from the word sankhara.

Sankhara: sam means together, and kara means to do something. So it's the coming together of something. Sankhara is the construction of things. Formations here means it creates the experience for you. It's the carrier of old karma. So when we experience formations, the only way we can understand the quality of formations is by understanding the quality of our choices. If choices are inclining towards unwholesome states of being, then that means the formations that have arisen are rooted in craving, conceit, and ignorance. But if they're inclined towards a wholesome state of being, then they are void of any craving and void of possibly any ignorance and conceit. And the reason I say that is because eventually you have to let go of identifying even with the formations. Then the formations are utterly purified.

And the formations are generally categorized into three. There is mental formation, there is verbal formation, and there is bodily formation. Mental formation gives the potential for the arising of feeling and perception. Verbal formation gives rise to thinking in verbalized form, meaning you think in words, think in speech, something. And when you're listening to somebody and wanting to respond to them, verbal formations arise to give rise to what you want to say, to express.

So when you have an experience, there are mental formations giving rise to the experience through this process of dependent origination. Bodily formation is associated with breathing, but it can be associated with any physical movement. The intention to move from here to there is part of physical formations. There are other kinds of formations, but for the purpose of understanding dependent origination, we see them as threefold.

Mental formations, verbal formations, and bodily formations. And you might recall, when we were talking about jhanas being levels of cessation, we also said that the second jhana is the cessation of verbal formations. The fourth jhana is the cessation of bodily formations, and the cessation of perception, feeling, and of mental formations. And these formations have what as their origin, what as their source? From what are they produced, born, and produced?

Formations have ignorance as their source, ignorance as their origin. They are born and produced from ignorance. Ignorance comes from the word avija, which means to not know something. And that not knowing means not understanding and experiencing truths so ignorance means lack of mindfulness anytime you have you are not mindful of an experience every time your mind is distracted it feeds back to ignorance so whenever you are mindful and you six are you are carving away at craving you are carving away at conceit and you are carving away at ignorance so if you see something as being me mine or myself if you take the sixth sense basis if you take the experience of the sixth sense basis as being me mine or myself you are adding to the ignorance but if you have attention rooted in reality that is to say you are seeing things as they really are and seeing them as being impermanent and therefore liable to cause dukkah and therefore not to be taken as self every time you do that you let go of ignorance

You have sharper mindfulness. So bhikkhus, with ignorance as condition, formations come to be. With formations as condition, consciousness. With consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality. With mentality-materiality as condition, the six-fold base. With the six-fold base as condition, contact. With contact as condition, feeling. With feeling as condition, craving. What is craving? Craving is understood as that tightness, that tension that you experience in the mind and body. Craving is that mind which says, I like this and I want more of it, or I don't like this and I don't want more of it, or I associate with this and therefore this is me, this is mine, this is myself. So craving can arise in the form of attachment, in the form of aversion, or in the form of identification. With craving as condition, there comes to be clinging.

Clinging is that process which rationalizes why you like something, why this is your favorite. Red is my favorite color because so-and-so. I like rock and roll music because so-and-so. I don't like chocolate cake because so-and-so. So that rationalizing of why you like something, or why you don't like something, or why you think you are this, is clinging. Grasping onto it as an identity, wanting to hold onto it as being part of an identity. It is the process that starts that whole experience of identifying further with something. And that's why, with clinging as condition, there is being or becoming or habitual tendencies.

Being comes from the word bhava. Bhava also means existence, and it can also be understood as habitual tendency. So in this process of feeling, when you see something, let's say you see chocolate cake, and let's say chocolate cake is definitely your favorite. So you crave for it. You crave for it and you enjoy it, but you want more. And you say, I like chocolate cake because when I was a young kid, my mother always bought me chocolate cake after we came back from school. And so now I associate with good memories.

Clinging, therefore, is that process of associating with good and bad memories. So a lot of trauma that people experience, a lot of bad memories people experience, creates that process of clinging. If you let go of clinging, you can let go of a lot of suffering in the form of trauma, in the form of PTSD, and so on. But then from that clinging you say, this is mine, this is me, this is myself. I only like chocolate cake, and so it is my chocolate cake. This being, this habitual tendency. So somebody takes away that chocolate cake, and you act in a way that is basically aversive, and you get angry at that person. That's because of the habitual tendencies. So when you see the chocolate cake, your inclination to that chocolate cake is to go for it and buy it and eat it. That is being, that is habitual tendency. That is where the origin of identity is further made concrete. That is where the sense of identity is fully formed. And so on the macro level, when we talk about being or existence, we talk about it as threefold.

If your inclinations are rooted in the sensual realms, then you will continue to take existence into sense realms. If you have an experience of jhana and become attached to any of the first four jhanas, then your mind will be inclined towards experiencing that jhana in a different state of existence. If your mind is inclined to or attached to the formless jhanas, then your mind will have a tendency to cause existence in that new formless realm. So existence is also another way of understanding being on the macro level. So that which you continue to feed, that which you continue to see as me, mine, or myself, and have attachment to, words, and cling to words, that gives rise to an existence in that particular realm. There is birth.

Now birth is understood in twofold: birth of new action. But now I've seen the chocolate cake, somebody takes away the chocolate cake from me, and I get angry. That anger causes, so that anger is the craving that I don't want this person to take away the chocolate cake because so-and-so. The rationalizing of why you're angry is clinging. Then the wanting to get that chocolate cake from them, and then acting in a certain way. So there's the arising of how you should act, based on the repository of habitual tendencies that are stored in being. And then I go and say something to that person and pull the chocolate cake back. And that birth of new action causes me to create new karma based on that.

And so now that person is upset, and then they cause me suffering. With the arising of birth as condition, there is aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. Gets angry and then shouts back at me, and then I have pain, I have grief, I have despair, I have sorrow. But on the macro level, when we have birth into a new state of existence, with birth comes aging and death. Comes illness. So with birth comes death, that is unavoidable, inevitable. So on the macro level it's also understood that birth also means to come to be into a new state of existence, and with it there is the inevitability of aging, of death, of illness, of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair.

Aging here means the decline of your sense faculties, the decline of your mind and body. Death is the ending and dissolution of that. Sorrow and lamentation. Sorrow is sadness. Sorrow is depression. Lamentation is lamenting or crying over that grief, pain or mental pain. Grief and despair have to do with restlessness and anxiety and worry and so on.

Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. With birth as condition, aging and death come to be. So it was said: now, bhikkhus, do aging and death have birth as condition or not? Or how do you take it in this case? Aging and death have birth as condition, Venerable Sir. Thus, we take it in this case: with birth as condition, aging and death come to be.

With being as condition, birth comes to be. So it was said. Now, bhikkhus, does birth have being as condition or not? Or how do you take it in this case? Birth has being as condition, Venerable Sir. Thus, we take it in this case: with being as condition, birth comes to be. With clinging as condition, being comes to be. Habitual tendencies come to be. So it was said, now, bhikkhus, do habitual tendencies have clinging as condition or not? Or how do you take it in this case? Being or habitual tendencies have clinging as condition, Venerable Sir. Thus, we take it in this case: with clinging as condition, habitual tendencies come to be. With craving as condition, clinging comes to be.

So it was said, now, bhikkhus, does clinging have craving as condition or not? Or how do you take it in this case? Clinging has craving as condition, Venerable Sir. Thus we take it in this case. With craving as condition, clinging comes to be. With feeling as condition, craving comes to be. So it was said. Now, bhikkhus, does craving have feeling as condition or not?

Or how do you take it in this case? Craving has feeling as condition, Venerable Sir. Thus we take it in this case: with feeling as condition, craving comes to be. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be. So it was said. Now, bhikkhus, does feeling have contact as condition or not? Or how do you take it in this case? Feeling has contact as condition, Venerable Sir. Thus we take it in this case: with contact as condition, feeling comes to be. With the six-fold basis as condition, contact comes to be. So it was said. Now, bhikkhus, does contact have the six-fold basis as condition or not? Or how do you take it in this case? Contact has the six-fold basis as condition, Venerable Sir.

With the cessation of birth, cessation of aging and death, comes the cessation of aging and death. So it was said, now bhikkhus, do aging and death cease with the cessation of birth or not? Or how do you take it in this case? Aging and death cease with the cessation of birth, Venerable Sir. Thus we take it in this case. and death.

Cessation of consciousness, the cessation of mentality-materiality. With the cessation of formations, the cessation of consciousness. With the cessation of ignorance, the cessation of formations. So it was said. Now, bhikkhus, do formations cease with the cessation of ignorance or not? Or how do you take it in this case? Formations cease with the cessation of ignorance, Venerable Sir. Thus we take it in this case: cessation of ignorance is a cessation of formations. Good, because so you say, thus and I also say thus. When this does not exist, that does not come to be. With the cessation of this, that ceases. That is: with the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of formations. With the cessation of formations comes the cessation of consciousness. With the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of mentality-materiality. With the cessation of mentality-materiality comes the cessation of the six-fold base.

Because you see this whole process being caused by dependent origination, you see the arising of this comes the arising of that, the cessation of this comes the cessation of that. You can't say that the self arises and ceases. Then it can't be called a self, because the idea of a self is that which is always permanent, always unchanging. But what we can see is that there have been the arising of different causes and conditions that create situations and circumstances through the process of reactions: through feeling, cravings, clinging, being and so on. But if we cease the being, if we cease habitual tendencies, we no longer have the birth of new action. When we no longer have the birth of new action, we no longer have further karma that will become old karma to be experienced.

And so when we talk about old karma and we talk about new karma, old karma is all that which is to be felt and experienced. It is unavoidable and inevitable, dependent upon the birth of new actions in previous moments before that old karma can be so. Old karma is everything from formations all the way up to feeling. It is to be felt and experienced. But if you crave for it, if you push it, if you pull it, if you identify with it, then there will be craving. If you further rationalize why you do that, then there will be clinging. If you have a repository of habitual tendencies, then there will be being. And if you act from there, then there will be the new, the birth of new karma and thus further suffering in the form of the new old karma. The next old karma could be experienced as formations, as consciousness, as mentality-materiality, as a six-fold base, as contact, feeling and perception tied to that feeling. So in the context of meditation, be experienced and felt because

you had done something in the past that caused that hindrance to arise, the breaking of a precept. But if you push it, if you pull it, if you control it, if you do anything with it, you are only further going to strengthen that karma as new karma to be experienced in the next moment or in the next subsequent moment. So how do you deal with it? With right effort, seeing it for what it really is and therefore not to be considered as self, and to be let go of using the six R's process to let go of it, so that no craving further arises, no clinging further arises, no being further arises, no birth further arises. And that is the cessation of suffering.

no venerable sir knowing and seeing in this way would you run forward into the future thus shall we be in the future shall we not be in the future what shall we be in the future how shall we be in the future having been what what shall we become in the future no venerable sir why because even that sense of self doesn't arise in the future it's all happening as a result of your choices now in any given moment if you incline your mind towards grabbing onto an experience as being me mine or myself even when you're practicing meditation and you have an experience of jhana you have an experience of infinite space you have an experience of compassion you have an experience of equanimity you have an experience of neither perception or non-perception have an experience of

The quiet mind. If you hold on to that, if you try to get enamored by the formations that arise, as being mine, me, mine, or myself, and see where they head, you're taking that to be self. And by doing so you are causing further renewal of being, and therefore you are causing further renewal of feeling and perception, rather than the cessation of perception and healing, which is what your mind should incline to, so that it experiences the intuition, knowing and seeing. In this way, would you now be inwardly perplexed about the present: thus am I, am I not, but am I, how am I, where has this being come from, where will it go?

No, venerable sir. Why? Because you see, even in this moment when you're listening to me, there is no listener. There's a series of things happening. There is the sound waves making contact with the nerve endings in your ear, creating the feeling. If you choose to identify with that, then that is the choice to cause that, that will create craving. And if you choose to rationalize that as being me, mine, or myself, that will cause clinging, and that will create or add to the repository of habitual tendencies. But if you see what I am saying as being just an impersonal process, then you don't cause any attachment to what is being said. The mind processes it, but there is no me there listening.

There is no I am there listening. It is all just a series of impersonal causes and conditions. Through the process of formations, through the arising of consciousness base, through the process of contact, feeling and perception tied to that. Because knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: the teacher is respected by us, we speak as we do out of respect for the teacher? No, venerable sir. Knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: the recluse says this, and we speak thus at the bidding of the recluse? No, venerable sir.

Knowing and seeing in this way, would you acknowledge another teacher? No, venerable sir. Knowing and seeing in this way, would you return to the observances, tumultuous debates, and auspicious signs of ordinary recluses and brahmins, taking them as the core of the meditative practice? No, venerable sir. Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves?

Yes, venerable sir. In other words, you speak from experience. Right now, we are giving a talk on dependent origination. But you don't need to accept it. All you have to do is understand it and see for yourself. And so you can only speak from experience. Anything outside of that would not be speaking from experience. And therefore, it would just be parroting what others have said, what other teachers have said. lesson to understand.

Somebody can guide you through the practice. Somebody can guide you through the jhana practice and through everything. And you can talk about it all day and all night long, but you won't actually have the experience. I can tell you all about the taste of sugar. I can tell you about its chemical compositions. I can tell you about its mass. I can tell you about what happens when you dissolve it in water. I can tell you what happens when you add it to this, or what happens when you mix it with this flavor, and so on. But that's not going to let you know what it tastes like. Only you will know when you put sugar on your tongue, and you'll understand what it tastes like.

So this process of dependent origination is not to be memorized, is not to be only memorized, I'll say, because it is good to understand it and recognize it and memorize it and then be able to see it when it actually happens. Then you're able to see in your daily living, here is the feeling. and now here i am waiting in line my mind is thinking this or the mind is thinking this and this is the feeling now the mind is grabbing onto it i will let go using the six hour process this is how when you continue to use a six hour process you yourself start to experience what is contact what is feeling what is perception what is intention what is craving what is clinging what is being and when you let go of being you let go of the potential for new birth of action.

But you cannot recall the birth of that new action in the form of a thought, in the form of the word that you speak, or in the form of an action. You can't call it back. But you can cease being when you cease clinging by six R-ing any clinging. You can cease the birth of that new action by ceasing habitual tendencies. You can cease that habitual tendencies by ceasing, by six R-ing the clinging. You can cease the clinging by six R-ing the craving. You can cease the craving by six R-ing the identification with the feeling, and coming back and understanding that feeling as being impersonal, and therefore as being impermanent, and therefore not worth holding on to, and therefore not to be taken as self.

Good bhikkhus, so you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. Or it was in reference to this that it has been said, bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.

Now we're going to get into the macro level, the understanding of rebirth from one life to the next. The descent of the embryo takes place through the union of three things. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, but the mother is not in season, and the gandhabba, that is to say, the new consciousness that is to descend, is not present.

In this case, no descent of an embryo takes place. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, but the gandhabba is not present. In this case too, no descent of the embryo takes place. But when there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, and the gandhabba is present, through the union of these three things, the consciousness, the mother and father, there is the descent of the embryo, which takes place. The mother then carries the embryo in her womb for nine or ten months with much anxiety, as a heavy burden. Then at the end of nine or ten months, the mother gives birth with much anxiety, as a heavy burden.

Then, when the child is born, she nourishes it with her own blood. But the mother's breast milk is called blood in the noble one's discipline. When he grows up and his faculties mature, the child plays at such games as toy plows, tipcats, somersaults, toy windmills, toy measures, toy cars, and a toy bow and arrow. When he grows up and his faculties mature still further, the youth enjoys himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of sensual pleasure: with forms cognizable by the eye, with sounds cognizable by the ear, odors cognizable by the nose, flavors cognizable by the tongue, tangibles cognizable by the body, that are wished for, desired, agreeable, and likable, connected with sensual desire, and provocative of lust, or also possibly of aversion.

Unseeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing. He dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom, wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. So he abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished. In other words, he does not remain unaware of what is being experienced through the mind and body, through the sixth sense basis. And so he has the limited mind, a mind that is contracted, a mind that has craving, that has aversion, that has identification. And he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom. That is to say, he does not have my deliverance of mind through the jhanas, or deliverance by wisdom through the first four jhanas, wherein those unwholesome states, that is to say the hindrances, cease without remainder. That does not happen. They still continue on to be engaged, as he is, in favoring and opposing.

That is to say, he clings to this or that. He feels whatever he feels, whether pleasant. He delights in that feeling. He craves for it. He welcomes it and remains holding on to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now, delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, the habitual tendencies come to be. With habitual tendencies as condition, birth comes to be. With birth, this is to say the birth of action, as condition, aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be.

So I skipped a whole portion of this, but basically I'll just read through what that was. Here, Bhikkhus, here Bhikkhu, a Tathagata appears in the world, accomplished, fully enlightened, perfect in true knowledge and conduct, sublime, knower of worlds, incomparable leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of gods and humans, enlightened, blessed. He declares this world with its gods, its Maras, and its Brahmas, this generation with its recluses and brahmins, its princes and its people, which he himself has realized with direct knowledge. He teaches the Dhamma good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing, and he reveals a holy life that is utterly perfect and pure. A householder, or householder's son, or one born in some other clan, hears that Dhamma. Well, in this case it could be also a daughter. But on hearing the Dhamma, they acquire faith in the Tathagata. Possessing that faith, they consider thus: household life is crowded and dusty.

Life gone forth is wide open. It is not easy while living in a home to lead the holy life utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell. Suppose I shave off my hair, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness. On a later occasion, abandoning a small or large fortune, abandoning a small or large circle of relatives, they shave off their hair, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness.

Having gone forth and possessing the bhikkhu's training and way of life, abandoning the killing of living beings, they abstain from killing living beings, with rod and weapon laid aside, conscientious, merciful. They abide compassionate to all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, they abstain from taking what is not given. Taking only what is given, expecting only what is given, by not stealing, they abide in purity.

Abandoning celibacy in celibacy, they observe celibacy, living apart, abstaining from the vulgar practice of sexual intercourse. And of course, they abandon sensual misconduct as well. Abandoning false speech, they abstain from false speech. Truthful, trustworthy and reliable, one who is no deceiver of the world. Abandoning malicious speech, they abstain from malicious speech. They do not repeat elsewhere what they have heard here in order to divide those people from these, nor do they repeat to these people what they have heard elsewhere in order to divide these people from those. Thus they are one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendship who enjoys concord, rejoices in concord, delights in concord, a speaker of words that promote concord.

Abandoning harsh speech, they abstain from harsh speech. They speak such words as are gentle, pleasing to the hearer, and lovable, as go to the heart, as are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable to men. Abandoning gossip, they abstain from gossip. They speak at the right time, speak what is factual, speak on what is good, speak on the Dhamma and the discipline, speak such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate and beneficial. They abstain from injuring seeds and plants. They practice eating only one meal a day, abstaining from eating at night and outside the proper time. They abstain from dancing, singing, music and theatrical shows. They abstain from wearing garlands, smartening themselves with scent and embellishing themselves with unguents. They abstain from high and large couches. They abstain from accepting false weights, false metals, and false measures.

They abstain from accepting bribes, deceiving, defrauding, and trickery. They abstain from wounding, murdering, binding, brigandage, plundering, and violence. They become content with robes to protect the body and with alms food to maintain the stomach, and wherever they go, they set out taking only those things with them. Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its own wings as its only burden, the bhikkhu becomes content with robes to protect the body and with alms food to maintain the stomach, and wherever they go they set out taking only those things with them. Possessing this aggregate of noble virtue, they experience within themselves a bliss that is blameless. So in other words, it's important to see that there is samadhi, but what is samadhi predicated upon? It is predicated upon sila, upon wholesome qualities of mind, wholesome actions, wholesome speech, wholesome behavior, wholesome thoughts and intentions.

If you don't cultivate wholesome actions, wholesome speech, wholesome intentions, then the mind is prone to become agitated. And when the mind becomes agitated, it is not conducive for samadhi practice. It is not conducive for experiencing any of the jhanas, experiencing insight, or experiencing Nibbana, experiencing the unconditioned. Now I'm going to go back. So once they have cultivated the wholesome tendencies, having thus abandoned these five hindrances, imperfections of the mind that weaken wisdom, pleasures secluded from unwholesome states, they enter upon and abide in the first jhana. With the stilling of applied and sustained thought, they enter upon and abide 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, which has neither pain nor pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity. Eye that he does not lust after if it is pleasing, nor dislike it if it is unpleasing. So in other words, if you have a painful feeling, a painful sight, or a pleasant sight, you just see things as they really are. He abides with mindfulness of the body established, meaning he has attention rooted in reality. He sees it with what it sees it as it actually is, with wisdom, seeing it as being impermanent, seeing it as causing dukkha, seeing it and therefore as seeing it as being impersonal, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands as it actually is with an immeasurable mind. That is to say, you come to a point where your mind radiates loving kindness, but whatever it is you see, pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant, you see it as it actually is, and you have a mental condition that is with immeasurable loving kindness or immeasurable compassion or immeasurable

equanimity or joy, depending upon the situation, which means you're ever mindful of the body, of the mind, of feelings and of objects of phenomenon. And so he understands as it actually is, with deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom, wherein those unwholesome states cease without remainder. The deliverance by wisdom is to say the first four jhanas. The deliverance of mind is to say the formless jhanas as well. So he goes through them, experiences the cessation of perception, feeling and consciousness, and is delivered by or from anything that can be liable to create dukkha, liable to create a sense of identifying, craving, thinking, being, and so on. Having thus abandoned favoring and opposing whatever feeling

Fishermen as caught up in the vast net of craving, the trammel of craving. This is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words. Does anybody have any questions? What happened to Sati? Did he get enlightened on the spot, as sometimes happens in the suttas? No, he held on to his view, and he's in hell now. Oh dear. Yes, it's not a laughing matter, but that is the situation. Because he held on to the view of the idea of a self, because of that, that causes a lot of pain and suffering, and that is rooted in wrong view. So he wasn't able to experience stream entry, and therefore was liable to experience a hell realm. I have a question. So when you talk about the impersonal processes that we watch, why is the process impersonal?

Is it because it's not part of the self? Is it because there is no self? Could you explain it a little bit better? Self, it comes from the word ata in Pali or atman in Sanskrit. So the idea of an atman is one that is a soul that is unchanging, that is always permanent, that is always happy, that is always blissful, that is eternal. So with that as the touchstone, with that as benchmark, if you go through the whole process of your body and your mind, of contact, of feeling, of perception, you will see that they are always arising and passing away. And if they are always arising and passing away, they are liable to experience not only happiness but they're also liable to experience dukkha. Therefore they cannot be considered to be self in the way that is traditionally understood, and that's why this whole process is not self, is impersonal. Any other questions?

I have one question. What is the, if somebody takes, nobody's really taking rebirth, it's a process of craving that is responding to certain conditions, and then it unfolds, experiences past, the process evolves into one person. Why wouldn't, let's say, that craving take the process of more than one person? It always seems to take the form, let's say, someone who's a sotapanna has, what is it, up to seven rebirths or so. How come the process takes the form of a single person rather than maybe two people or more?

Yeah. Because when we talk about formations, they belong to the stream of choices and conditions. And that intention then gives rise to not necessarily a permanent consciousness, but a singular consciousness that descends in the nama-rupa. Because it cannot give rise to multiple consciousnesses at the same time. There are always simultaneous consciousnesses arising and passing away in one life, but they're arising one after the other. So really, in this whole stream of experience that you're having right now, and you're seeing me, and when you're listening to me, and when you're sitting in the chair and feeling the warmth of the cold, or whatever it might be, it's not all happening at the same time. It's like bits of information are being streamed one at a time, and they're happening at different speeds.

So in the same way, when consciousness arises, it's only happening dependent upon the contact that happens. So when there's contact with the ear and sound, there will be the arising of that sound consciousness. Now, on the macro level, when you have formations that arise, there is just one consciousness that transports those formations, that transport those intentions. Formations come in a bundle.

They don't arise individually. They come in bundles. You have physical formations, you have verbal formations, and you have mental formations. So when that craving is there at the dissolution of that life, the formations that are rooted in that craving all come together to produce one singular consciousness that links that birth to the next birth. It doesn't dissipate into different things because the craving of that solidifies or bundles up those formations to give rise to a new consciousness. Rather than disparate, separate individual consciousnesses that seem to take birth in different reboots, that's not what happens. It always is going to be where it's going to happen in one thing at a time. Same way you have one consciousness at a time arising and passing away, dependent upon the stream of bits of information in the different sense bases.

In the same way, it'll always be one life at a time, at least from one life to the next life. Yeah, if someone believes that there is no rebirth and no consciousness after death, is that also a pernicious view? Yes. In the Buddhist context that is what's known as nihilism, or annihilation. Annihilism or annihilationism also, where there is no consciousness after death. But if that person has that kind of a view and they believe that, then whatever they're experiencing in the way of, at the point of death before they die, that's still liable to create a new rebirth for them, because they're still craving there. There's still some identification there.

That's why, you know, the whole process here is not to believe in a macro rebirth. You don't have to take anyone's word for it that there is rebirth, but you can see rebirth in every moment with the arising and passing away of sensory consciousness. And so the Buddha doesn't talk about it for the context of just escaping the wheel of samsara in the macro level, but destroying or eradicating or eliminating and letting go of craving, of identification, of conceit, and of ignorance. So if you can experience the cessation of suffering here and now, that also means the cessation of further formations that can give rise to further rebirth. Any last questions?

Yes. Slightly out of the topic, but I've heard the teaching that only that which exists in deep sleep is real. And that is not from the suit, that's a riot. That's from the Upanishads, that there is that which is beyond the waking state, dream state and aimless sleep state, the deep sleep state, that is known as Turiya. So that comes from a Vedantic view, and that is the idea that there is that consciousness that is all pervading and is always experiencing different states of waking, sleep or dreaming and deep sleep. And so it's outside of that scope. But the question here is, okay, if we say that that is the case, how is that consciousness being experienced, through what medium is it being experienced? I guess, but then if you take away the mind, does that consciousness still exist? I don't know. I had a teacher who says that he never sleeps, but I think he had an operation, and if I remember correctly he passed out, but I'm not completely sure about this story. There is an understanding that you can be still mindful while you're asleep.

When you are asleep you can still be mindful of the waking state. You can still be mindful of the dream state. You can even still be mindful of the deep sleep state, but that doesn't mean that it's the same consciousness that's experiencing it. There's a consciousness dependent upon what's happening in the waking state experiences. There are consciousnesses arising dependent upon what's happening in the dream states. And there's a consciousness dependent upon being aware of what's happening in the deep sleep state. But it's not that same consciousness. It seems like it, or it can be understood in that way, or let's say misunderstood, because it takes it to be that fluid, same consciousness. But it's all tied to the experience of the mind.

As soon as you take the mind away, that mind consciousness is gone. So the idea, I mean, that's the thing about Buddhism: it doesn't say anything about an ontological reality, that there is this all-pervading consciousness, that the universe is alive with consciousness. It doesn't think about it in those terms. It only thinks about what is suffering and what is the cessation of suffering. So, depending within this reality, conditioned reality, is there a way to the unconditioned? That's all that it's talking about. So when we talk about consciousness in those terms, what we're talking about is consciousness that's tied to a mental experience, that's tied to an awareness of the mind. You take the mind away and that consciousness is gone, or you change the mind and that consciousness, dependent upon that mind, also changes, dependent upon that change in them. I guess I've been dipping into too many traditions.

There's also Rinko, but let's not get into that. - Well, yeah, I mean-- - I have to see for myself that it's much better. - Yeah, yeah. - Okay, thank you. - You're welcome. Any last questions before we wrap up? Let's share some merit. 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.