This podcast is offered by the San Francisco Zen Center on the web at www.sfzc.org. Our public programs are made possible by donations from people like you. So, good afternoon and happy to be here. What I'd like to do today is to introduce to you a particular collection of ancient discourses of the Buddha that has the very unglamorous title, The Book of Eights. And that title doesn't reveal how radical or revolutionary the teachings are in this particular collection. In fact, it's even kind of radical for Buddhism itself. The Book of Eights is a collection of suttas, sutras, in a larger collection called the Sutta Nipata. But this particular one, called the Book of Eights, is sometimes said to be by scholars to probably be the most ancient of the Buddhist sutras that survive.

[01:09]

And one of the reasons it's considered to be ancient is that it uses very archaic language. It's more archaic than the language in most of the early Pali suttas. Also, it's one of the only texts that are referred to within the Pali suttas themselves. They refer back to this particular collection. And other reasons as well. People think that it's quite early. One of the things that's very unusual about this text is that if you took a common textbook, kind of popular college textbook, Introduction to Buddhism, and learned what Buddhism is all about, Introduction to Buddhism, you would probably not find anything that you learned about Buddhism in this text. So there's no... Four Noble Truths. There's no Eightfold Path. There's no stages of awakening that they have in the classic tradition, four stages of awakening. There's no arhats. There's no emphasis on rebirth and getting off the cycles of rebirth.

[02:17]

There's no emphasis on meditation experiences, deep meditation, concentration experiences, transcendent experiences. There is no emphasis on transcendental realities, conditioned reality, unconditioned reality. Classical Buddhism is a very important part. And I can go on. There's no emphasis on the teaching of not-self, anatta. Some of you here seem very concerned with this teaching. I'm not quite sure why. But this particular teaching, as famous as it is in Buddhism, does not appear in this text. So then, does it qualify as a Buddhist text at all? No? Someone's shaking their head. No, it does not have Buddhism. So I translated this text into English, and the tentative, somewhat playful title is The Buddha's Teaching Before Buddhism. And my argument, it's a theory, is that this text is, in fact, quite old,

[03:25]

And the Buddha taught for 40 years and it belonged to a very early part of his teaching period before he systematized his teachings. It's assumed that you get enlightened like a Buddha and then boom, everything from then on comes pouring out. And you see it and then you know it and there's nothing more to learn. But my impression is that most teachers find that their teaching develops, they understand how to apply it over time, they systematize it, they organize it in different ways. And I suspect the Buddha was the same way. And as he went on in his career and started having disciples, the idea of how to organize his teachings so that people into the future could perpetuate it in a memorizing culture, that he had to come up with a way to memorize it for people. He systematized it. And so we have now these kind of classic teachings that we know of. But this early period, these teachings are not there. So if this is in fact... Buddhist teachings, some of you said no, then how could it be Buddhist teachings if all the things we assume is central to Buddhism are absent?

[04:35]

That's kind of an interesting topic. This Book of Eights is sometimes referred to as Proto-Mahayana. And some of the teachings that appear in Nagarjuna and other places are said to kind of have echoes or resonance to what appears in this early text. One of the reasons, one of the primary reasons for this, is that this early text seems to champion the value of having no views at all. And Nagarjuna, some people interpret Nagarjuna to say the same thing. So that's one reason why this, you know, as Buddhism developed, it developed views, points of view, teachings, and here the early text wanted to take away all views, or seemingly. They emphasized not being clinging to any kind of view at all. One of the things also this text is not interested in or discourages people to organize their life this way is to be concerned with ultimate truth or ultimate knowledge.

[05:41]

That's the ultimate thing you can know, the truth, reality, something you can know in some ultimate clear way. So that's kind of interesting for Buddhists who think that Buddhism has some corner on the market of ultimate truth. The other is that it says that the teachings that are being offered in this text are not being offered in opposition to any other religious teachings. They're not offered in contrast or in opposition or said to be better than anything else. So what kind of teaching can you offer, religious teaching, can you offer where there's not that comparison, where it's often independent of other people's views? That's another interesting question from this early text. So if you go through this text and read it carefully, what you find is four primary themes. The first theme is not to cling to sensual desires.

[06:48]

If you read the text carefully, it doesn't seem to say don't cling to sensual pleasures. it says don't cling to sensual desire. Though it's a little bit ambiguous because the word for sensual pleasure and sensual desire is the same word. So you should probably mistrust someone who says one way or the other. But my reading of it, it says it's sensual desire that you don't want to cling to. The word is kama. And some of you know the Kama Sutra. But Buddhism has a Kama Sutra too. If you know the Kama Sutra, the classic Indian text on sexual education, it's really big. The Buddhist one, called the Kama Sutta, the Pali word for Sutra Sutta, is very short. I think it's like five verses. Because I guess there's a lot to learn if you're going to get into erotica. But if you want the opposite message, which is don't cling to it, you can say that very quickly.

[07:54]

And so the Buddhist Kama Sutta says don't cling to any kind of sensual desire. That includes more than just sensual desire, but all kinds of experiences in life. So there are 16 sutras in this collection, the Book of Eights, and one of the primary themes is don't cling to any kind of sensual pleasure, sensual desire. The second theme is don't cling to any views. whatsoever. And this gets repeated over and over again. They talk about how if you have views, if you cling to views, you cause all kinds of problems. If your views, your religious understanding, your knowledge, philosophy, brings you any kind of peace, the text says it's an unstable peace. It lends itself to quarreling with other people. I have my view, you have your view, and so we're going to be in opposition with each other. And it talks a lot about the difficulties of people who cling to their views.

[08:59]

And apparently back then it was a debate culture a lot in time of the Buddha. So people were often meeting for debates. And so big assemblies to debate. And so if you're clinging to your views and debating your views, you'll get elated if the judges, apparently there were judges who judged who was the best debater or something. And you get elated if you get praised. and you get depressed if you get criticized when you lose the debate. And so if you replay this world of views, that's one of the problems that might arise. So these 16 sutras, discourses, emphasize don't cling to views, because if you do, you'll get yourself into this quagmire of problems that arise. The other major theme of the four is the sage. And the ideal person in this text is primarily often called the sage, or actually the most common... And the idea of this text is to become this kind of person.

[10:00]

So the idea is not to have a view, not to have a philosophy of a religion, but become a particular kind of person. And I like to... I don't know if this is a good term, but I like to think of this text as championing a kind of spiritual individualism. And perhaps it's a dangerous word to use in such an addictively individualistic culture as the United States, but it's spiritual individualism in that the focus of the text is a particular kind of change in the individual, so the individual changes and becomes something else, becomes a different kind of person, has some kind of change within them, maturation or something. It's not about understanding the truth. It's not about a philosophy of life. but rather it's about a change that an individual can go through. And that person who goes through that change or matures in this kind of way, the most common way the person is referred to is a Muni. And the Buddha was called Shakyamuni.

[11:01]

Shakyamuni was a tribe the Buddha lived in, and Muni means something like a sage. Sometimes it's translated into English as an ascetic, sometimes as a seer, as a wise person. Exactly how it is, we don't know. But this person is a muni. The second most common term for the ideal person in this text is a kusolo. A kusolo comes from the word kusola, which means skillful or proficient. It's someone who's developed a certain skill, a certain proficiency. Some of you in the Mahayana know about kusolo upaya, So kusulopaya means skillful means. And sometimes the word kusula in translations is translated as wholesome. So you've seen that if you read some of the ancient texts, it translates into English as wholesome. But the better translation is skill because it's a kind of skill that a carpenter would have, a potter would have, different people have different crafts, would have a skill and would have developed that skill.

[12:14]

These early traditions of Buddhism emphasizes the importance of a person developing skill, the skills needed for becoming a Muni, becoming this kind of more developed person or change in a certain kind of way. The third most common way of referring to this person are a series of words that could mean a wise person, a knowing person, a sage. This is in contrast to the later, seemingly later, Buddhist texts that refer to the ideal person as an arhat. And it's interesting that the word arhat means a worthy person. And it's said to be someone who's worthy of offerings, worthy of respect. And here, by referring to the ideal person as an arhat, you're referring to who that person is in relationship to other people. The earliest tradition...

[13:16]

refers to the ideal person, not in relation to other people, but rather by being a wise person, a skilled person, by the qualities that that person has in and of herself or himself. So what are the qualities that a skillful person has? What is it that the wise person, the muni, what is it? The most common description or attribute... of the Muni, of the sage in this text, is someone who is peaceful, who has attained peace. And over and over again, that's the emphasis, someone who attains peace. There is something to be attained, and what's to be attained is peace, to be peaceful. Or to be tranquil or calm, such things. And the way to become such a person is to let go. And let go of what? Oh, before I go into that.

[14:23]

So someone who realizes not clinging, the inner peace that's realized through not clinging, is said to be a person who does not get into any disputes. So it has no reason to be in religious arguments about views and what's right and wrong. Because the goal here is to be peaceful and not clinging. It isn't to be right. The goal is to be peaceful, not necessarily to be someone who is in contrast to other people's views and points of view. And so once you've done the work of becoming peaceful, it doesn't matter what other people believe for you. You know, they can believe what they want. And why would you get, if you've managed to let go of what you cling to, Why would you pick something up again in order to argue? So that's one of the things it says. The person who has attained peace will not get into any disputes.

[15:24]

Being at peace and having overcome craving, sages are independent in knowing the Dharma. And this is a very important concept in the early tradition, I think in much of Buddhism, the idea of becoming independent in the Dharma, meaning somehow you... understand or see or realize something where you can now know the Dharma for yourself independent of anything else. You know. So what is it you can know reliably so you're independent in the Dharma? Is it a set of beliefs, a set of doctrines? According to this early text, it's not that, but rather what you know is the peace that comes from letting go of clinging. And if you know that inside and out, if you know how not clinging leads to peace, and you know how to do that work, if you're proficient, if you're skillful, and this is important that you have the skill to let go, the skill of not clinging, then you're independent in the Dharma.

[16:33]

So a sage... does not depend on anything. These are kind of more or less quotes, the verses from this text. The sage does not depend on anything or take anything up. They have attained peace by having let go of arrogance. They've let go of attachment to possessions. They've let go of clinging. They've let go of desire for sensual pleasure. They've let go of sorrow. Can you let go of sorrow? No? Try. If you're skillful, I guess you can. Let go of entanglement to doctrines. Let go of grasping. Let go of conceit. They have let go of illusion. They have shaken off every view. They're unconcerned with sensual pleasure. They have laid down their burden. Because all clinging interferes with peace, they have let go of what is blameless and what is wholesome.

[17:51]

This is interesting, huh? So even things that are good to do, blameless and wholesome, skillful, such things as virtuous conduct and religious practices. Finally. Finally. Now you learn. You're supposed to let go of these religious practices. No, you're not supposed to let go of virtue and religious practice. But what this text is saying, you let go of clinging to it. Religious practices have a certain role and importance. Virtue has a role. But if you cling to it, you won't attain the peace. So... So I said there's four themes in this text. There is don't cling to sensual pleasure. It's a big one. Don't cling to views is a big one. And in fact, don't cling to anything. And then being a sage, what a sage is like, description of a sage or the ideal person is described as someone who's at peace, calm, tranquil, unruffled.

[19:00]

And then the third theme has to do with the training of that a person would undertake to become such a person. So before I go into the training, the ideal, the goal or the purpose of this kind of training is described in very human terms. Becoming a peaceful, calm, settled person is very human. We can all relate to it a little bit, can't we? Even if you can never, you know, you can't do it well, I mean... Hopefully you've had some little taste of that and you kind of can imagine what it is. But if I say the purpose of meditation is to attain the unconditioned, the transcendent, the selfless, I mean, some people are going to scratch their head. You know, what's that? You know, and so then we have to go into these long discourses to explain, you know, the inner meaning of the unconditioned or, you know, or here at Zen Center there's, you know, wonderful descriptions. I'm very delighted by them, but...

[20:03]

You hear descriptions like the oneness of practice and realization. You know, it's great. We'll get back to that in a moment. But it's a great thing. But not a few new people come to Zen Center and hear that and they scratch their head. And that's why we have a tanto. Then you can go to a tanto and ask. Explain what this is. And... So here, but here, the point is that the goal is not described metaphysically or in abstract ways, but in very ordinary human ways, peace, calm, such things like that. So the training, the text describes the training to become such a person. And what's interesting is that the training, the goal is to be peaceful. The training to become peaceful is to be peaceful. the goal is reflected in the means. The means is not separate from the goal.

[21:07]

It's a little different maybe angle from the oneness of practice and realization. It's a similar kind of idea where the practice itself is not separate from the goal. If you're going to be generous, if you want to become a generous person, start being generous. If you want to become a calm person, start Practicing calm, being a little bit calmer. Don't, you know, take an extra cup of coffee or something. You know, so the idea is... Some of us might have some problems with that kind of idea. Make yourself into a calm, peaceful person. It seems kind of very artificial. But the advantage of that kind of emphasis is it's very ordinary. It's an ordinary thing to do. And we do that in ordinary life as well. If you go into a funeral... if you're really hyped up, chances are you'll calm down. You probably control yourself a little bit. It's not a strange thing. Or if you go into a kindergarten, when my kid was in kindergarten, you know, no matter how much I was running around like a chicken with a head, when I walked into the kindergarten, I usually calmed down and, you know, entered a different state of mind.

[22:17]

So the emphasis on training is to somehow have the training reflect the goal. I think that's interesting. And there's other things it says like that, but those are the four overarching themes of this text. So with that, what I'd like to do is to pass out one of the 16 sutras that is in this text. And so we can read through it. Maybe with the introduction I gave, maybe it'll have a little bit more meaning or come a little bit more alive for you. We'll talk about it a little bit, and then I can take questions and hear what you think about this. Does that seem okay? So if you could pass those out. Some decade. Some decade. I finished a draft.

[23:23]

So now it's polishing it. I'm writing every introduction. Maybe it could be Buddha's teachings before Buddhism. Yeah, that's all I have. Yes. Sorry? A chin? Chant it. No. So the first verse, having views about what is highest, a person makes these the best in the world and calls all other views inferior. As such, they, that person, have not gone beyond quarreling. So the claim here is that as soon as you claim that your particular teachings, views,

[24:25]

is the best in the world, the highest in the world, the rightest in the world, you're immediately setting up others as being inferior or being less than. And so there's a comparison being made. Anytime you say better, it implies there's worse. And so once you start down that road, then you're going to get involved in disputes and quarreling. That's a statement. You don't have to agree with this, but that's the point in the first verse. And if you're quarreling, you're not going to be peaceful. The point is not to be right. The point is to be peaceful. When one sees personal advantage in things seen, heard, and thought out, or in precepts and religious observances, and then grasps at these, one will see all else as inferior. So... Many people think that, well, the point is to see or to think out the truth.

[25:29]

To hear means to learn from other people. They didn't have books back then, so there's only oral teachings. But to see, people like to see a lot. Then you see for yourself. But this early tradition... actually makes seeing the truth, the so-called truth, a problem. It doesn't really, it's not really interested in seeing the truth. Like, so you see, that's how, what true reality is. What is interest, because if you grasp that, then you're in trouble. It's interested in something very different. It's not interested in philosophical, metaphysical, religious truth. It's interested in in not clinging. That's all. So you can live peacefully, so you don't suffer. And it's almost like it's two different areas of life that get confused.

[26:37]

People think, maybe, that religious views are somehow going to be the medicine for the illness. But the illness is not solved by views or understanding or seeing something. It's much simpler. It's simply by letting go, not clinging. The simplest formulation of the Four Noble Truths or a simple formulation that I like goes like this. If you cling, you will suffer. If you let go of that clinging, that suffering will go away, will cease. If you cling, you will suffer. And the reason the four noble truths can say that so definitively is that clinging itself is suffering. Someone brought up the issue yesterday of, you know, can I go through the world and not hold on to the different thorns?

[27:45]

But it isn't the world that has thorns. The only thorn that the Buddha recognizes is the clinging itself. So if you cling, you will suffer. If you let go of that clinging, that suffering will cease. So if one sees personal advantage in things seen, heard, or thought out, or in precepts and religious observances, and then grasps at these, that also sets one up. seemingly according to this text, to look at all other things seen, what other people see or teach or do as being inferior. And this idea of personal advantage, you know, that's interesting, I think it's provocative, you know. How often do we latch on to religious and even political viewpoints, not because they're necessarily true, but because we see advantage for ourselves in it. What one relies on to see all else as inferior is a not, say those who are skilled.

[28:55]

So you see here the ideal person is called someone who has a skill. And that person who has skill, those people say that whatever it is you depend on, so you can say that other teachings are inferior, that which you depend on is an entanglement, is a not. You're knotted up, you're entangled, you're caught in some way. A monastic should therefore not depend on things seen, heard, or thought out, or on precepts and religious observances. So isn't this kind of a little bit of a radical teaching? For me, this kind of teaching is kind of radical in contrast to other places in Buddhism. where it seems that they're often emphasizing the importance of precepts and relying on them and religious practices. Nor should they make up views in the world by means of knowledge, precepts, and religious observances.

[30:04]

So don't make up any views based on doing these things. Knowledge, I don't know exactly what they mean by knowledge, but Many people want to kind of understand, have knowledge, have insight, see something so they can have a view of how things are. It says don't do that. And the next line is missing a not. And they should not think of themselves as inferior or superior to others. And they should not make themselves equal. Some of you know already, but for those of you who don't, there's a very interesting... definition of what it means to be conceited in Buddhism. And there's three kinds of conceit. There's what we think of conceit, I think, which is conceit is when you think you're better than someone else, superior. There's a different kind of conceit when you take yourself to be inferior, less than, poor me. Some people who are really kind of feel poor me. I don't count for anything.

[31:06]

I'm just a little miserly, a little poor person. There's a lot of conceit in that. oddly enough. But the third kind of conceit is to see yourself as equal to others. What's left? What's left, right? Who wants to say what's left? What other option do you have? What? You can't look at yourself at all. Don't look at yourself. Don't play the game. Don't get involved in comparisons of any kind. Four, higher, lower, equal. You don't need it. You can just be. So here it's kind of pointing to this. Letting go of what is grasped, the person free of clinging doesn't depend on knowledge or follow dissenting factions or fall back on any kind of you.

[32:06]

I think this is also pretty radical. It's very radical in the world of religions, all kinds of religions, where these are held up as being so important. For those who are not inclined to either side of becoming or non-becoming, these are technical Buddhist terms, becoming and non-becoming, or here or the next world. So the ideal person is not concerned with rebirth, not concerned with with the whole game, the whole idea, which in later Buddhism became very important. The idea of getting off the wheel of rebirth was so important. Or many Buddhists were interested in how they're going to be reborn. The whole bodhisattva ideal, classically in Buddhism, was dependent on the notion of rebirth. There would be no bodhisattva ideal without believing in rebirth, classically. But here, this early, early tradition seems to just kind of

[33:09]

repeatedly, this early collection of texts, say forget about that. If you're an ideal person, if you kind of found your peace, you're not going to be interested in future lives, rebirth, becoming, non-becoming. How are you? What kind of person are you going to be? What are you going to be interested in? What's left? There then exists nothing to get entrenched in when considering the doctrines others grasp. So if others grasp on doctrines, others are attached to their points of view, the person at peace sees no reason to jump in and get involved. Let them think what they want. Here, they have no preconceived perceptions, concepts, in regard to what is seen, heard, or thought out. How in this world could one categorize the Brahman who does not take hold of views.

[34:12]

In this ancient Buddhist tradition, a person was categorized or measured or understood or labeled by the views they held onto, by what they were grasping. That's what defined you. You're defined by what you grasp onto. And if you're not grasping to anything, then you can't be defined. So you might think about that for a while. And... So it says here, how in this world would you categorize the Brahman who does not take hold of use? They, that Brahman, those Brahmins, do not construct, prefer, or take up any doctrines. A Brahman not led by precepts or religious observances who has gone beyond, who is thus, does not rely on belief And the word thus is tatha.

[35:15]

And some of you, this is a word, a concept that is picked up again in the Mahayana as being very important, the idea of thusness, the experience of being thus. But here, it's not that the world is thus, exactly, but here it says the ideal person is someone who is thus. And that's a wonderfully vague statement. If a person is categorized by what they hold on to or what they cling to, the person who doesn't cling to anything, how do you describe that person? And so this early tradition just says the person is thus. It's like thus. And so the Buddha, the most common way that he referred to himself, he didn't call himself Buddha. He called himself, he called him one who is thus. or the thus gone one. The literal is thus gone one or thus come one, but it's probably more accurately to translate the one who is thus.

[36:22]

Suchness. So to be such, to be at peace, independent of views, independent of depending on anything whatsoever, to have clinging and non-clinging as the reference point, makes the religious life a lot easier, a lot more straightforward than a lot of other things that could be as you go through the history of Abhidharma, Pajnaparamita, all the different kinds of emptiness, on and on. All are very wise and well-developed thoughts in Buddhism, but they all trace themselves back or all are meant to be elaboration of this very simple early original emphasis in Buddhism was the value of not clinging and finding your peace. So what do you think of that? What would you like to say? Any questions, protests, any disputes?

[37:30]

Yes, please. I was wondering, did the sutra talk about this not clinging or clinging causing suffering? Does the sutra say that we as individuals need to realize that this cleaning causes suffering, or should we have the logical understanding that cleaning causes suffering, or take away the piece of money, then we should stop cleaning, or...? Yeah, so maybe... Let me... So there's two attributes, two primary attributes of the sage, of this ideal person. One is the person's at peace, and similar kind of concepts as peace. Tranquil, still, unmoving, unshakable, equanimous, and such things.

[38:32]

Peaceful. The second thing is that they do have an ability to know and see. They see something. And so the question is, what are they seeing? And I said earlier that it doesn't seem to be emphasizing seeing something that can be called knowledge or understanding or seeing the true nature of reality exactly. And so maybe the usual way we understand that. But this is what the text says about what the sage knows and sees. The text describes two things into which they have insight. The first, they understand various ways by which people struggle. They know what is non-harmonious. They know what is dangerous. They know what it is to be dependent. They know the nature of conventional opinions. They know the nature of pride. They see how selfish people thrash about.

[39:35]

They see how people get elated and deflated in their disputes. They see how people speak with arrogance and pride. they see how people cling to teachings. But having insight into these things, the wise person knows not to get involved in them, knows not to let go. So here, the first of the two major things that the sage has insight into is the nature of the problem, how people cling, the problems that come from clinging. So, you see the illness. By seeing the problem, you know not to get involved. You know the danger. You know the difficulties there. And a sage, the person who's skillful, the person who's wise, is a wise about the difficulties, about the hindrances, about the problems that arise. So we're not leapfrogging over. We're not doing a spiritual bypass to leap over the work of self-understanding or understanding human behavior.

[40:43]

we need to become wise and see clearly how the mind works to see how it gets into trouble in these ways. So that's the first aspect of the sage. The second thing the sage sees, knows and sees, is an inner peace realized through not clinging. Seeing this peace can then help a person know not to get into disputes. Being at peace and having overcome craving, sages become independent in knowing the Dharma. So two things to be seen. To see the problem and to see peace. That's all it says in the text. Did that answer your question in the back? I forget what the question was. Yeah, just where the question had come up was the idea of seeing. So it's of whether... Was the suture just telling us, okay, now go forth and don't cling, or what kind of question, you know, what stops you from putting on a piece of money?

[42:01]

Yeah, the idea is to go understand what that is. So a wise person, someone who has developed these skills, has really seen deeply into how delusion, clinging, Grasping operates. So it requires, and that's bad news. Because the bad news about that is that you have to take the time to see what goes on, as opposed to leapfrogging over it and ignoring it somehow. So it takes a lot of self-understanding. Yes? Yes? It seems implicit in this text that we've read is no separation. No separation means what? Well, in the sense of you're not making a distinction between highest and lowest, better or worse, and maybe, I don't know where not, yeah, or even equal, that there's a sense of separation.

[43:05]

So I'm wondering where there's a sense of dependent polarizing. Do you see any of that? No separation in this text? I'm not sure what you mean by no separation. The, what? I don't think it's so interesting for this text. It gets a little bit too, it gets very quickly complicated. Just don't cling, and you don't cling, and then you let it be what it is. But you do find other places in the sutras, in these early suttas. where they clearly don't want to define yourself as being separate from things or not separate from things. Both those are problematic. So what's the alternative? And one alternative is just to be thus. Yes? I get the feeling that only the sage can do this. I think that that's the point of the training.

[44:09]

The training is to... See, the only sage can do it well and completely, but what's being asked to do is a pretty human thing to do. It's pretty human. It's humanly understandable to be calm. It's humanly understandable not to cling and grasp to certain things. And I trust that all of you have had some experience in your life of seeing that you're clinging to something and realizing you don't need to, you can let go of that. I mean, it can be as simple as, you know, standing in line at the meal line here. And there's a little bit too many people in line ahead of you for there to be enough cookies at the end when it's your turn. And you can feel the impatience. You can feel the desire arise. And you can see that in the ethos of Tassahara, it's not appropriate to cut in front of the line so you can get the cookie. So you realize how agitated you are, and so you say, you know, this is not worth it.

[45:12]

So you let go. You let go of the cookie. I don't know if that was too difficult of an example, but I hope that all of you have some example of having let go of something. And this is what I was trying to say yesterday, is that my understanding of this early Buddhist tradition is that it's pointing out how to do something very ordinary, but then it's emphasizing you can do it in extraordinary ways. You can apply it to the full depth and breadth of your life. And that's what's unique about the sage, is how much they've applied it and done it. I don't think it's hard to understand doing it. And so in small ways, you're already a sage. And the idea is to expand out and do it better and better. A little sage. Sure. as opposed to black and white. It's not all or nothing. It's not something that seems so foreign, esoteric. It's something that's kind of ordinary.

[46:14]

In fact, some people might say that the lesson in this text is not really religion. It's therapy. You know, that's a criticism some people can make. Yes, you had Linda. I was just going to say, kind of tying it back to a question yesterday about what the was the value of being so tired of working. I think it was my first summer, and it was late in the summer, and I was very tired and very hot. And I have no idea what it was, but someone did something that would, under ordinary circumstances, would just really irritated me. And the little quicker of a thought arose, like, I just can't do this, right? And I didn't. It was like, I mean, it wasn't even a fully formed thought, but it's like, It's too much effort to go there. And at that point, I realized that there was some quality of choice of going to irritation or not. And that was really a transforming moment about my reaction.

[47:20]

Beautiful. So the moment of choice, I don't know if you heard in the back, but Linda said that because she was tired, but also mindful enough, she could see she had a moment of choice. get irritated or not, and she didn't have the energy. She was too tired to get irritated, so she let go. Her choice was to let go and not do it. And one of the functions of mindfulness practice is to place us squarely in the seat or in the location where we see we have choice. And then to act on that choice. And to act on the choice of not, for example, not get involved. Don't go there. Don't pick that up. With this kind of practice, how does one, uh, prevent oneself from sort of floating into nihilism? For example, if you sort of don't care. Yeah, so how do you float, how does it keep you from nihilism when you don't care?

[48:22]

Well, I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. So, okay, so nothing really, nothing's higher or lower, and, uh, I'm not going to be competitive, and, um, I don't have views, and I'm not clinging. So I'm just kind of floating in this, I don't know, I could be a brain in Nevada nutrients. Yes, I think that if you... Do you know what I'm saying? Yes, but I think the assumption here is that you want to become free of suffering. You have the sensitivity. And if you're sensitive or mindful, sensitive to... kind of just drifting off and being nihilistic, that there's suffering involved in that. If you just come place and you drift along, you're not really going to be deeply at peace and happy. How will I know? If you pay attention, you'll know. If you don't pay attention, then it's hopeless.

[49:23]

It's up to you. You have to pay enough attention to know if you're spaced out. Yes. Okay. And sooner or later, most people, if you hang around in places like this, sooner or later, you will realize that this being spaced out and kind of just drifting doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense to keep doing it. Follow-up? Yeah. And so even compassion, I don't see where... Even compassion is not a... big deal here. In fact, it doesn't seem to come in at all. Yes, so compassion doesn't seem to come in at all in this early text. Should we be worried? Should we be worried? I don't know. Please, Eddie. I just wanted to ask if you're not clinging, but are you engaged as you go along?

[50:27]

What's going to keep you from being engaged? Nothing. And clinging is just something that might happen while you're living. So you can cling to non-engagement, which some people do, or you can cling to being engaged, but the person who has no clinging then is available to respond to what's needed at the moment. There's no inhibition to respond to what's needed. but there's no need to respond either. But, you know, I think... So, you know, one way of looking at this, which maybe is not accurate, maybe it doesn't represent the text well, but it's meaningful for me, is that it can be seen as involving a very radical trust to not claim... to trust that it's worthwhile not to cling to anything. And one of the interesting exercises to do is to start with a statement.

[51:36]

Buddha made a statement. He said, nothing whatsoever is worth clinging to. That's a very powerful statement. Nothing whatsoever is worth clinging to. So take that statement and argue with it. Argue with it. Come up with really good arguments... you're not going to die also, then it's worth it. So I think that... I think that the only way to distinguish that is that there's a difference between physical holding on and the mental clinging of the heart and the mind. And it's possible... I've had small kids, and it's quite remarkable. I've seen there's a difference between... the bonding impulse and the impulse of clinging. One seems more physiological as a parent, and the other seems more neurotic.

[52:38]

And I know both. Yes? I have two things. One thing is it's very hard for me to, if I tell myself, don't claim, or don't do something. If I don't have some kind of replacement activity for my mind to do instead, like, okay, well, sometimes I'm trying to not clean. Instead of telling myself to not clean, I tell myself to try to be open or to, like, let it be or like stop controlling or something. I guess that's also a negative thing. But yeah, I'm wondering if you could kind of speak to that of like how do we, especially in relations with other people?

[53:42]

Yes, it's a very good question. It's a very important question because it's very easy to hear teachings like this and try to leapfrog over. to become someone who doesn't cling, doesn't hold on to anything, without doing the more important work, maybe the preliminary work, the essential work, of understanding your clinging. So I think it's better not to get to non-clinging too fast. Don't do it as fast as you can, but rather study your clinging, get to know it, understand it well. And if you understand your clinging well, it'll let go of itself. You don't have to do it for you. So maybe that's the last one. We're just about read it. It seems to me, especially in view of what you just said, that the suggestions here, essentially with regard to precepts, it's using precepts, I think, in a different way than I understand them today, which

[54:49]

precepts and the foreign nations as I had participated in learning them, or becoming familiar with them, are a process of letting go, of not quitting. And becoming aware, as you just mentioned, becoming familiar with and Because I find in my clinging, especially to psychological states, there are some that I've been aware of most of my life, most of my adult life, I'll say that. And it still is hard work. Yes. It maybe sometimes seems harder because I've been doing it so long, it should be over now. You know, I should no longer be clinging to this particular psychological thing. But that's why the precepts and the paramitas and the things that have come down since just have been a template or templates for reaching this sage state.

[56:03]

Rather than saying this is something that we should take up and not be worried about precepts and paramitas or any of the teachings that have come down since this. I think it's beautiful what you said. I appreciate it a lot. And I think this text doesn't say don't be involved in precepts and religious practices. It says don't cling to them. And so if you're using these religious practices and precepts as an aid, as support, as a guideline not to cling, you'll go really far. And it's not easy. I mean, it's easy. This text maybe sounds easy. It's kind of like... But this is a lifetime of work to really do this. But at least in this early tradition, they believe you can do it and that it's worthwhile to do. So, I hope that worked okay, didn't confuse you.

[57:08]

And if it irritated you, I hope it irritated you in the right way. There's a challenge to you in a nice way. And I'd be very happy some other time to continue the discussion. I find it very, this whole early text, kind of the simplicity or the directness of it, the radical of it, continually kind of challenging for me and raises a lot of questions for me as I engage in my practice. And I find it inspiring. So the Book of Eights. Thank you. For more information, visit sfzc.org and click Giving.

[58:14]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_90.74