Transcription
Rob Burbea
June 15, 2007
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NSozHWESs2H7F04B4_f9rJxjN9S5HcF5/view?usp=sharing]{.ul}
[Transcriber's note: the recording starts with announcements from the organizers of the retreat, omitted in this transcript. Rob's talk begins at 00:35.]
Thank you to David for inviting me. I'm not sure how much advertising there was, and if there were posters and things, but I think the original title was "The Nature of Awareness." And I decided, on reflection, that probably wasn't the best thing to talk about. So I hope no one's disappointed. If there are particular [questions] -- if you want to bring that up, there will be questions, and the questions don't have to relate to this talk, so feel free. And you know, I'll hang out, and we can talk about that. But it just didn't seem quite right for a group of people I don't know.
So what I decided instead to talk about was the whole area of views -- views and their relationship to freedom, or views in our spiritual practice. And I want to just go a little bit into this and investigate views, and particularly views as factors that have effects, that affect us. So investigating views and their effects. And it's interesting. At first, "Well, that's maybe a little abstract." But I think as we practise more, we realize what a crucial area this is, absolutely crucial. And it's not a mistake that the Buddha, when he outlined the eightfold path, put views at the beginning. Right View -- what is that? And this question of view. And also, he speaks of it as the fruition of the path. So something very central. We don't often give it a lot of attention, but it's actually very crucial.
So what do we believe? How are we looking at our life? How am I looking at my life? That's one level: how am I looking at my life? Another level: how am I looking at this moment, at this experience? So, two levels there -- really fundamental questions. How am I looking at my life? How am I looking at life itself? How do I see it? What are my assumptions? What are my beliefs? How am I looking at, seeing this moment, this experience? And as well, tonight, how am I looking at my practice, my meditation practice, my spiritual practice, my Dharma practice? As I said, this has everything to do with freedom. It's not sort of something on the side, as a sort of intellectual curiosity. It has everything to do with freedom.
When we step back a little bit and we kind of look at this area, just in the realm of sort of religious and spiritual traditions and teachings, we take a look, and we see that the mass of opinions and philosophical positions and propositions, and this and that. So, on ethical questions, all kinds -- you know, vegetarianism, death penalty, all that. Reincarnation, heaven, hell -- what happens after death? The nature of the self -- what is the self? What's the nature of consciousness? If you're really into practice, what or how important are deep states of concentration in practice? All these and many more -- "What's the nature of ultimate reality?", etc. All those are things that people have argued about and sometimes gone to war about for millennia, centuries. So much hate and turmoil through the history of humanity around that. And sometimes, we can step back, and we hear the wisdom of the teachings. It says, "Don't get attached to views." A lot, you know, tremendous amount of wisdom in that.
But clearly, one has to also take that with a bit of salt. So I don't know if it made the news here, but when I was living in America -- I think it was when Halley's Comet came around, so I don't know; what year was that? Was it 2000 or something? Anyway, when Halley's Comet came around, I don't know if it made the news here, but there was a religious cult in America, and they all collectively committed suicide when Halley's Comet was the closest to the earth, because they believed that God was just behind the comet. And somehow they were going to rendezvous with his spaceship or whatever. And they wore Nikes, trainers. Did you hear about that?
Anyway. I don't think that's a very good idea. [laughter] So we can say, "Don't get attached to views," but to bring some questioning, obviously. Also, a little while ago, a group of friends were sitting around. And we got into this -- how to call it -- hearty debate about the nature of ultimate reality, as one does with one's friends. And it was quite -- yeah, 'hearty' is the word. And somehow, in the middle of it, I got the impression -- there was a feeling, maybe for some people, that everything that was said was just a view: "It's just a view. Well, you can say this. Great! That's your view. Fine. And I'll say this, and that's fine. That's just your view." And that was the position that some people kind of wanted to come to as a default: "It's just a view. Anything that's said is just a view."
And while there may be some wisdom in that, I was left feeling a little bit uneasy with that. And I just reflect: well, what if someone came to me and said, "You know, Rob, what's the ultimate nature of things? What's the ultimate nature of reality?" And I were to say, "Everything, everything, is a big pink fish called Barbara." You know, it's silly. It's silly. Her name is Brenda. [laughter] Some intelligence with this. So sometimes also we hear the teaching, "Right View is no view." And again, for someone quite involved in this kind of stuff, there is such a plethora of teachings of views and opinions, and this and that, and they can just seem like, "Ugh." And then we hear, "Right View is no view," and it's like, "Ahhh ..." The heart actually can feel the relief of that, and almost the beauty of that: "Just let that go. Let it go." Great. But, at another level, we always have a view. We always have a view, certainly, of this moment. We almost always have a view of our life and my life, and what life is. [7:50] But we always, every waking moment, every waking and dreaming moment, we have a view of this moment. And we have a way that we are seeing that moment.
From the point of view of practice, the question is: are we aware of that? Are we aware of what the view is? Are we aware of how we are seeing? As I said, what are the assumptions? What are the beliefs? That view is always significant. It's not a neutral factor. It's always significant, and it always has an influence. It always has an influence on the moment. And you know, views come in an endless range, but typical ones that are problematic for us -- with Buddhist teachings, we're always interested in: what's causing us problems? How are we causing ourselves problems? "I am such and such," you know, just to identify too much with one's history and one's story. That's a lot of view that's put onto the present moment. Or "I am such-and-such kind of person. I am an angry kind of person." Or "I am a failure. I am a fantastic person. I am this. I am that." So a lot of weight of view on the moment. Or you know, the view, "Life sucks." It's a view. "This is terrible," whatever this is in the moment -- all views. How strong is the view? And how strong is the belief in the identification? Even now, to say, "Well, I'm here listening to a talk on views in Buddhism" -- that's actually a view.
So one, maybe, kicking-off point is to question, or to have a look, for all of us to have a look at, what are the views that we're kind of absorbing from the culture? [9:44] And I want to tread very lightly here, because sometimes this particular -- what's the culture nowadays gets really a lot of stick. And it's probably not any worse than any other culture that's existed in humanity. This is where I want to tread lightly -- and this may just be an opinion that I fall into sometimes -- but sometimes, it feels that, with the kind of demise of religious culture, religion as something primary in culture, nothing has really taken that place. And sometimes that can fall into a kind of nihilism, which may be conscious, and may not be conscious. And out of that nihilism -- "There's no real point in life. There's no real meaning. There's no real anything" -- the view and orientation to life that can come out of that, sometimes, for some people is: "No point. Might as well maximize the pleasure I can get before I die. Minimize the pain." Again, one may be conscious of that. One may be not conscious of that. But such a view is extremely powerful to have in one's life.
A little while ago I was reading in the paper, they did a survey. And they asked, I think it was, up to 11-year-old children -- the exact question was something like, "What do you think you need to be happy? What would bring you happiness?" And the three most common answers, the sort of three top answers were (1) to be famous, (2) to be rich, and (3) to be good-looking. Under 11! Where are they getting that from?
So this question of view, of course, is one the Buddha addresses, like I said. And again, I'm not sure what the background and history of everyone here is. So for some people, to hear what the Buddha said has a great deal of significance. And for others, it has absolutely no significance: "Just some guy who lived in India 2,500 years ago. So what?" And both are fine. It's not important. When the Buddha talked about Right View, he said, "What is Right View? Right View is seeing things according to the Four Noble Truths."[1] I'll explain what that is.
(1) First one: there is suffering. That's the First -- what's called a Noble Truth. Sometimes it's translated, "Life is suffering." He didn't say that. He said, "There is suffering." 'Suffering' is kind of a loaded, heavy word. So we can also say there is unsatisfactoriness in life. There is discontent. There is dissatisfaction. That's all.
(2) Second one is: there is a cause for that discontent, dissatisfaction, unsatisfactoriness, that sense of that in life. And the shorthand cause is grasping, the clinging, hanging onto things, struggling, pushing away what we don't like, pulling towards what we like -- grasping or clinging. The longhand is a lot more complicated; we don't have time to go into it tonight. So there is suffering; there is a cause of suffering, which is grasping.
(3) There is the complete ending, easing, release, and freedom from that suffering, from that discontent, that dissatisfaction. That's the Third Truth.
(4) And then the Fourth: there is a path that leads to that, that brings that freedom about. And that path involves Right View, as we talked about. Right Intention -- what are our intentions in life? Are they intentions of kindness and compassion, of renunciation and letting go? Are we acting in ways that do not harm? Are we speaking in ways that are truthful and non-harmful? Is our livelihood like that? Are we making the right kinds of efforts in our life? Are we paying attention in life -- Right Mindfulness? Are we developing a depth of consciousness -- Right Concentration?[2] So, a very précis version of it, obviously.
When I heard that for the first time, it sounded like, "Yeah, okay, great." I think, for myself, the more I practise, and the deeper one goes into all this, one sees: one really takes a journey with this, with these Four Noble Truths. It's just something that keeps going. It just keeps going, keeps going, deeper and deeper, and almost unfolding the being into different understandings and more full understandings. And one teacher uses the word 'Ennobling.' The Truths are not Noble; they're Ennobling. So, not so much to be believed as to be taken, to go on that journey. And that journey gives a nobility to the heart, to the being.
So again, some of you may be somewhat familiar with the Buddhist teachings. I'm not sure. Sometimes it can seem, "These Buddhists -- they're always going on about suffering." And you hear the Noble Truths, and it seems like, "Well, that's just about suffering, isn't it?" It's important to see that implicit in that model of the Four Noble Truths, it's not just about suffering. There's another question very much there. And the question is -- it's like the flip side of the same coin: what is it that leads to happiness, leads to a real sense of well-being and nourishment in life? It's not just about suffering. It's also that question: what is it that leads to happiness, well-being, and nourishment in life?
Sometimes I bring that up with people I work with, and I ask them. Occasionally they go away, and they come back, and they say, "Yeah, I know. I know I want this and not that." And it's like, I'm not saying to know that one prefers chocolate flavour to vanilla. That's certainly part of knowing oneself; it's important to know, you know, I like chocolate or vanilla. But this is more universal: what is it that develops, opens happiness in human beings? That, as part of view, is a long-term view. It's like, how am I looking at my life? Or I could say it's a long-term agenda for practice. So that's a stream that's running through our practice, over the years and decades. What is it that leads to happiness? What is it that leads to well-being? I know sometimes 'happiness' is a loaded word for people. So whatever works -- a felt sense of well-being. Do we admit even the possibility of that, that it's possible to move towards?
Just to touch on this question of happiness, some people -- they have the nervous system or the wiring, whatever you want to call it -- quite capable of very deep states of bliss. A number of people have that. So when we talk about happiness, we're actually talking about something quite strong and extreme. Some people are just not wired that way, and that's fine, but still are quite capable of -- it's possible for the being to have just a quiet sense of well-being, of happiness, nothing extreme. And anyway, no one is always happy. It's just not a state that lasts forever. So this was a really important question for the Buddha that he put out there, and it's an important question for us.
One of the foundations for this, the universal foundations, is this attention to how we're living our life in terms of ethics and ethical guidelines. Are we living a life that's committed to expressing kindness and expressing love in the world? That's really, really crucial. Or am I kind of looking out for number one, and not caring so much about others? That's the basis. It's one of the absolute bases on which our sense of well-being rests in life. If we're not taking care of that ethical piece, the sense of well-being, the sense of happiness that we have is going to be very limited. There will be a real cap on it.
And again, all this is a practice. So it's something that we develop over time. Now, we could say there are certain things -- as you know, if you view yourself to be a Buddhist, there are certain precepts, which we just don't do certain things, and it's clear. But it's also something that one can keep refining this, and really develop the heart's sensitivity to how we are in relationship to ourselves and to others, so that we really become -- literally we feel it when we're acting out of our kindness, or speaking out of our kindness or selfishness or greed or whatever. We literally feel it as a painful thing. And that development of that sensitivity is extremely important. And of course, it also involves looking at one's whole lifestyle. How am I living? What am I spending my time doing? You know, just something simple like too much TV is not conducive. It's just not conducive.
The Buddha's really interested in this question: what are the qualities that lead naturally to happiness, well-being, and nourishment, whatever you want to call it? And to cultivate those qualities, to really learn how to develop them in one's life. So what is it to cultivate generosity, to really take that on as a practice, saying, "Okay, how can I act more generously in my life? How can I build the intention to act more generously?" Calmness -- how does calmness build? My capacity, the mind, the heart's capacity for calmness -- how can I learn that, develop that collectedness of mind, depth of mind? All these -- there are many lists, some of you may know, in Buddhist teaching, many lists. And they're all about -- Buddha's saying, "Please develop all this." Please develop all this: equanimity, mindfulness, renunciation. He goes on and on. Why? Because they lead to happiness. That's the only reason.
And all this, again, it's not to be taken on belief. It's something that we can really experiment with in our life. So someone else I was working with recently had a period of practice, quite intensive meditation practice. And then he heard other teachings about, "Well, meditation isn't important." And that's fine, you know. But he, for himself, said he tried that. And he went travelling for a while. And he just found, his own experiment, that, well, he was less happy. And someone else might find the opposite. But I think the point is, can it be a living experiment? Can it really be alive for us, these questions, as an experiment? So we're not kind of believing or assuming. We're really exploring this in our life.
So this part, this is huge. This cultivation of what leads to happiness -- that is really huge. Sometimes we can get the sense that meditation practice or whatever is about 'being with what is.' It's about 'being in the moment, being present with what is.' That is a part of practice, but it's only a part. It's only a part. And this other aspect of cultivation, really, really going into that and developing -- it's huge. This cultivation is also important because something we talk a lot about, letting go, in the Dharma, letting go of clinging, letting go of what's difficult, that letting go is helped when the heart, when the being is really familiar with happiness and well-being. It's much, much easier to let go. Even the way we then see what is difficult in our life -- when there's a reservoir, when there's a frequency of happiness, we see what is difficult differently. It just looks different. It makes a different impression.
And just working with people, I see this over and over. I was working with someone the other day: twenty years of practice, twenty years of just really trying to 'be with what is' -- that was the sole focus of practice. And a very bright mind, very easy for her to understand very deep, difficult, intellectual concepts like emptiness, and this and that in the teachings. But very little emphasis on cultivation. She was just saying, "Twenty years -- I feel like I haven't really got anywhere. Just these same issues keep coming up and up and up." To borrow another analogy from the teaching, it's a bit like a bird: one wing is cultivation. The other wing is this mindfulness, this 'being with what is.' If it only has one wing, it's just 'being with what is,' it's just going to -- well, I don't know what. [laughs]
So first part of view, what the Buddha called Right View -- it's a question. It's a lived question. It's a lived, ongoing question, and it has to do with, how am I looking at my life in a long-term way? Do I know, and am I cultivating what leads to happiness? So that question is alive. Do I know, do I actually understand, am I really clear, unshakeably clear -- no matter what advertisement comes and who says what-what-what, I know what leads to happiness and what doesn't? Am I really clear about that? And am I cultivating that? So the Buddha talks a lot about skill, that it's possible to develop the skill, the skill of happiness. Okay, so that's one really significant part.
The other part has to do a little bit more with the moment, like I said: how am I looking at this moment? How am I looking at this moment of experience? So in a way, you could say Right View is the view of practising with experience, of working with experience to ease the suffering. Right View, in the Buddha's teaching, is to do with sensing, being convinced, or at least having a little bit of faith, that some degree, at least, of freedom is possible in relation to what's going on in the moment. Whatever's going on, some degree of ease is possible with it. So all of us -- you know, no one escapes this. Situations in life, in any aspect of our life -- they fall apart. Things keep falling apart. And they need our attention. The things need fixing. Situations need fixing. Relationships need fixing. Something happens, and there's an argument or a coming apart, or a breaking of the trust or whatever -- you need to fix that. Or physical things break, of course. Right View is, how am I looking at this situation? Am I just looking at it in terms of fixing what's broken, seeing it in terms of, "Oh, it's a nuisance that was broken. Let me get a new one," or whatever it is? Or am I looking at it with the priority (this is a subtle shift, but it's huge) that freedom is possible in relation to this situation? Freedom is possible.
So sometimes, again, what is the culture supporting in this? We live in a kind of -- well, we fix a lot of situations in terms of material things, in terms of all kinds of things. But sometimes even in terms of friends, we go to our friends, and we're [in] some pain, or some difficulty we're going through, and of course we want empathy to be part of what they give us, or what we give to a friend who's having a hard time. We just empathize with that, with that pain that they're going through, that difficulty, suffering. We feel that with them. But is that other piece there? Is there, also from our friend -- are they giving us something more full, which is like, "Okay, how can we look at this differently? How can we move towards freedom?", which is an added piece from everything. It's an added piece.
So things do break. And that breaking is a hassle, oftentimes. Are we seeing it as a hassle, or are we seeing it, the breaking of things, as saying something about how things are? That things are impermanent, that they do break. And every time things break, it's like a reminder of that truth. It's a subtle shift. And in a way, we can hear this and say, "Yeah, sure, I've heard the teachings, and I know, yeah," but what actually happens in that moment? What actually happens in the heart, in the mind, in that moment when things do fall apart? What does happen? How are we seeing it? Do we see that things break? Do we see, are we looking at it that the world is really not our home? This world is not our home, ultimately speaking. The universe was not created, is not created, to have everything go the way that my self or any other self wants it. That's not the deal of the universe. You know, you can try. So nothing is certain -- you know, not the car. Things are falling off my car. The home, the home situation, whatever it is. Our relationships, as I said. These are fragile things. The nature of things is fragile.
Our bodies are fragile. The other day, a friend in her early forties, she'd gone for her regular check-up at the doctor, and they called her back afterwards, and "I'm sorry. Could you come in for some more tests? There are some abnormal cells, and we need to check it out." You know, body is fragile. What happens? What happens then? This is the nature of the life we have. It's uncertain. It's uncertain when any of us would get news like that, or those that we love. One of my teachers, Ajaan Ṭhānissaro, used to say (he was American): "Aging, sickness, and death play hard, and they play for keeps."[3] [laughs] It was a kind of phase for him. The point from Right View is, are we practising with that? Are we actually practising with that? Are we on the edge of that?
So what is my view right now? What is the view that I have of this moment? If it is a painful moment, what is the view I have of it? And more importantly, is that view that I have of it, is the way I'm seeing this present moment, is it leading me to more suffering, more pain, more contraction, more difficulty? Or is it leading me to freedom? Because there really is a difference. What's my view in the moment? Is it leading me to suffering, or is it leading me to freedom?
Again, when the Buddha talks about ways of looking at the present moment, just classically speaking, he talked about what are called the 'three characteristics.' And I'll explain what they are: they are (1) impermanence, (2) unsatisfactoriness, and (3) not-self. So again, these are not beliefs. These are ways of looking at the moment, ways of looking at the experience of the moment, whatever it is, through a certain 'lens,' so to speak, that leads to freedom, that leads to ease.
(1) So if we're seeing the moment and reminding ourselves, in the moment, of the impermanence of things, we're not drifting into a kind of forgetfulness of assuming permanence of things. In a very alive way in the moment, we're actually looking at a thing. We can look at a chair. We can look at my hand -- better example -- and reflect, "This is impermanent. This is going to be, you know, a skeleton and dust and whatever." Are we looking at things that way? The thought that comes through the head -- it's a terrible thought, it's a wonderful thought -- are we seeing its impermanence? So it's a very alive kind of way of looking. It's like looking at the moment through a certain lens.
(2) And then unsatisfactoriness, the second one: again, that anything, any experience, is not, in itself, able to completely satisfy me, partly because of its impermanence. It cannot completely satisfy me. It's unsatisfactory. Now sometimes, when people hear of these three characteristics, it sounds -- "God, it sounds so, so dreary." [laughs] Or like, depressing. Again, this is really important: they're ways of looking. They're not supposed to lead us to depression or dullness, or then we go jump into the River Cam or whatever. Not also supposed to lead to a kind of feeling of existential angst. Sometimes we hear that kind of teaching. They're not supposed to do that. They're ways of looking that lead to a sense of opening, freedom, actually love too. There's a warmth and a beauty that comes into life and our perception of it. They're ways of looking that lead to freedom.
(3) The third one, not-self -- anattā is the Pali, 'not-self.' This is a little bit more difficult to understand, but again, it's looking at things -- so for instance, the hand again. This, actually -- of course it belongs to me, you know. It's on the end of my arm. Of course it belongs to me, at one level. On another level, it's not mine. It doesn't belong to me. I don't actually have full control over it. It came from nature. One thing's for sure: it's going back to nature. It's not mine. And of course it is mine. But learning to look, sometimes, to put on the lenses and see it as 'not mine.' Same thing with thoughts, same thing with emotions, with feelings, with every element of our experience, whatever it is, seeing it as not belonging to self, not identifying with it, it not being self.
These are practices. These are practices, so that we really learn, gradually, over time, through practice, as our practice develops -- and again, this is part of the journey -- we learn to look this way more and more. And then it's like you can flip it on and off. It's like a switch; you can flip it on and off. And this last one, anattā, this not-self, it's opening up a radically different way of being in the world, a radically different sense of what it is to be alive. Because of course we get ourselves -- "I'm here. I'm giving the talk. And you are doing your level best to stay awake." [laughter] That's what it seems like. Of course it is: I'm here. You're there. You know, it's the most obvious thing in the world. Learning to look in a different way and see something different. Not to deny the reality -- of course I'm here, and I'm giving a talk, and you're listening. But learning another way of looking. Very, very different. The Buddha says nothing whatsoever should be clung to as 'me' or 'mine.' Nothing whatsoever -- not the body, not the emotions, not the thoughts, not the intentions, not the consciousness -- nothing.[4]
Part of Right View is also what we might call 'Right Questioning.' So again, the questioning: what is the view in the moment? And is it a view that leads to freedom? So sometimes, again, going back to what I said right at the beginning, the question can be, "What is the nature of the self? And what is this, and what is that, da-da-da?" And the Buddha, in his original teachings -- the Dharma has developed in a lot of different directions, but originally, he actually refused to answer the question, say, for instance, of whether the self existed or not. He just didn't go there. He'd rather say: can you actually learn to practise this way? Seeing things as 'not me, not mine, not belonging to me.' And it really is a practice.
And again, I'm very unsure who I'm speaking to, but maybe some of you have some practice -- well, I know some. [laughs] But some have practised and, "Well, I want to do less in my practice. I do so much in my life. I'm so busy and so involved in doing things and manipulating my experience. When I practise, I like just being with what is and doing less." Beautiful. Beautiful way of practice. Do we actually see, though, when we're looking in terms of the three characteristics -- impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self -- we are actually doing less? Because default human consciousness, the way it looks at this hand is, "It's my hand." I may be aware of that thought, or I may not be aware of that thought, but that's there with the consciousness. And what we're doing is we're just unhooking, unhooking that piece, and just letting that go. One's actually doing less. If one takes all this on as a practice, a possibility of how practice develops for us, one can see: one is actually doing less with this.
So on a very shorthand level, these Four Noble Truths that the Buddha talked about -- in a way, it's a kind of simple lens. It's a simple lens for looking at the moment and seeing: if there's grasping, there is suffering. If there's grasping, there's unsatisfactoriness and discontent, etc. Seeing that very clearly, so that when we notice suffering, we say, "Okay, where's the grasping?" When there's a sense of discontent, where's the grasping? When there's a sense of unsatisfactoriness, where's the grasping? What am I clinging to? It's a shorthand way of looking, way of relating to the present moment. We can practise it, okay? So none of this is abstract.
[37:53] At a more -- what could we say? -- a more full level, a more full or fleshed-out level, the Four Noble Truths are looking at all the subtle factors, all the subtle factors in consciousness ... [laughter at sound of people singing "Happy Birthday" in background] at any time -- all the subtle factors in consciousness at any time that lead towards suffering, dissatisfaction, discontent. Even more, it goes even beyond that, actually. All the subtle factors in consciousness at any time that fabricate our experience of anything, that fabricate our experience of anything at all. I'll explain a little bit what I mean by that. So again, none of this is abstract. This is very real, actualizable, realizable stuff on the path. Looking at all the subtle factors that lead to discontent or dissatisfaction, looking at all the subtle factors that lead to any experience at all in the present moment, any experience of a thing, anything. So then, the Four Noble Truths, in question form -- remember this lived question form, meditative question form, you could say: what am I putting into the present moment that leads to suffering, discontent, dissatisfaction? What am I putting in? So it's a very alive question.
That is not at all to deny the influence of the past. So our personal history or environmental history or whatever -- of course there's the influence of that, and from the past, and suffering arises. But any sense of discontent, dissatisfaction, suffering -- the Pali word is dukkha, just a shorthand for all that -- any sense of dukkha in the present moment needs some kind of present-moment input for it to be there. Not to deny the influence of the past, but any sense of suffering in the present moment needs some kind of present-moment input. So sometimes, again, one of the views -- going back to the sort of views we can have about practice -- sometimes a view we can have is "just purifying all my old karma or all my stuff, my psychological baggage," etc. Sometimes people view the meditation practice -- just when I sit here, and all this difficult stuff seems to come up, and the view is: "It's coming up and out, and one is purifying. One is being purified of that. And it's painful, but it's good because, you know, it's a good hurt. It's on its way out." But Four Noble Truths: any discontent in the present moment needs present-moment input from us.
So again, sometimes we relate to practice: "I just want to be with things as they are. I just want to be in the present moment." Beautiful, really beautiful way of practising, beautiful orientation, beautiful view of practice, beautiful to practise that way: "Forget everything. I just want to be fully present, fully alive, directly with the present moment, intimate with the present moment." Certainly better than being lost in fantasy, etc. I remember a little while ago at work, I went into one of the staff person's office, and I did not have a teaching relationship with this person. And we were sort of just chatting a little bit about work stuff, and asked her how she was, and she was quite upset, and we talked a little bit. And she told me that she was having a real difficult time with her boyfriend. And she explained what was going on, etc., and then she sort of sighed and looked at me and said, "I know. I know." I was just listening. She said, "I know. I know. I just need to be with it. I just need to be with it." And at that moment, I didn't feel it was appropriate for me to say anything, but my thought was, "Actually, no, that's not what needs to happen. That's really not what needs to happen. You've just described to me a whole bunch of miscommunication and misunderstanding, and this and that. And what needs to happen is, you know, it needs to be looked at. This suffering -- what created the suffering needs to be looked at." In other words, practice is not just a matter of sitting through what's difficult, being with what's difficult, and hoping that it will kind of go away. Sometimes that does work, but we need to understand, in the Buddha's words, what's compounding, what's fabricating our suffering. She needs to understand that and talk about it, put it right.
Or just a while ago at Gaia House, a meditator in a very silent environment, very still environment there, and very meditative, and this person was meditating in the hall, and sitting next to someone who was sort of fidgeting a lot and coughing and blowing their nose, and this and that. And found himself quite irritable, judging this person. And felt in himself the contraction and the pain of that. And this is very normal human stuff. And worked with it, asked himself, "How can I see this differently, that takes the pain, takes the suffering out of it?" It was quite simple. He just had to reflect that, "Well, wasn't so long ago that I used to be like that." He'd been practising for quite a while, but he could remember the beginning years, really, of practice where it's just really hard to sit still. It's just really hard not to fidget. It's just really hard not to be agitated. And that sense of commonality, just bringing in that different view of the moment -- "I used to be that" -- brought in, instead of a view of separation and judgment, brought in a view of commonality, of compassion. That was enough. Very simple.
So again, not just a matter of 'being with.' Are we practising with intelligence? Are we really bringing our intelligence into practice? Of course we need to bring the heart in, but are we bringing intelligence in? So this question, "What am I putting into the present moment that's leading to dukkha, that's leading to discontent and unsatisfactoriness? What's leading to any experience at all?" -- that can be extremely subtle, what's being put in. If I just pick up on one of the strands that I talked about before, this way of practising, seeing things, anything at all, as not being me or mine, not belonging to myself -- that, as I said, can be really developed as a meditative practice. Very possible, very real. And when one does that, when one develops it, what happens? One of the things that happens is a big sense of freedom begins to open up. But also, the degree or intensity with which things, events, experiences impact on consciousness begins to decrease. I'll say that again: things, any experience of the body, or the emotions, the mind, sounds, etc., begins to make less impact on consciousness as this practice is developed. They begin to kind of quieten. The degree of impact on consciousness is lessened.
[46:13] Taken really deeply, things stop appearing at all. Or they barely appear at all. This brings up a question: what is the nature of things and reality? If I can almost have a degree of how much I'm identifying with things, and the appearance of things is dependent on that, and I see it just moves with that, what's the actual nature of reality? Where on that spectrum of identification is 'the real'? One of the points is: self-view, having a view of identification with or ownership, is a kind of builder of experience at a very deep level, a builder of experience. When we take just that strand of not-self, and we take it very deeply, when we practise it very deeply -- just to backtrack, the question was: how is my present input, however subtle, how is that making or shaping the moment? And we're just taking one strand, and saying: this identifying with things in the present is actually something that shapes and creates the present moment at all -- at all.
The implications of that are huge, are really huge. So when I was probably 17 or 18, I came across a poem. It's a quite famous one -- some of you may know it -- by E. E. Cummings, a very short one. I remember it says:
[48:19, poem][5]
And 17 or 18, and I had a friend from here, from not long after that time period, quite long hair, etc. [laughs] And I read that, and I was like, "Yeah. Right on." [laughter] And it does. It can have a real heart pull. It's beautiful, really beautiful. It can have a real heart pull. But the piece I just said about following this strand of really taking this practice of non-identification -- we see that even the 'here' and the 'now,' which seem so elementary, so basic to our experience, are actually fabricated, compounded, in a way unreal. There is no inherently existent 'here' and 'now.' And that doesn't mean to say that 'Truth' with a capital T, or nirvāṇa, whatever you want to call it, is sort of 'there' either.
So sometimes we also hear teaching, and a kind of view of practice -- and again, very beautiful: "Nowhere to go, nothing to do." Again, beautiful, lovely, lovely to pick that up as a practice and go on a journey for that, with that, for a while -- for a while, because what's implicit in "Nowhere to go, nothing to do," again, is the here and now, is the existence of the here and now. I believe in a real, inherently existing, independent 'how I am right now': "Nowhere to go. It's fine. I am how I am." Or "The world or the situation is how it is," or "The thing is how it is." But when you really take this deeply, all that is questioned too.
And again, just going into views of practice right now, sometimes we have a view, "Just want to be. Don't want to do." 'Being' versus 'doing' in meditation practice becomes this big dichotomy. But again, if we just take the Four Noble Truths, and we really go on a journey with that, any view at all is a kind of doing. So this whole notion of a separation between being and doing -- it's a sort of non-existent separation.
Sometimes, too -- again, staying with ways we can view spiritual practice -- we can say, "My relationship is my spiritual practice." And again, beautiful, lovely: "My primary relationship or my parenting is my spiritual practice." Or: "Playing the cello is my spiritual practice." Or: "Dancing is my spiritual practice." And again, lovely, beautiful, and a lot can open, a lot can be transformed that way. And sometimes, even the sense of self disappears -- disappears when you're in the middle of music or you're dancing, or whatever it is. But how are we going to, through those kind of practices or activities, how do we reach that other understanding? I don't think it's possible. So practice does have that agenda of really understanding, remember, these questions, these very alive questions: what is it that is leading to suffering in the present moment? What am I putting in that's causing suffering? How am I seeing the present moment?
So sometimes, we could say -- and this is hard; I don't know if it's a hard truth; it may sound hard -- if there is discontent or dukkha or suffering or dissatisfaction in the present moment, it means that I'm actually seeing with misunderstanding in that moment. It means I'm seeing with what the Buddha calls 'ignorance' or 'delusion.' And there's no judgment or anything like that implicit in that statement. I don't mean that in that way at all. I mean it more as a sort of reminder to ourselves: when there is discontent, it means there is delusion present in that moment. What's the delusion? Can we find it? And of course, a statement like that doesn't mean that we absolve ourselves of responsibility socially, environmentally, etc., and the suffering that's in the world.
I remember another teacher, years ago, actually, Joseph Goldstein -- he said: "When there's suffering around, it really kind of piques my interest. Or when suffering arises, it really kind of piques my interest."[6] And again, most people, when there's suffering, it's "Oh no, more suffering!" [laughter] So he said, speaking of quite evolved sort of practice, he was saying -- obviously it wasn't that much -- and he was just saying, "When it's around, it really kind of gets my interest." And again, is it alive for us? What's the question? The question is: well, what's being put in in the present moment that creates that? Again, putting it another way, what do I need to understand about suffering or unease, how it arises? How is the unease/discontent being built/compounded in the present moment? And can I let go of or remove some of the builders, some of those blocks of building? So it's a little like -- what's that game called? KerPlunk or whatever? Do you know? With the sticks, and you build a thing, and then you're supposed to pull out the sticks? You know? It's a bit like that. I mean, in a way, Dharma practice is like that. You're just pulling out these sticks. And that could be a little chunk, or it could be a big chunk.
So another view that we can have, spiritually speaking or in terms of practice, is in terms of concepts. We say, "Well, truth, the real truth, the ultimate truth -- that's beyond concepts. And I just want to let go of concepts." And again, there can be a real heart pull in that, and a real beauty in that, and a real fruit of doing that. But I feel that's, again, an area that needs a lot of care and a lot of integrity. I think the Buddha was very careful in how he set up the path, that he used amazing skill. The more I practise, the more I study, etc., the more I marvel at his skill of using concepts. So he picks up concepts. A lot of the concepts he used were actually around in India at that time, and he sort reframed them. He used these Dharma concepts in ways that lead to freedom and actually lead beyond concepts eventually. If we say, "I want to go beyond concepts, because the truth is beyond concepts" -- and it is, ultimately speaking -- "I want to just let go," if we let go of concepts too early, what happens to human consciousness? We just go back to the default concepts. We just pick them up because we haven't practised with the right kind of concepts that are the kind of KerPlunk concepts, that decompound the suffering.
So that's really the point that I want to end on, that these Four Noble Truths that the Buddha put out there -- they're a set of concepts. The Dharma is a set of concepts that kind of leads beyond itself. It's sort of like a snake eating its own tail. It leads certainly beyond itself. If you follow, if you go on this ennobling journey of the Four Noble Truths, if you take that to heart, if you live that, if you practise that way, it goes, it leads beyond suffering, and it leads beyond itself. So notions even of path and of time, of suffering and freedom -- all that kind of gets eaten too. And the Buddha said someone understands that, who understands emptiness, lets go of all views. But it's coming from a different place. Some of you may be familiar with this analogy of the raft that crosses to the other shore (being freedom), using a raft, the raft of the teachings, the raft of the path. And the Buddha said when you get to the other side, you don't then pick up this raft and carry it around on your head. You've used it. You can let go of it. But similarly, you don't let go of it midstream, among the rapids and the difficulty.
Okay, so I think I will stop there. Do we have questions now? So we have some time now before tea for questions, if anyone would like, about anything that's been said. Also, if you really did come for the 'nature of awareness' bit ... [laughter] Free free. If you're not coming tomorrow as well, and you have a practice or whatever, and you want to ask questions, that's fine too. Or if you just want to make a comment on what's said, or share an insight. So, some time for questions and discussion.
Q1: picking up and putting down opposite views at different times; being at home in the universe; faith in the possibility of happiness; views and meditative experiences as stepping-stones
Yogi: Well, my question is that two things that you said seem to slightly jar with one another, which was that you were talking about how very important, very refreshing, just we're told such things as, you know, "Truth is here. Relax. There's nothing to do." But then you were also talking at one point about how the universe is not set up for us to be at home in it. And I thought that those two ideas really contradicted each other.
Rob: Ah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah.
Yogi: And it also related to how you introduced the talk in terms of how, unless we have the kind of confidence and conviction in happiness, an optimistic point of view, that it's going to be very difficult for us to let go. And I suppose what I wanted to ask you was, what's your opinion? I feel it's very important to actually believe that we can be wholly at home in the universe.
Rob: Yeah, yeah, good, thank you. So a couple of pieces there. One piece is that part of -- I didn't bring it out so much. But part of what I wanted to get across was -- I didn't really say this; it's good that it's coming up -- that we can pick up views and put them down. So we can pick up a view, a way of relating to the moment, to the experience, or even a whole stretch of time, or a way of seeing our life. And that view may be a view of, say, "There's nothing to do. Right here is good enough. This is it," you know, etc. That view, in that moment, may be really helpful. It may be really, really what the Buddha would call a 'skilful' view. Really, really helpful. It may be really skilful at times to have the opposite -- what you said, the opposite view. And sometimes we can have a relationship to life which is about kind of putting everything in order, making a kind of nest, a home, which is, obviously, at one level of our life, it's extremely important. We need a place to live. We need things to be in order. But if we're too identified with that view of "Everything needs to kind of work and function and be in its place," then that's going to ultimately -- well, sooner or later, it's going to clash with the reality of things falling apart. So sometimes we can pick up another view, which is: "If the way things are, what is around me, what's in my environment, is not -- I cannot really have a lasting sense of hope in the way I arrange things around me, in that sense," then we can pick that view up and put it down. And again, that can be a skilful view to pick up and put down.
And then this whole question of home is also, you know, another thing with many different levels. So we can talk, again, 'home' being a very practical thing, meaning some walls and mortar and bricks, and whatever sort of room, and an arrangement of furniture, etc. And that's my home. And that's important. That's important, but if we're too attached to that, it's a problem. It's too contingent. It's too vulnerable. It's too fragile. Our living situation is too fragile. But when we talk about being at home in the universe, or at home -- that can have all kinds of, again, levels of meaning. So it's partly the word or words, a little bit.
I think the other piece in what you said was about faith in happiness. And again, that is, I feel, a lived faith. Or rather, an experientially tasted faith in happiness is important, which means just seeing that it's possible for me to have a little bit of sense of well-being maybe, then a bit more, and maybe a bit more. But living that and seeing that and feeling it, gradually, is something that gives us confidence in ourselves, in our ability to deal with things and walk the path. Is that answering what you ...?
Yogi: Yes, it is. But my question also related to whether or not we see -- well, thinking of myself, I know, you know, I've sort of read about Buddhism for some years. And some of the time, I felt that Buddhism is about being all stoical, in a kind of agnostic, atheistic way, you know, viewing life in that way, and there are these techniques which will enable us to kind of endure, stoically. And I got kind of pissed off at that. [laughter] And so, you know, it seemed to me, I want to replace that with thinking that actually, even when it's not easy to find a kind of well-worked-out strategy in life and so on -- things aren't coming together, things are falling apart -- nonetheless, ultimately, we can be at home in the universe because the universe is ... I mean, it sounds somewhat cliché, but the universe is actually imbued with love.
Rob: Beautiful. Yeah. So, just the way I tend to approach the Dharma, for myself and in teaching, is not so much in terms of this "endure stoically, and atheistic," etc. I'm more interested, actually, in people's experience. So it's possible, rather than believing the universe is imbued with love, but actually having a real experience of that, a meditative, fully convincing experience that the universe is imbued with love -- that's very possible, and I tend to encourage that as a reality for people. Hugely significant, because again: what's there as a default view of life and the universe when that's not there? Is it a kind of "The universe is cold, antagonistic," or you know, etc., "Life sucks"? Sometimes we don't realize what's there.
But even the view of "The universe is imbued with love," one goes beyond it at a certain point. I think one goes beyond it rather than detours, you know, just ignores it and dismisses it from the first as irrelevant and a bit theistic, or a bit, I don't know, namby-pamby, or whatever someone might say. If we just dismiss it -- again, where do our default concepts go? We don't realize how deeply ingrained our views are. Some of them are conscious, as I said right at the beginning. Some of them are conscious; some are not. And so there's enormous significance and transformative power in a person actually feeling, actually seeing and sensing something like the experience, the sense that you described. That is not that common. If you look at Buddhist teachings, it's not that common, what I've just described, that process. It's probably really a minority, but I tend to encourage it because I see the power of it as a stepping-stone.
But again, I'd say Dharma is more about realizing the fruits of practice, little by little -- put it that way -- than about believing this or that about the universe, or about possibilities of this or that. It's more about just tasting a little bit and saying, "Okay, well, if that much is true, maybe this much is true." And so there's a sense of lived understanding that's actually making a difference, because it's an experientially based thing.
Q2: not letting paradoxes of self and no-self become hindrances; emptiness of self in the Gelug tradition; meditatively regarding things as 'just happening, not me, not mine, not my self'
Yogi: [?] When you're putting out no-self ... [?] But obviously that's a paradox, because if there's no self, there's no one that can pursue it as a strand.
Rob: Yeah, I wouldn't even go into those kinds of paradoxes. It's not helpful. That's my opinion. There are probably traditions within the whole full spectrum of Dharma that would just totally agree with you: "Who could pursue such a strand? Forget about it, whatever." I tend to encourage people to pursue such a strand, and if at first it seems like, "Well, here's my self pursuing such a strand," that's okay. Eventually, again, it will eat its own tail. Not a problem. I mean, just at one level, you could say, "Well, it's not a self pursuing it. It's a sort of" -- I really don't like this word; it's not the way I tend to talk much, but you could say, "It's a mind and a view, and thoughts in the moment, and seeing in the moment. There's actually no self there," with this view, in the moment. You understand? There's a view of no-self, or regarding things as not belonging and not identifying. In that process of doing that and even cultivating that, you can't find a self. Do you understand?
Yogi: Yeah, so I suppose the alternative for being that no-self isn't a view, is actually [?]. Self is actually an illusion.
Rob: Yeah, yeah, sure. Again, this can take at many different levels. So if we talk about ultimate reality, yeah, the no-selfness of things is, in a way, you could say, more ultimate. However, the Buddha was very practical about this in the original teachings, very practical. And he said, rather, pick up this strand, learn to practise that way, learn to view your experience that way, and just go with that, because it's a strand that leads towards this lessening of suffering. Okay? Rather than decide on a kind of philosophical position about the self from the outset and take it from there.
The Gelug, for instance, the Gelug tradition in Tibetan Buddhism, which the Dalai Lama is -- that's his root tradition, that does actually start from a philosophical position. And amazing, you know. I actually find it very beautiful. But it's a very, very different approach. And sort of seeing the emptiness of self, and then reinforcing that as an understanding, and then taking that. But I guess I tend to share just what's kind of alive, or that I've found fruitful. Does that speak to what you said?
Yogi: Yeah.
Rob: In terms of practice, yeah, I wouldn't really go with that. I wouldn't really let that question be any kind of stumbling block or a hindrance to just going ahead. Does that feel unblocked now, or ...?
Yogi: I'm sure it'll come up again, but ...
Rob: Okay.
Yogi: It something that can be practised with ...
Rob: Yeah, okay. Let's just spend one more minute on this. It's important to see. There was an instance when a wandering ascetic came to the Buddha, and he said, "There's no self, right? There is no self." And the Buddha refused to answer him. It was the tradition: ask once, no answer; ask a second time, no answer; ask a third time, no answer. And then [the ascetic] just, you know, got impatient and walked off. A little later, another wandering ascetic came and said, "There is a self, right?" No answer. "There is a self, right?" No answer. "There is a self." No answer. And again, got impatient. And the Buddha said to Ānanda, "That's not a skilful way of going about this."[7] Because ultimately speaking, the nature of the self, the nature of all things is beyond really existing or non-existing.[8] Now, we can get all kind of blugh about that, and some strands do, and it's great. I'm not knocking that at all. I really have a lot of love and respect for that. But the way the Buddha originally taught was, "Don't even go there with that question." Can you practise meditatively looking at things, just regarding them as not owning them, not identifying with them? So a thought comes up, or a body sensation, a pain -- can we just see, "This is kind of just happening. It's not me. It's not mine. It's not my self"? It's almost like the mind flips, can flip into another mode of seeing. Sometimes, if we're just, in practice, hanging around and trying to be as mindful as possible, and we just keep the continuity of that going, that seeing happens anyway, and the mind will just organically flip into a mode of seeing things as 'not me or mine.' And then we can pick it up as a practice as well.
You don't look convinced. [laughter] Okay.
Q3: the adjectival sense of anattā in early Buddhist teachings
Yogi: Can I just make a comment on ...?
Rob: Yeah.
Yogi: If we have a Pali scholar in the room, this might help to elucidate it. In some of the early Buddhist teachings, it's sometimes useful to remember that anattā is used in an adjectival sense rather than a noun. And a lot of the knots one gets into -- "Is this self or not-self as another entity?" Not-self as an entity, as opposed to, in the teachings, as you described, you know, that the table is not-self. This hand is not-self. This mind is not-self. It's constantly, as it were, taking away, de-fabricating, if you like. I think in later Buddhist teachings, all kinds of philosophical positions are taken. Now, I don't know whether it's true. I think we need a Pali scholar here to clarify that, but I find that useful ...
Rob: That's essentially what I was saying, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Historically speaking, that's true, absolutely. And I really would like to make the point that I'm not knocking the schools that have evolved, that go into the philosophical nature of the self and tables and all of that. You've got to have a hell of an intellect to -- I mean, you could fill this room with volumes on the to-and-fro of the debating of the nitty-gritty of the philosophical arguments. You've got to have, whew, some, I don't know. I'm aware of what town I'm speaking in, but ... [laughter] Yeah, it's pretty major. Now, for some people, that's great. And I actually am developing more and more a love of that. But originally speaking, as David was saying, it's more an adjectival sense: this is 'not-self,' it's 'not me, not mine.' This experience is 'not me, not mine.' It's rather that than saying something about self. [1:14:32]
Still don't look convinced ... [laughter]
Q4: keeping in mind what leads to happiness and suffering, both on and off the cushion
Yogi: I mean, you can sort of [?], we're doing things in a meditative sense, really investigating the idea of view. [?] I'm just curious. Do you think you can then take that off the backside on the cushion, and out into the world? This is what we're really interested in.
Rob: Yeah, totally. Yeah. And in all kinds of ways. So like I was saying about that person I was working with at work, and she was having this situation with her boyfriend, what's the question there? The question is, well, how is this painful situation, how is it being fabricated? How is it being compounded? And so, again, Right View is coming in there. To pick up another strand of what we've been talking about, if we take this looking at things as 'not me, not mine,' it becomes something that just becomes more and more ingrained into our way of looking, and certainly something that we can do anywhere, you know. The more one does that, the more it actually disempowers the habit of identifying and taking things as 'me' or 'mine.' So organically, it's coming into our life. So we're in the middle of a conversation, or we're in hospital, or this or that. It's just coming in more and more.
So absolutely, I mean, if the teachings, if the practice doesn't have any relationship off the cushion, then, you know, what's the point? Because at the very least, one would have to go to the toilet! So if those two main questions are kept in mind in whatever situation -- (1) the first one was: do I know what it is that's leading to happiness in my life? So with something like generosity, we're cultivating and practising generosity -- that happens mostly off the cushion. What's that in my life? Am I carrying that question through my life? Do I know, and am I cultivating what leads to happiness, well-being? Huge question, huge question in life. (2) And the second one: in this moment -- on the cushion, off the cushion -- do I understand how suffering is being compounded, how I'm putting something in to create more suffering than needs to be there, more dissatisfaction, etc.? Wherever we are. Yeah? It's extremely important -- alive. We can really pick these questions up any time, any time, and throughout any situation in our life. To me, that's what it means: a life of practice. So it really isn't just about the cushion. Yeah?
Q5: being free to pick up and put down views of self and not-self when appropriate
Yogi: I get a bit worried about this seeing as not as me and mine. Not that I do it, really, but you know, theoretically, in that, I don't know, say you were in a situation, or somebody was not treating you well. Would you just say, "Oh well, it's not me, it's not mine," and kind of let that continue? And to me, I'm worried that it would lead to quite an unhealthy relationship, actually, at one extreme quite abusive.
Rob: This is a really important question. Absolutely, yeah. Thank you. So again, it's not so much we're interested in this view of seeing things as 'not me, not mine.' That's something we can pick up, put down. And then, equally, we can pick up a view of self and put it down. So, question: am I as comfortable, as free, and as unafraid to pick up the view of seeing things as 'not me, not mine' as I am of picking up the view of 'me' and 'mine,' the self and my history, and what I need and what I want, etc.? I can put one down, and I can put the other down. And if we talk about maturity in practice, it's really that: being able to pick one up and know when it's appropriate, and put it down, and the other one.
Second thing: oftentimes, when there is a kind of abusive sort of relating going on, and we're staying in that situation, it's not so much that there isn't a self. It's actually that the self is quite strong, but it's kind of attached to the wrong things. We talk about co-dependence and all that. There's some investment there that the self is actually feeding on. So even at that level, it's not quite as simple as it seems. But this is really important because everyone brings to practice their own family backgrounds, psychological history, baggage, all of that, cultural. We might have a predisposition to want to let go of self in that. And to watch that. And again, the question: am I equally able, and equally free and unafraid, to pick up both at different times? Or -- and this is also very common -- someone's deathly afraid of picking up this 'not me, not mine' because it's very charged for some people. For a lot of people, it brings up a whole sense of fear of death and oblivion, or fear of losing oneself in certain ways. So it's really this working towards a kind of completeness and freedom of picking up and putting down views. Yeah? Good.
Q6: good attachments; freedom from attachments
Yogi: It's about attachments and identifying yourself. The way others talk about it, they always present it in a negative way. So we have to get rid of this -- you know, to wit, suffering. But it also could be a view with many blessings. And so then experiencing [?], being able to experience [?] ...
Rob: Yeah, sure. And thank you for saying that. I meant to bring that up. I probably didn't bring it up very clearly. Even in the Dharma, if we just talk in simple Dharma terms, it's really good to get attached to things. So for instance, that suicide cult with the Nikes and the comet, that was attachment to something. It's good to get attached to viewing that as wrong. That's a good attachment. It's good to get attached to a sense of commitment to ethical integrity. It's really good. It's good to get attached -- you know, we talk about attachment to one's partner, etc. And of course, if you're in a long-term relationship, you need a certain -- there's a commitment, etc., and that's all healthy. So one has to look. The question is more: is there suffering coming out of this attachment, or is there happiness coming out of this attachment?
Yogi: [?] you are attached to the person, this person dies, and you lose this person, and there's suffering. But there was also happiness. So two are there, and if you try to avoid suffering, then you'll never experience also happiness.
Rob: That's true.
Yogi: You just always stay in this kind of [?], or not this, not that. And ...
Rob: Yeah, sure. So again, I don't think that the practice and teachings lead one to some kind of inhuman detachment from the world, where one isn't entering into relationships, or isn't entering into even attachments with things. But it's almost like -- well, let's talk about that -- someone died that we really care about, or our own death, you know. Part of the teachings is saying: open to that, open to the sorrow of that, and to let oneself be open to life in a way that one's actually touched by the loss of things. But then there's a whole other level, sort of a co-existing stratum of the teachings, of practice and possible understanding, that also finds a freedom in that. It doesn't contradict or squash our humanity. [1:23:13]
Q7: differences in emphasis between the original teachings and the Mahāyāna
Yogi: [?]
Rob: If you read the original texts, I mean, a lot of the advice the Buddha seems to be about -- yeah, absolutely, yeah. That changed a little bit as the later traditions came. It changed quite a lot in the sort of more Mahāyāna teachings. But it is there in the original teachings.
Yogi: What was in the original?
Rob: This sense of "Don't have anyone who you care about, don't have children, don't da-da-da."
Yogi: So towards the more ...
Rob: The more Mahāyāna teachings, yeah. It's that sort of seeing that it's possible to have a sense of really deep freedom in life, and still be in the midst of ...
Q8: deciding what kind of freedom you want
Yogi: [?] ... attachment at all. It's presented as an idea. [?] ... want to choose this path.
Rob: Yeah, sure. I think the important thing is more deciding the kind of freedom that you want. So like, we talk about freedom or release from suffering. It's like, it shouldn't be abstract. It should be like, well, what speaks to me? What speaks to me? For some people, it may speak to them not having any kind of relationships, not being enmeshed in the world in that way at all. But I think for most of us, certainly probably most people here, it's more about living fully in the life in a way that is both connected and free, and finding what that means for us. That's a possibility. This is quite important. It's like there's something -- if we're choosing a path, we're engaging in a path that speaks to us, in a way, of real possibility for ourselves, not something kind of abstract or removed. So attachment is something to do with -- when there's a felt sense of suffering, to look at the attachment then, in that moment. Is that answering at all? Yeah?
Yogi: Yeah.
Rob: I think that the piece about, "What kind of freedom am I interested in?", I think that's really important, because it's our path, and it's our practice, and we're going to tread it, not some idea about this or this or where it might lead, or "Might I get disconnected?", etc. What am I actually ...? Feeling the suffering that I feel, actually, what do I feel in life? What dis-ease do I want to let go of? And how can I move towards that? So it's something that it's actually important for us, rather than "I should be celibate, and I should be this, and I should be that, and da-da-da."
So what's the time frame? Are there any more?
Yogi 2: I think we can call an end to the formal bit of the meeting. But people can carry on chatting and talking to Rob, and have a cup of tea once the kettle's boiled.
SN 45:8. ↩︎
For the Buddha's teaching on the Four Noble Truths, see SN 56:11. For his analysis of the Noble Eightfold Path, see SN 45:8. ↩︎
As Ajaan Ṭhānissaro said in an interview: "But here we're all out on the playing field, facing aging, illness, and death. Our skill in exercising judgment is going to make all the difference in whether we win or lose. The team we're facing has never been taught to be uncritical. They play hard, and they play for keeps." See Insight Magazine Online, "A Question of Skill: An Interview with Thanissaro Bhikkhu," https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/interview1.html, accessed 14 Nov. 2020. ↩︎
E.g. SN 22:59. ↩︎
E. E. Cummings, "Seeker of Truth," in Thomas McCavour, Poems & Songs Old & New (Victoria: FriesenPress, 2020), 220. Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20201115224118/https://allpoetry.com/Seeker-Of-Truth-, accessed 15 Nov. 2020. ↩︎
As Joseph Goldstein wrote: "Because suffering of one kind or another usually piques my interest, I begin to investigate further: 'Is there something underneath this anger that I'm not seeing?'" See Joseph Goldstein, "Freeing the Mind," Insight Journal (Spring 1995), https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/freeing-the-mind/, accessed 14 Nov. 2020. ↩︎
Cf. SN 44:10. ↩︎
Cf. SN 12:15. ↩︎
