And two people had to drop out that we know about. Stan... I guess he wasn't here last week. Thelma. I thought she was not coming forever. I think so. So tonight, we'd like to do the same kind of format that we did last week, where I'll present some of the information and Grace will lead the discussion. And we'll kind of be going back and forth tonight a little bit more. First of all, I'd just like to talk about the last class and any of the reading that we did for this week. And if you had any reactions to that, we can talk about that. or any carryover from last week. And then I'd like to talk about the Buddha's First Sermon and the Four Noble Truths as part of that.

[01:02]

And then we'll discuss that. And then we'll talk about the Three Marks of Existence. And after each one of them, I'd like to stop and just have a relatively short discussion about it and then keep on going. So we'll kind of be talking, discussing, talking, discussing, talking, discussing. I wanted to say something about last week. There was a question that came up about whether Buddha's family were Brahmin. I read that they were not. They were of equal status, but the difference between the class they were in and the Brahmin, and I forget the name now, was that Brahman were more involved in the religious element, and this class was the ruling, but in terms of being on the higher level. Yeah. Also, I have a couple of corrections from last week, too. I said that somebody raised the point, well, is the word Roshi kind of like avatar?

[02:08]

And I said, well, it's kind of like it, but It's not even kind of like it. It's really different. Avatar really means that the dictionary definition is a manifestation of a deity. And Roshi is more like a venerable teacher. So they're really used in different ways. People would call Meher Baba, they would say he's the avatar, like he's sort of like the reincarnation of a particular deity. But we don't use the word Roshi in that same way. And also an interesting point, when we talked about the jhanas, somebody, I think Ross, brought up the fact that, well, weren't the jhanas already existing before Buddha's time? And actually, as I was reading, there's a disagreement about that. Generally, the traditional Buddhists assume that they did exist before Buddha's time. And actually, if you read the translation that we did last week of his enlightenment, they describe going through the different stages.

[03:18]

I think they talked about it as he had done before, when he was practicing his ascetic practices. But Thich Nhat Hanh, who's a sort of different style, not so traditional, sort of a mixture, feels that they weren't weren't around, the jhanas weren't around as actual forms to practice before Buddha's time. So it's not a big point, but it's just interesting that there's a kind of discrepancy there. And the reason he thinks that is because the Satipatthana Sutra that we're going to be looking at a little later doesn't make any reference to it. And he figures that if those jhanas were existing at that time, the Satipatthana Sutra, which is really concerned with mindfulness and meditation, would have at least had some reference. And it doesn't. So, it's just sort of this detail. So, first of all, is there anything left over from last week?

[04:21]

Any thoughts that you had? or anything from the reading this week that you want to talk about. We don't have to. Could you say something about the translation and the style that they've chosen to translate it in? It sounds as though it was more spoken than written, for example. Now this is for... For the sermon. For this week's one, for the first one? Yes. It sounds like it was more... Spoken than written. Well, yeah, they were. They were spoken for several hundred years before they were written.

[05:23]

So maybe this reflects that style. Sometimes when we present translations, we take out parts of it which are repetitive. They kind of go on and on and on, just repeating paragraphs, like you would do if you were memorizing something. So oftentimes the sutras do have that quality of being spoken. and also being used for memorization as well. Yes, but in a way I'm involved in that. It's a weird style of writing. You mean the English? Yes, the English. Well, this was kind of an older book. I don't have it with me tonight. It's by Thomas. It's an older book. I forget what the date is, but it's not within the last 20 years. Is it more literal? Yeah, he tends to be more literal, which is why I like it, actually. It's not so modern in the way that he translates it.

[06:26]

I don't know if it's a particularly good translation, but it seems to be pretty literal from what I've seen, so that's why I picked it. Anything else? What about the word right? Right? Yes. Which figures prominently. Right. What are the synonyms for right? Perfect or whole. I've seen that. In fact, I have a discussion in another book about some won't use right because it expresses as if they were wrong. But perfect or whole. It's less dualistic. Yes. Okay, so the first sermon, the setting for this sermon was in a park in a suburb of Benares, and Buddha had his five former monks that were former friends of his who practiced his ascetic practices with him.

[08:00]

These are the five monks who kind of got disgusted with him when he abandoned the ascetic path and went off by himself. So he somehow got them together again and kind of sat them down and wanted to tell him what he had found out. So this is his first sermon and he starts off by talking about the middle way, avoiding the extremes of What he's referring to here is the extremes of asceticism and overindulgence or sensual indulgence. But you can also just use that in thinking about balance in your entire life. It doesn't have to apply just to asceticism or overindulgence. So basically his point is, you know, balance. So his very first words are something to the extent of balance, stressing the importance of balance.

[09:11]

And then he describes that this middle way, the middle way in terms of practice, consists of the Eightfold Path. which he details, and we'll talk about the Eightfold Path. Grace will talk about it in a couple classes from now, so we won't go into it in detail. And then he gets to the real core, or meat, of the Sutra, and that's the Four Noble Truths. and it's very simple and I mean it only takes like half a page but it just has lots and lots of implications for us so

[10:16]

For us, I think that the important thing is to, we can talk about them. They're very easy to kind of comprehend intellectually, but the question is, can you see it actually working in your life? How can you see the Four Noble Truths working in your life daily? So his first, the first truth, his sort of starting point, is that life is suffering. And the translation here uses the word pain, which is not a very good translation. I think suffering is better. And even suffering is not, is a kind of a condensed version of what he's actually meaning. The Sanskrit word is dukkha. And we'll get to dukkha a little later tonight, but dukkha means something like difficult to endure. Technically, as you read last week, it means like contemptible emptiness.

[11:27]

So it has more the feeling of unsatisfactoriness, ill. And what he's saying here is that life is constantly intertwined with this unsatisfactoriness or suffering. And I think I have to explain to you how that works. But then at the end of this first paragraph he says, in short, the five khandas, and the way we say it is skandhas, the khandas is Pali and skandhas is Sanskrit. In short, the five skandhas of grasping are painful. So this is an interesting point, and the skandhas are something that we are more familiar with. Every day in the Harsukutra, we start out, you know, we say all five skandhas in their own being are empty.

[12:36]

So that's what he's talking about is the five skandhas here. And just briefly, just to tell you about the five skandhas, the five skandhas are, this word skandha means something like heap. And the point of the skandhas is that our personality and our being is made up of these five, our personality is made up of these five elements. And that we like to think that we're kind of a, we like to think of ourselves as an I or a particular unique being who has this kind of essence. But if you break it down you can see that what we are actually is a, an interaction of elements. And you could come up with different lists of elements according to what philosophy or religion you were in, but this is the way that Buddha chose to look at and see personality. So these five elements, or heaps, which interact with each other are form,

[13:44]

feeling, perception, formations and consciousness as you know from the Heart Sutra over and over again. And form is just what it says, it's form, it's things. Technically they mean like the five elements, earth, water, air, fire. What's the other one? Okay, maybe there's just four. Ether? No. Okay. So those are technically what they mean by form, but form is just things that are corporal, physical things in the world. And feelings, what they mean by feelings is not so much our emotion or our mood, but by feelings he means good, bad, or neutral. Whether you like something, whether you don't like something, or whether you feel indifferent about it. And perception is just recognizing something.

[14:50]

If you see the cookies, through your past experience, you know that this is a cookie. So that's a perception in a combination of your eye meeting an object. And the formations are all the stuff that goes on in our minds, all the incredible number of combinations characteristics that go on in our mind are mental formations. And oftentimes they use the word confections for formations, mental formations, because they're kind of, we create them, we think that they're, we have a feeling they're so real and we're so attached to them, but it's kind of like a cake or something that you whip up for dessert, it easily melts away. You're replaced by something else. And then consciousness, is kind of the, in a way, like the coordinator and the receptacle of all of the Ascandas.

[15:51]

And I think of it like a switchboard without an operator. It's just a switchboard. It has a potential to plug in, to keep things connected and integrated, but there's no... It just has that potential to integrate things, but things can be integrated or plugged in in all kinds of different combinations. And those are the different kinds of consciousness that are possible. There's no Wizard of Oz? No, there's no Wizard of Oz, but we think that there is. We wish that there were. We think we are it. How is consciousness different than mental formations? Well, mental consciousness is like the awareness the awareness of things happening. And mental formation can be more like a volition, like an impulse wanting to do something, or a mood. If you're angry, anger could be a mental formation.

[16:53]

And consciousness is broader. It can include mental formations, but it's broader. Hell yeah, he likes to use the metaphor of the light and the slide and, you know, the image, you know, the consciousness is light and, you know, it can allow or produce and make visible various images with the light. So there's this consciousness that enables thoughts, feelings. Maybe that's the switchboard that Ron was talking about, the light switch. Yeah, it's the same, yeah. It's on Ron's switchboard, the light switch. and formations and so on, which carry a certain baggage for us in the 20th century.

[18:01]

But is there some suggestion here that this is a tremendously powerful and new classification of human lives? That is, I don't sort of see the content, the risk taken in splitting things up into these five Categories, that's what they seem to be like. It's not exactly categories, but they're very different types of objects, right? Consciousness, formations, and then you said likes and dislikes. Well, these are the stuff of human experience, but I'm not sure what is being said that's of significance. I mean, I'm not, Well, the point of it, I mean, how do you... Am I meant to be surprised or astonished or angry when I hear that there's consciousness and formations and likes and dislikes?

[19:20]

Is this new to me? If you had kind of thought of yourself as being this kind of permanent critter who is just, you know, kind of... The Bearsford, yeah. And then somebody comes along and tells you, well, you know, you can, another way of looking at it is that, yes, you are Bearsford, but you're also a combination of these five elements, and beyond these five elements, there really isn't anything else. But that might make you look at it in a little different way, if you were attached to the other way of looking at it. But do you think people in those days were, were they brought up to feel that, Well, they had some really strange ideas about who they were, and I think that's the power of what this is. I mean, they had the caste system, and they had a lot of magic. Yeah, so the real power of this was then to get down to, this is what you are, we could talk about it, it's here and now, not this magic and you're made up of this combination of... Yes, so it was pretty shocking for its day.

[20:31]

I think so, yeah. The power of it was that in the here and now, you as an ordinary person can understand these things, experience them, and become enlightened, and you don't need to be of a certain caste, and there doesn't need to be any magic, and it isn't dependent on any gods. So, that was very powerful. But now, how is that in contrast to what was, I mean, the Hindu background? Yeah. It was very dependent on gods and belief. And he's saying it's not dependent on God. You don't have to believe anything. This is all things that you could understand that maybe we need to get on with. So, in short, and then he says the five skandhas of grasping are painful. So, it's our attachment to these elements that he's getting at. And not only do we have these elements, but it's the attachment to the elements that creates the problem. There are certain forms that we want to look at, there are certain forms we don't want to look at, there are certain formations in our mind that make us feel good, certain formations that make us feel bad, and it creates suffering, because we're always trying to get what we like and get rid of what we don't like.

[21:50]

It's really simple. that's kind of the hub that it all turns around is the kind of feelings, you know, good, bad, neutral, hub of attachment is kind of what you want to be close to and what you want to push away. And then that's actually what he's saying in the next one, that the cause Actually, Craig got it. The second noble truth is the cause of our attachment is that craving. Just leave it at that. Just craving. Craving for passion and for existence in general. Clinging to life. And even craving for non-existence. Craving to have no problems whatsoever.

[22:51]

Is that what that means? Craving for non-existence? It's not suicidal? I don't think it's suicidal. Self-enlightenment? Cessation? You want to say a little bit more? Well, just doing away with your existence, non-existence, self-annihilation, just, I guess, a form of, well, maybe suicidal sort of thing, or mental suicide, getting rid of everything. That's the way I always thought of that, too. But do people have cravings for that? Well, I think he was probably more referring to monks, you know, monks who spent their whole life in meditation would have an image of just kind of letting go completely of all the suffering of life and maybe some rarefied, I don't know how they thought about it, rarefied conscious state or I don't know what.

[23:58]

But surely the monks wouldn't have thought of themselves as being Yeah, they might. This was part of the Hindu tradition? Well, it wasn't just Hindu, but there was a whole system of ascetic practices, meditation practices, different philosophies and so forth. Basically, they were all reacting to the same kinds of things the Buddha was talking about, which is they were all suffering. That's why they took up these practices. So, one way out is just to Well, if I just stop existing, yeah, it's like suicide. But there may have been some subtle way. Yeah, there was. It was described as, some of his contemporaries had this belief and this craving that was directed toward the attainment of nothingness. And he believed that the middle way is not only as described earlier, you know, in between. the ascetic practice, but this in-between craving, this liberation and craving nothingness.

[25:05]

So that was part of what he brought to the picture, because there was a movement that said, as long as things are suffering, let's just get rid of ourselves in a symbolic way. Let's just erase our consciousness, let's use this practice for that. But maybe you ought to get on. Okay, so, and then we come to the third noble truth, which is basically, he says, that the cessation of pain, or the cessation of suffering, is possible. In Zen, we don't, especially in Mel, Suzuki Roshi doesn't like to take this tack, you know, they like to take the approach that you should be able to find enlightenment within suffering, and that you shouldn't need to sort of get rid of suffering, and that enlightenment includes suffering. But it is ceasing to preoccupy you, and the suffering is still going on, but if I understand what Mel and Svika are talking about, it's ceasing to draw you in and preoccupy you with your life.

[26:25]

it becomes, it's included in your life, and it takes on a, well, it's more inclusive. It's more inclusive, but it still has a quality of suffering. It would have to, to be called suffering. It gets into tricky territory, because it's sort of shifting between a dualistic way of looking at it and a non-dualistic way of looking at it. But let's just stick with Buddha for right now. And his point in the third Noble Truth is that it can be done, that letting go of craving can be done, and the result of suffering can be let go of. And then the fourth Noble Truth is how to do it, which is the Eightfold Path, which we'll talk about a couple of classes from now.

[27:27]

And incidentally, the Eightfold Path, you can divide it up into three sections if you want to, between morality or precepts, meditation and concentration and wisdom, those three categories. And that's what we've done with this class. Starting next week, we'll be talking in terms of those three categories. Kind of relating them back to the Eightfold Path. Can you say that again? I don't quite understand. You mean that the Eightfold Path can be divided into three categories? Yes. And the first category is morality, and that includes... Grace? Yes, I have it right here. So I'm sure.

[28:38]

Morality is perfect speech, perfect action, and perfect livelihood. Right speech, right action, and right livelihood. And meditation is perfect effort, perfect mindfulness, and perfect meditation. And wisdom is perfect view and perfect thought, or right view and right thought. So those are the Four Noble Truths, and that's the first sermon. At the end of the sermon, these various spirits come down and everybody's celebrating and making noise. Sometimes I like to cut this part of the sermon, this part of the sutra out, because it looks a little too weird. But he left it in, which is good. So that's the condensed version of the Four Noble Truths.

[29:45]

So maybe we could discuss it a little further. Like what's so special about the Four Noble Truths? About the skandhas, whether it's a significant addition to prevailing view or something, I think that the five skandhas What's insightful or added by this sermon is that the skandhas are empty and that's the cause of suffering. In other words, all this personality content forms material things, sensation, whatever kinds of, it's not the breakdown into the five that's really important, you could call it ideas, you could call it sensations, you could call it concepts, but I think that what's important here is that these are empty and a source of suffering, and that to grasp this content of our being, like

[31:14]

you know, to grasp, hold on to our ideas, to hold on to our sensations, to hold on to our concept of self is suffering. That's what I think is the real innovation or the real insight here. Yeah, I think that that is, and I think that we all know those things, but I think the other power of that was, it wasn't because when you sacrifice the lamb, you forgot to burn the last hook. And that's not why you're in pain. The belief system being that bad things will happen because of magical beliefs and there were a lot of magical beliefs and if we make sacrifices and if we burn things just right and if we do it just when the sun is in a certain formation with the cloud and moon our lives are going to be happy. what they're doing.

[32:18]

Getting money. Well, I think that the parallel is we have all these theories and, you know, of how to solve problems that have to do with analogous rituals, you know, of all kinds of method in order to be happy. Like in the contents of psychology, I don't want to put down psychology as a practice or a therapy. Go for it. I think that's a good example. Yeah, I think that We have a lot of grasping onto formations like Freudian formations or Jungian formations or all this stuff that is in psychological literature. And our own personal stuff, like if I could only, you know, like this is what I really want. And that's the stuff we work with in the 20th century rather than did I burn that chicken right or something. It's the same stuff and it applies in the 20th century. We still have the same kinds of, you know, it isn't if I burn the chicken or the goat or, you know, said the chant at the right time of day.

[33:24]

It's, you know, if my mother had been a good person, you know, had done what she did to me, you know, if I had gone to medical school when I was supposed to, you know, if only I hadn't done those things, or if only these things hadn't happened to me, I could be happy. But we're not going to get rid of these things, these skandhas, are we not going to? No, they're going to continue to make you miserable. Right, I mean, I know that. I think it's more about seeing them as they are or as being empty than trying to get rid of them somehow. It's more the attachment. Yeah, it's surely making them very important. That change of attitude towards what's going on is very, very profound.

[34:26]

Right. It might be a little like John. Work around it. Work around them. They're there, they're not going to go away. Learn to live with them and see them clearly and work your life around them. You know what she's referring to here? What's his name? Bill Moyers? Is that where you... Yes, but he's been around for years and years working at the Boston Medical Institute, whatever it is. Meditation. Very ill people in severe pain. So that's what he tells them. Yeah. I was just thinking of the connection with the Enneagram. the attachment to the particular fixation that you have.

[35:29]

And how, just thinking for a moment again, releasing yourself from the fixation is similar to releasing yourself from the attachment to the scandal. And doesn't Helen Palmer in the Enneagrams make the correlation to the current diagnostic categories as well? So it puts it in our psychological jargon, you know, how attachments relate to the kind of neurosis you're going to get. You know, certain attachments turn out to be obsessive and others addictive. Some of them, and like they're connected to the hindrances, you know. A kind of attachment to worry is an anxiety disorder. with the fixations that you have a certain kind of thing that's driving you crazy.

[36:31]

And to separate from that is an amazing, you know, any moment that you get that. I think of Kaikuro Matsu saying, you know, just with his hand one day, he gives it, let's put it up, put it down, because it's very, very intriguing. Well, I mean, just to make more concrete what you were saying. Well, I don't know your name. Kathy. Kathy was saying, which I think is very good. It seems to me that children and everyone is encouraged on the particular scanner of liking and disliking all the time. And I remember I used to get furious. My son would always say, Daddy, what is your favorite color? And my opinion was, well, that's a stupid question. All the time. Did you like that movie? Oh, I like this sort of music. Oh, I don't like that.

[37:33]

So you grow up and you say, oh, what's important about people? Oh, what they like, what they don't like. And me, who am I? Oh, well, I like this sort of thing and I don't like that sort of thing. So really, what really matters in life is what you like and what you don't like. This is terribly important. And then sort of this is striking at the same time. You know, you'll have reactions to things, but don't invest significance in them. And yet all the way we talk to each other, and the way people go on dates and ask, you know, did you like that movie, and blah blah blah, it's all reinforcing this thing, liking and disliking is very significant. And that's only the partway step, because it's about having what you like, and not having what you dislike. Which is the next thing that you do with it, is if I like this color, then I want to paint my room that, and I never want to see the color that I dislike. Right. But, I mean, that's right, but the attitude makes a huge difference.

[38:35]

That's right. I mean, it's the beginning, because... Right. If you don't have that, if you still think it's terribly important, it's going to be much harder to... Right. It lays the foundation, yeah. I think you answered your question about what's the big deal about this? Was this supposed to have some kind of impact on people? Yes, no. In the outsource, it's a huge contrast to what was around. But now, even right now, what you were just expressing, that's a huge contrast to what's going on now with our kind of inquisitive culture. Satisfying oneself, I mean. we're considered successful if we have all the things that we want, that we like, and if we can keep away all the things that we don't like. That's a good life. Well, it's not so. I mean, Oscar Wilde said this wonderful, wonderful saying, which I love. He said, when the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers. Right, because then we can't hang on to them.

[39:39]

People weren't so dumb. What about culture in relation to this? I mean, I like that kind of music or I don't or whatever. I mean, how does that get translated into the cultural side? Because so much of it is culturally determined and culture-bound rather than just an... I mean, I would almost be refreshed if I really felt like people were even craving a particular thing that was really emanating from themselves and not from this... this thing that's put on you very, very, I mean, from the moment you're born, in this life. So, I mean, when I think about the skandhas, I do think about it as an individual, you know, constellation of things, but earlier when you were talking, I was thinking about how do you see it as a cultural thing, and so how do you... I think that has to do with something Mel talked about, when he gave his lecture, he mentioned

[40:42]

how insecurity drives so many problems. And I think the culture in certain functions of it is to ease that insecurity by creating some kind of way that we can know we're alright if we participate, we don't feel alone, and it lessens that sense of insecurity. So there's an investment if the culture is to keep things relatively stable in lessening the insecurity. Because If the culture doesn't believe that there's an answer to the problem, then let's sort of ease the anxiety. And the pop culture, and the way we share it, I think lessens our sense of insecurity. It's like, everybody likes this, I can participate in it, I'm okay. Yeah, I guess the question may be just a dead end, and I don't mean to bang it to death, but just, are these preferences really individually derived, or are they in fact coming from the culture?

[42:03]

Well, what do you think? Well, I actually think that it's probably coming from the culture, and it's a little alarming. to even attribute them to individual nature. Although I was raised, certainly, to think that they were individually derived. But when you take the cultural part, it's individuals. And there's a wonderful book called The Production of Desire by Richard Lichtman. It talks about how the culture, you know, goes with this tendency we have and enhances our desire for things and then says, here they are. I mean, at the bottom of this we're talking about the craving for existence and the craving for non-existence. And aren't all, isn't everything else sort of just a manifestation of some very basic stuff that goes beyond any cultural thing? That culture is just something that's going to happen along the way and it's going to vary.

[43:07]

Well, if that's useful to you. According to causes and conditions. Yeah, if that's useful to you. I mean, Lois was looking at it as it plays out in our lives. You know, how desire plays out in our lives. But there isn't anywhere on the earth where people don't live in groups, and this isn't a factor. Right. I don't think there's anywhere on earth where people don't crave pleasure. Exactly. Right. Exactly, but they come together. I mean, that's sort of the next piece, which is dependent origination. Is that true? I mean, people are tremendously spoiled in the Western world. A lot of people here probably eat twice a day. But in most of the world, for most of history, life was nasty, brutish, and short. And pleasure wasn't in plentiful supply. I mean, I grew up in World War II. There wasn't an awful lot of pleasure in being in the army and fighting.

[44:12]

I mean, people wanted to escape pain, but I'm not sure pleasure was something that was even thought about very much. Well, I'd be surprised if that were true, if people didn't think about pleasure and having some pleasure. Well, I don't think it was very... I mean, if people live in peace and they get spoilt and then their energies go on sort of things that can be shot away very quickly in a crisis. Well, we talked about the different things that you crave. One thing is the cessation of painful sensations and the other is the craving for pleasure. So, I don't see any... I'm not sure what you're asking. I think people who've been very fortunate in life find that their attention is full of cravings for pleasure, but I think actually in most of the world, for most of the time, there's not been much of that.

[45:15]

It's just trying to get by to the next day. Trying to get by. I think they find, I think they're very creative in finding ways, you know, whether it's shells little things that they trade. I mean, it's all relative, but I think you're saying what Oscar Wilde said, you know, that when you say, well, people are very fortunate, they get all these things and then God helped them, you know. It's just another way that things manifest. But I don't see any essential difference in hard times or in good times to the validity of the teaching. No, no, I'm not trying to question the validity The word craving is quite a strong... I mean, I've known cravings, but my life isn't totally filled up with cravings, but some things are weaker than that. You would like something, but you're not actually craving it. Well, it seems to me, I mean, I don't want to beat this to death, I think we should get on with it, but I think you read a lot of accounts of people, especially during the wars,

[46:20]

and these intense cravings they have for certain food that they haven't had for a long time. I'm not saying that's the source of suffering for them, but I think cravings are in good times and bad times. Yes, I wasn't talking about the cravings, I was talking about pleasure. Really. The greatness of the Buddha's teaching, and Bob was touching on it, is that it transcends culture. Hmm.

[47:33]

You ready? Yeah. Well, there's still suffering and pleasure. They're intertwined. So, we'll move on to make a kind of a jump to the three marks of existence. Because I think it's important to cover these because these really so well define the heart of Buddhism, in my experience. And where we just kind of, we talked about like the human temperament and the human personality, This is a little bit different kind of emphasis. It's more about just how things are. And sometimes people say, well, what does Buddhism teach?

[48:36]

Is there any dogma? Are you supposed to believe something in Buddhism? What are you supposed to believe in? This is the kind of thing that somebody could say, well, you know, Buddhists say that this is the way things are. Because maybe you're supposed to believe in these three things, impermanence, suffering, no soul. So, I guess you could look at it like that, but really this is, you know, Buddha is offering these three marks three aspects of reality as something that this is just the way things are. This is what he's saying. This is how things are. And so I think it's up to each person who's practicing or interested in Buddhism to check it out and see if things are like this or not. The difference between this and following a philosophy or following a religion in terms of just believing something that's told you is that you should actually be able to verify these three things.

[49:42]

And if you can't verify them, then you should say something. It would be helpful. So the way I look at it is that these are Maybe Buddha is saying, here are three very important, crucial aspects of reality, of life, that you should be aware of. Check it out for yourself. So the three are impermanence, or the fact that everything changes. In the Sanskrit word is anika, or anika. And the second is suffering, which we just talked about. And the third is no soul, anatta or anatta. And I'll just read this little short quote from one of the Abhidharma texts. Where there are perfect ones appear in the world,

[50:44]

Buddhas, or whether perfect ones do not appear in the world. So whether or not there's Buddhism at any particular time, or whether there's not Buddhism at any particular time, it still remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed law, that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that everything is without a self. And so they're using the word formations here The same idea of the skanda is that things are a composite, that everything is a composite of elements, that there's no overriding, abiding kind of force, which is directing traffic. So what do you mean by suffering in this particular, not only the suffering that we've just talked How do formations suffer?

[51:46]

Well, the attachments... One of the formations is our mental stuff. The stuff in our mind which is attached to pleasure. It doesn't like pain. I guess I was thinking about other formations materials or form don't necessarily suffer, they might just come apart like a building over time or a rock or a stream. I think, yeah, that's true. But I think that he means more of the human... Anyone who can hear a sermon. Any being that's sentient enough to hear this is who he's addressing. with a quality of voice that's giving a sermon. So maybe a dog could... Perhaps.

[52:49]

We'd have to debate that. Let's move. But we won't. Somebody had something. I was going to say, I think that one of the possible way of looking at this, the way I've been looking at it is that formations, being subject to suffering, doesn't mean that, for example, that some object like a river or something is subject to suffering but that if we as sentient beings are attached to various formations like Berkeley Zen Center or a river or a mountain or anything or any formation any kind of way in which we construct we construct our world which in which we grasp onto it that is subject to suffering. And, you know, any attachment that we have is subject to suffering. And I think that this is, you know, a problem.

[53:50]

We all have things that we base, found our meaning on, or our lives, you know, that give our lives, things that we live for. And I think that what this is pointing to is that it's all impermanent, And it's a source of suffering. Our basing everything and grabbing onto these things as what we live for, that's subject to suffering, including the self, which is no-self. Nothing has a self. It's empty. But also I think the helpfulness or what he's getting at here, or what whoever wrote this is getting at, is that life can be seen as formations. You know, it's an analytical way of looking at things, that life can be seen as formations of composite, whatever, rocks included, but that things are composites.

[54:58]

And it's a way of looking at the world You can't go around thinking that all the time, but maybe simultaneously you can. You can see the composite nature of things, and then also it's just a teacup, but then you can also see the composite characteristics of it, the glaze, the little thing on the bottom, the clay that went into it, the whole people that made it. But if something was not a composite, if something was down there, would it not also be subject to suffering in the same sense? I don't think so. Say it again, Kevin. Well, something, rather than being composite, were elemental and... Atomic. Yeah. But we already said everything's empty, so that rules that out. Right. Well, what I'm saying is it doesn't matter if something's... What if we're wrong? Could be wrong. Could be wrong. Get it. Let's cancel the class. What I'm saying, I think Ron is trying to get at it, is the composite nature, the put-together,

[56:02]

I'm going to read the complete list of suffering here. These are all the ways you can suffer. Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering, union with the hateful is suffering, separation from the beloved is suffering, failing to obtain the desired is suffering, And all elements of our physical and psychological environments are suffering. Have we left anything out? That was his sermon. Doesn't matter if they're atomic. Right. All elements are suffering too. So the purest of the pure is at sea. You know I'm getting kind of bummed out talking But I just wanted to you know through our existence as human beings and through these five skandhas is our way to get off the wheel or have liberation.

[57:18]

I mean, I read all these things, and then there was sweet bliss and joy and all this stuff. Can we talk about some of that? So I always just wanted to, you know, there is all this suffering, but it's also the path to liberation. That's why he bothered to... to go out and teach. Which is also suffering, because you know that's going to end. I'm sorry. Well, we want it to end. I'm sorry, I just wanted to have to say it. Sorry, but what you said at the beginning is very interesting. If there's any doctrine, perhaps this is it. And if the author of this passage that she read had meant to say all beings are subject to suffering, Wasn't he or she capable of saying that? But they didn't say beings are subject to suffering, they said formations are subject to suffering.

[58:19]

Formations are impermanent. Well, we might agree on that, but formations would include an awful lot more than funny human beings or animals. So there's a different scope in the word formations. All formations are impermanent. all formations are subject to suffering. But then we don't think that really applies to buildings. So apparently, he was talking about the beings. So why didn't they say so? I mean, if you're putting something that's terribly important out, and you're not around to answer the questions, you better think pretty carefully about your work. Well, I think that it would help if we saw the context So if you were reading along in the Atasalini and you were getting a feeling for the gist of the whole way of writing and what they were talking about, the word formations would have reinforcement in other parts of the writing.

[59:34]

So that's the danger of pulling something out like a Reader's Digest version of Buddhism. It's kind of something you can grasp, but you also lose some of the subtleties of the context. So let's go to impermanence. This is good old Suzuki Roshi, who just has a way of speaking which is just very nice. And it's kind of somewhere between poetry and prose. And also there's been a good deal of editing. If you listen to a tape of Suzuki Roshi, or if you were fortunate enough to actually have heard him, in person, it doesn't flow this smoothly. He's Japanese and he had some difficulty with English and he had a lot of hesitation and kind of pauses. So this is a kind of a very nice editing job of what he actually said, but probably pretty true to the spirit of what he was saying.

[60:37]

And I almost, you know, I sort of hesitate to try to say what's being said here, because it's just said so perfectly, so cleanly, and so well, and it just seems so easy to, at least on an intellectual level, to understand it. Basically, that everything is changing and that we don't want it to. But it is, and that if we can accept that change and actually be a part of that change and not resist, not try to hold it off or fight it off, we'd be a lot better off. You mean you crave being better off? I didn't say I craved it, I said you can do it or you cannot do it, whatever you want. You know, suffering is intrinsic too, but we can add to it. We can make more suffering, or we can accept what's our fair share.

[61:45]

Personally, I don't like suffering. You take just what you have to have. But it's interesting, and what this does for me, when I read this, is I start, because again, intellectually it's very easy to kind of, I mean, if you've been around Buddhism for any length of time, it's not so difficult to accept this, at least for me. But when you start really looking at your own life deeply or closely, in those little dark corners, those little areas that you really don't want to get older, you don't want to get feeble, you don't want to lose the person that you love, you don't want to lose those people that you love, you just go on and on and on. You don't want things to change on the most personal, deep level, how poignant that is for us. And that's the level that he's talking on. I mean, that's the level I think that we have to understand it on.

[62:47]

Because that's where we're really, well, that's where it's really meaningful. So do you have any thoughts about it? Question. He says in here we should find the truth in It's directed at grace. So what's the question? So my question is, how do you find truth through suffering?

[63:50]

Did you find it in this next story? I certainly enjoyed it. I think that, that's what he's saying, I think that we can't not suffer, but we can know our suffering with pleasure. know it for what it is, which is okay. Not the same kind of pain. Well, that's the trick to enjoying a snowstorm, I think. Knowing what it is. Exactly. You're not going to make it go away, and that's what the truth is. You're not going to make that snowstorm go away, and you're not going to make a snowstorm not be cold, or not be physically painful if you're not clothed properly. You know, that's what it is. And enjoying it as it is, and seeing it as it is, is a way to live your suffering. on the news, you know, those kids that got stranded in the East Coast in the snow, in the snowstorm this last week, and then they were rescued, and then this kid came back to the Bay Area, and all the news media was descending on the airport, you know, pulling microphones in his face, saying, well, how was the snowstorm?

[65:08]

How was it? And he said, well, it was okay. We had a good time. Well, what'd you do at night? Well, we slept. So he was coming from a teenage perspective and wanted to be contrary to what everybody was expecting. But it was true. He just didn't see what the big fuss was, because he kind of liked it. I think what you were saying about how we need to experience this in the very deepest levels in the way it's intended, which is that no matter how much you love someone, either you're going to die or the other person's going to die. And that pleasure and pain that come together is very poignant in what makes our life so beautiful. You know, what makes flowers so beautiful is that there's this incredible bloom and then it fades. You know, it's just... And if it just stayed there, we would take it for granted.

[66:14]

But the experience we have of something that that occurs and has great feeling and then fades away. It's very powerful and very poignant, which is very beautiful. So it's the other side of the suffering, because suffering is the key. I wanted to say something about that, which is after this I don't know how long it was, but it was one of our longest machines. And I remember not even thinking about it, but just walking by and seeing this thing and going, wow, that's just so beautiful. And then remembering that I had for the entire, you know, thinking about cutting that damn thing off, getting rid of it. But in any case, what I wanted to say, which is sort of like that, is that this appreciation of our or ability to accept our suffering and with pleasure somehow.

[67:23]

It's a long process. It takes a long, long time. And it's... I can't quite... I mean, from experience I know that it takes a long, long time. And I can't quite tell if it's something that you train yourself to do, or if it's something that after, you know, a long Sushain, it's helpful, or if training at Tashkhara is helpful, or just year after year after year of Zazen practice. I mean, that's all helpful, but what it is that actually helps us come to that point, because I don't think it's something you can say, oh, I'm suffering now, or I'm in this snowstorm, and it's really great, you know. There's some sort of transformation. Right, it better be a habit, because at the time that you're really, I mean, at the moment of death, you may not be prepared. So you're going to fall back on what your habit is. Which is, in a sense, what our training is in Zazen. You know, especially in a Sesshin, when we're having so much pain and we have to keep turning into it.

[68:28]

We can't run away from it anymore. And it becomes a habit. And so, does that happen? Do you turn into your pain? Yeah, I mean, no, not all the time. But some? But a lot of the time I do. I mean, more so these days. But I just remember when I first came to practice how frustrating this was. Because first I tried the Brynn and Barrett approach. And then that just, it didn't work. And then after a while I got, it changed for me. But I just think it takes a really long time. I guess I'm just saying it because I remember that when I first came here, it was really a frustrating thing. Like, well, how can you do this? I mean, just do it. You can't just do it. Well, you know, it's such a contrast to what we've been trained to do before, which is, if you have pain, get rid of it. You know, run away from it, distract yourself from it, take a pill to get rid of it, you know, do something else to get rid of it.

[69:34]

And so I think that's a really strong difference as to how we learn to know and live our suffering. And I think that's why we have so many periods of Zazen. Because you can't grin and bear it. And you can't pretend it's not happening. And there's some point when you're going to, you know, you're going to have to give up. And just turn around and there it is. So it works. So is that the rationale for asceticism? Not that I know of. Name the opening to the suffering. I don't think that that was... we don't practice asceticism. I know you don't. I know you don't. Supposedly. Supposedly we don't. But I don't think so. I don't think that was it. I think the cessation of being was... completely erasing appetites by starving the body was what the aim of asceticism was. Maybe it had a very good aim at first, and people missed the boat?

[70:39]

That's true. That's true, because I think, you know, that the Buddha, his ideas, he may not have been the first one that encountered these truths, but he was the first one who put it together in a way that it continued to be communicated. So it could be that someone who was an early ascetic had the idea, someone else took it too far. It's possible. But it does seem to me it weakens this passage I mean, aren't they different? It's one form of suffering is discomfort. I would have said they're different. Okay. I mean, otherwise, almost everything is suffering, in the weak of the word. Well, we said, we already said that. Yeah, but... We already read the list. Then there's not much, if something's everything, then there's not much content to it. I mean, it seems to me everything is suffering in the sense that it's transient, that it'll pass. And if you hang on to it, you won't have to stay.

[71:42]

No, but if there are these three things, impermanence, suffering, presumably it means to make a distinction. But they're also connected. They're connected, but that doesn't mean they're the same. Nope, nobody said they were the same. Let's move on to the second one. So I don't think we have to say, I'd like to get more to the self aspect. So I don't think we'll say so much about the suffering. But just that, you know, the point of, well, one of the points of this, and looking at it like this, as well as in the First Noble Truth, is actually seeing the quality of suffering in your life and seeing how it works. It's one thing just to suffer and just be miserable. It's another thing to maybe suffer and be miserable, but also have some understanding about how it's working.

[72:43]

It gives you a different perspective and it gives you something to work with. You're not so much a victim. I think that's an important aspect. So, one of the values of seeing this as an aspect of reality is that you can see reality in this kind... you can see this working in your life. And not just take it for granted. Maybe as a certain quality, you could see it from an analytical point of view. Okay, so let's move on to no self or no soul. Sometimes people have a hard time with this. They don't like it. Probably Christian.

[73:46]

No, no. I think the important thing about this passage, the first thing, is that when we're talking about the word self or soul or ego in this particular context, we're using the definition of soul as something which is permanent. That's what people thought of when they used the word soul originally, as something which is permanent. And a lot of times we don't really, when we use the word soul, we don't necessarily think about having that connotation, although we might assume it, maybe. But when we say the doctrine of no soul, it's the soul as a kind of an entity, essence of our being which is permanent. Some quality of me or some quality of you which is unchanging. Some essence which is unchanging. And that's traditionally what they meant, what religions meant in Buddha's time when they used the word soul or self.

[74:52]

And now, especially in Western therapy and so forth, self and ego can have different meaning. I don't know if we have time, maybe we can a little bit go into some of that tonight. But just as a starting point, just know that when we talk about no soul, it's from the point of view of something that's permanent or fixed. is pretty much what we've been talking about already, that we're a composite. We're a composite of elements. If there's a switchboard, that there's no operator, or that the operator is constantly changing. These three marks all influence each other. It's like I have this kind of cute analogy, maybe it's too cute, but it's like we have a temp worker at the switchboard.

[76:02]

We don't have a permanent full-time employee there. It's just sort of like we have a temp, and that person will be there for a while, and then they'll leave, and then somebody else will come. As a matter of fact, every microsecond somebody else will come. We just don't see it. And so we try to create a sense of continuity with ourself, an idea of ourself. And so to me this idea of continuity is really interesting in terms of self. In one sense, we need a sense of continuity in our life to connect events, connect memories, past experiences with what's happening now. We have to have a sense of continuity to operate in this world and to do things. But on the other hand, you could also look at it, you could see that it's possible that

[77:07]

If you look at continuity closely, it's just a series of moments happening one after the other. And we integrate it, we bring it all together as part of our process. But you can also see it as non-continuity. If you can see those both together, it gives you a different perspective. Would you say that again? that you can see the world, and this is where self is similar, you can see the world as a, and you operate from a sense of continuity, what you did before you came here tonight, what you're going to do when you go home, what you're going to do tomorrow. There's a continuity between yesterday, right now, and tomorrow. And we have this in our mind. As long as we look at it like that, if you stop looking at it like that, your perception shifts.

[78:16]

It's a way of perceiving. And so our sense of self is like that as well. You know, we have a sense that I have a sense of continuity about my personality. There's certain things that I liked last week that I like right now that I'll like next week most likely. So I have a sense that there's this continuous person that's kind of the same. But That's a kind of gross way of looking at it, and it's a necessary way of looking at it, but it's a gross way of looking at it. If I look at it in more detail and more closely, that person last week is not exactly like this person tonight. And like Andrea was saying about, that was a perfect example about the bush, is her feeling about it was different from one moment to another moment. So what was, you know, was her self different? Was it a different self? It was a different self. But I'm sort of getting away from... The main point, I think, that's important about this in terms of the Three Marks, is that there's no abiding, one kind of coordinating, pure essence, which is what we can say is me.

[79:39]

And that's what people want, and what people have always wanted. What is the difference between this self or soul and what we hear about here and experience in Zazen as the one who watches or the still one? You're asking what the difference is between the concept of soul and the observer? Is that what you're asking? Yeah, I guess so. Who's watching? Yeah, because in some ways, soul or self seems similar to that center of the turning wheel, the one who is able to see all of these various mind states. Is that observer yourself? It becomes semantic, I guess. Not necessarily. I mean, it's what the koan is about the observing.

[80:42]

Who's watching and what's being launched, and is there any difference? What, you're shaking your head? I said there's no difference. Yeah, that's your experience. So, I think we're not saying anything different in the observing. One of the outcomes of observing is the realization that there isn't exactly a self. Either that's observing or being observed, because which is it? Can you be in both places at once? In other words, the observer becomes the observed. It's a matter of duality and non-duality. That's what we're getting down to. Well, that's one aspect, I think, of no-self. That's one aspect. What she says, what's the difference between this concept of there being no self and this notion that what are we observing or who's observing during zazen? Then what is it?

[81:44]

And that's what we're doing. I mean, that's why it takes so many periods. We haven't figured it out yet. But the important thing to remember, again, because you can use more modern, sophisticated terminologies for what we mean by the self, but what they're meaning in traditional Buddhism about the self is that something that's watching is permanent, unchanging. And then that's the thing that they're saying is not so, that there is no unchanging, permanent something there that's doing the watching. Yeah, either doing the watching or being watched. So it's like the common description of Oakland, there's no there there? Yeah, exactly. So Oakland's a practice opportunity. The Greek notion, the paradox of motion is very similar too. I mean, the arrow is really not moving, it's just a series of points.

[82:49]

And so it's the same view. And the thing that got me in thinking about the detail of one moment next week and what you were saying of this apparent discontinuity is that as I move through time, I feel slower and slower, not by energy so much, although that's probably true too, but by this feeling of these moments or these infinite points that feel that they require a great deal of attention. I don't know if it's attachment to them, but they take time, like looking at the bush sticking out or something, or whatever it is, this post. It feels like if I, there's so much in this room that, you know, it feels like I would never get out of it. Because it would be so, it's just so much. I know, I know. It's not even reading them, it's like when I dust them sometimes.

[83:52]

But it's an amazing thing because it seems like you need so many things, but the more you go into this feeling of no soul or discontinuity, it's really the less you need because each moment expands so infinitesimally that it's practically incomprehensible. Which is great suffering. But weren't you saying, Adele, I think it was you, You were wondering whether your likes and dislikes were dictated by the culture or whether it was from the real you. And isn't what you're saying is there ain't no real you. Yeah, yeah, well that was why I was... And that's of course in tremendous contrast to the teaching that most people in the world receive now and have always received. So I mean that is very shocking. He started off by saying that he had difficulty with this.

[85:02]

I have a lot of difficulty with this. Not that I dislike it so much because there's no soul, but what keeps coming up is this, well if there's no soul, there's no God, and there's no me, well then what is there? Where did you get the idea that there's no soul, there's no God, there's no... It says in here. According to Buddhism, our idea of God... Is this under no soul? Yes. The very last page that we have, right at the very top. Buddhist teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear, desire. where, according to Buddhism, our idea of God and soul are false and empty. Four lines down is where it starts. And then it goes on just to say how they're highly developed. Oh, you're on the second page. Second page, yeah, about four lines down. Well, they're false and empty, but that doesn't mean that there isn't, you know, I mean, this whole idea of soul, according to Buddhism, the soul is empty.

[86:16]

So there is a soul, but it's empty? Maybe. Oh, but that's weasley. Yeah. Can't we just take what it says? There's no soul. Yeah. Then it's not empty. Okay, if something doesn't exist, it can't be empty. No, it is saying that the soul... It says it's empty. Well, let's try to get it straight. Our ideas are empty. Our ideas are empty. It's ideas. I mean, that's the whole thing we were talking about. Elements before, too. It feels like a... the elemental level or the ideals that are coming out of Plato's cave or all of that. That's an idea, so that's what's empty. I don't see how an idea can be empty. It can be misleading. It could be false. But how can it be empty? Okay. Okay. False and empty. Okay. I think that how it can be empty is, okay, We have an idea, and if we, like in Zazen, I mean, our ideas are constantly coming up when we're sitting Zazen, but we can't hold them in front of our awareness, and if we do, that's when they become empty.

[87:34]

It's like, I think it's not that they don't occur, But I think that they lose their... Yeah, let's not take it out of context. Let's back up to the last paragraph where he talks about the way the ideas about God and soul are misused. They're used as a way to cling to for self-protection and so on and so on. So there is God and there is soul, but our ideas about them are empty. Can you tell me what is important about there being a God? For example, let's just take one. If there were a God, how would it change your life? I don't know. The reason I'm asking this is my mother always asks me questions about this stuff. I'm trying to get some answers. For me it takes a long time and it filters through after a long time. I personally don't think we have a good answer for this one because when we talk about the way life exists dependent on itself, I'm not sure that we're throwing, I don't think we're throwing God out at all.

[88:45]

But other people might. And I think it allows for either view, but both views are empty. I like to think about it like this discontinuity idea that you were talking about and the whole idea of the paradox, the paradoxical quality that it, like an idea is empty because it's really a little group of molecules or cells or atoms that make up words or concepts and then you put them in your mind and you hold them here and then you turn them into pages or whatever you do with them. And that it's, they don't exist. But if you have a teaching, you know, if you're going to make a teaching which says that there is no soul, that there is impermanence, and there is suffering, then why couldn't you also make a teaching which says that there is God? Somebody did. Yeah. So, I mean, from that point of view, if you're having, you know, if you're trying to describe reality, if you believe that there is God, then you can include that in the description. Yes, Kathy. We're getting close to the end. Yes. I just have one thing I'd like to say here.

[89:47]

This whole idea of... First of all, I think that Buddhism is saying that the idea of self is false and empty. And I think that the basis of this assertion, which they're making a big thing about here, is that in Buddhism we try to see things as they are. And when we sit, we put our attention on what is. And what happens is that these things, we normally have this idea of self comes up, idea of God comes up, idea of all kinds of things come up. And I think that they, what happens is they become, their emptiness is revealed if they can be held in front of our attention. In other words, what Damaris was saying about the center of the, well, what about, is self like the observer that is aware of all these things happening during zazen?

[90:52]

And I think that what happens during zazen is that the constant shifting and changing of what is there shows that there is no self and no object, and that even though all these things are happening, they aren't as they appear, or they have no self. There isn't any eternal thing. It's like... It's composed of all, it's shifting. Shifting, constantly shifting, constantly changing. We want to hold them. We want there to be an I and an It and a Self and God, but that is not their nature. That is not the nature of things. So, that's my spiel.

[91:51]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ