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 about three or four years ago, I was at a small academic symposium. of maybe about 20 scholars to talk about something to Buddhism. And there was a little bit of friction between some of the things I was saying and another scholar was saying. And in one of the breaks, a friend of mine who was there explained the difference between the two of us. And she taught me a category or classification of people that I'd never heard before. But when she found out I didn't know it, she was like, what planet do you come from?

[01:00]

So I didn't know. So, you know, I'm a latecomer to this idea. I don't know if some of you know this already. And that is the difference between lumpers and splitters. And for those of you who don't know, as I understand it, lumpers are people who generalize, kind of see everything kind of together, like, you know, generalize or everything's the same or some categories it is. And splitters see the differences and focus on differences. And so in this symposium, I'm the splitter. And the other person is a lumper. And that's where the tension arose. So that's been kind of my approach. So I made the distinction that some people have between a lumper and a splitter. And I'm a splitter. So when I go back and look at the suttas, the early Theravadan literature, I tend to go look and say, very carefully what does it actually say and what the difference is and if someone makes a general statement I'll dive in and see does it really say that and kind of tease it apart and more often than not it doesn't say that it's because the Buddha didn't usually generalize he was often very specific and so I'd like to believe that being a splitter it's actually you know I could better get into these texts than a lump or can anyway

[02:26]

So, there is a particular teaching that the Buddha gave that's very famous and which actually has a history probably in all Buddhist schools. And if you go and look at how this teaching specifically is used in the teachings of the Buddha, his palisuttas, this is what it's used for. A number of things. One of the things it's used for is to explain human conflict. I'll give you the things, and then I'm going to ask you if you can guess what this principle is, this famous principle. So the first is used to explain human conflict. The second is that it's used to explain, offer an alternative to these three ideas. That everything you experience is because of the gods.

[03:28]

The gods are in charge. The gods organize everything and predetermine things, and it's up to the gods what you experience. And so probably if you want to get good things, you should spend a lot of time doing sacrifices to the gods. So that's one idea. The second idea is that there's no cause and condition for why you experience what you do. It's just random, it just happens as it does. Life is just one continual roll of the dice and you get whatever. The third idea is that what you're experiencing is something that was caused in the past. All three of these ideas, the Buddha was not happy with. And he specifically said why. That these three ideas, in his point of view, would not encourage someone to practice. Because the idea that it's all over the gods, why would you do practice?

[04:33]

Because, you know, they're not going to do any good because the gods are decided. If there's no reason for anything, no causes and conditions, why do anything? Because it's not going to make any difference. And if what you experience is all because and what was caused in the past, inevitably there's no way of getting around it. Then also, why do you do anything? Because... You just have to live out the causes in the past. That was the argument he made. So then he offered this principle as an alternative to this. Another this principle was used for was the idea that there is an eternal abiding consciousness that continues beyond this particular lifetime. This was a very important idea in ancient India In fact, the Upanishads, the earlier religious tradition of India, posited that the ultimate experience is to experience some kind of undifferentiated pure consciousness, where it's so undifferentiated, there's no differentiation.

[05:37]

Someone brought up the idea of non-duality yesterday, where there's no subject and object. And in fact, it's so thoroughly undifferentiated consciousness with no, that it cannot perceive itself. cannot perceive anything, just this. And so the Buddha wasn't figuratively happy with this, wasn't really a champion of this teaching either, so he offered this principle as an alternative. He also wasn't happy with a related teaching to this pure consciousness, the idea that there was an eternal and abiding self, or like a soul. Probably soul is probably a closer English term to the word Atman than self. If you use self, then we have so many different meanings of self that it gets confusing. And especially in this modern, you know, post-Freudian world that we live in, you know, the self has so many meanings, it means so much.

[06:40]

But in the ancient world, it probably is closer to our idea of soul, though it's not a personal soul. And it's not something that sets your personal destiny. It's kind of, again, it's undifferentiated. It's more like an essence. It's there in all things and in yourself that really has no characteristics. And so the Buddha wasn't particularly in favor of this idea of a permanent abiding self or soul. So you offer this principle as an alternative. He also was not particularly interested in people's suffering. And so he offered this, and suffering is complicated. And it's, you know, many people suffer and many people look into their suffering. It's just a complicated tangle of, you know, complicated phenomena. Many people can't tease apart, untangle it all to see what's really going on.

[07:43]

It's just a mess. And so the Buddha offered a principle to help us do that untangling. So what's the principle? Non-self. Non-self. Interdependent origination. Interdependent origination. Interdependent co-orising. Mindfulness. Mindfulness is not really a principle. It's more of a practice, right? What? Karma. Maybe that could be a principle or a real thing, depending on how you understand it. The rest of you have no clue. Cause and effect. Okay. Dharma.

[08:44]

Dharma. Sorry? And permanence. And permanence. It's nice. And dharma's a little bit vague. Yeah. Yes? Can I know a word for this? Find out for yourself. Oh, a principle of find out for yourself. Well, that's great. I love that. Now we just go home now. That's all we need. Thank you. So I like that the answer is not impermanence, whoever said that, but the principle is dependent on the idea of impermanence. Because in Buddhism, in the early tradition, there's an understanding of the thoroughness of inconstancy, of change, of impermanence in our experience.

[09:46]

But the impermanent world that we live in is not random. It is not chaotic. It follows certain principles. And this is the principle some of you mentioned, dependent arising, independent co-arising, interdependent origination. The principle has different titles in English. But this is the idea that things occur depending on the presence of supporting conditions. And if those supporting conditions are not there, then the thing that depends on it can't occur as well. And so the supporting conditions that we have affect what arises, what occurs, the direction things go. And in the early Buddhist tradition, a big part... of what that practice was about, was not about causing spiritual growth, not by causing any personal change, because there can be a lot of self involved in that, kind of being the agent of change and I'm going to do it, but rather it was putting in place the conditions that would allow other things to occur.

[11:12]

And this principle of dependent arising was also the principle around how the Buddha described progress in the path to liberation. He did not describe it as cause, but he described it in terms of conditions. And so, I think I talked about this last year, that the way that the Buddhist path of liberation is described in this early tradition is more like the growth of a farmer growing plants than it is a crafts person kind of making some object. So we're cultivating certain things. A farmer doesn't cause plants to grow. The farmer creates the conditions in which it could grow. And so we're creating the conditions where something within us can grow and evolve and develop. But we have to be careful what conditions we put in place.

[12:14]

If we spend a lot of time talking to people who are angry and bitter and hostile, we might start to be taking in those qualities. If we spend a lot of time in an environment that is not necessarily good for us, it can begin affecting who we are. I'll give you one example of this for myself, a small little example. In the late 80s and early 90s, I'd been given an old Toyota Celica. So it was kind of a little sporty. It was red. By that time, it was 14 years old. And now I was 16 years old. And I used to drive down near Les' area in Palo Alto. Before that, I lived in San Francisco. And I drove that old Celica around San Francisco. I was completely content with it. It didn't occur to me that it should be any different. But then I started driving around Palo Alto.

[13:19]

And even back then, the number of old cars in Palo Alto was very, very small. And I could watch a rise in my mind that thought, I should get a newer car. The conditions that I was living in was affecting how I was thinking. So I could see it. It didn't really affect me that much. But it's kind of interesting to see, you know, the conditions that you're in can affect what you go, what happens to you. Some of you have decided to come live at Tassajara. That's a powerful conditioning atmosphere to be in. And I think partly we come here for that support. And it sets in motion a certain direction in our life that's very different than if you decide to go work at Wall Street. You know, that's going to probably, you know, take you in a different direction in your life and different, you know, conditions for you. So in the early tradition, putting in place conditions, and then the path of practice, as it unfolded, was described kind of like a plant growing.

[14:22]

Another example, metaphor the Buddha used, was water flowing down the hill, down the mountain. The rain comes and falls on the mountain. The drops, you know, roll down and meet each other. Little trickles meet and become little streamlets. The streams become streams. The streams become rivers, the rivers flow into lakes, the lakes overflow and flow down to the ocean. It's a natural process unless the water is blocked. And a big part of the spiritual practice in this early tradition is removing the dam, removing the blockages so that this thing can flow. Something in the later Buddhist tradition they might call Buddha nature, but the early tradition hadn't come up with that term yet, so they didn't talk about it that way. But there was this natural process of unfolding. And so a big part of practice was allowing this to occur. So the principle of dependent arising was used to describe the growth of practice.

[15:34]

So the basic principle of dependent arising is stated in two sentences. The first one is the essential principle of dependent arising. And the second one is the principle of dependent cessation, dependent seizing. And these two are very important to go together. The teaching of dependent arising goes this way. When this is, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises. So, with the growth of the flower comes, the growth of the plant comes to flower. With the maturing of the flower comes to seed. With the cessation of the plant, you know, before it flowers, there's no flower. So,

[16:37]

So, when this is, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, the principle of dependent seizing is when this is not, that is not. When this ceases, that ceases. So, it's a simple idea. That's the basic principle. Now, That principle gets applied, and this is where this talk gets dangerous in terms of putting you to sleep. So this principle gets applied in a very famous list of the 12-fold factors of dependent devising. And this is the 12 conditions that need to be in place that lead to suffering.

[17:40]

They're not the cause of suffering, but the conditions that lead into it. Now, one of the advantages of talking about conditions rather than causes is that there are more conditions for something than there are causes. So if you want to kind of change the conditions, you don't necessarily have to change only the cause, you can change other factors that are the conditions for it, the bigger area. So in this list of 12, a lot of these things are not causal, but they're conditions. And so if you somehow cease, bring to an end some of these conditions, then the suffering that they're explaining will go away. So I said that suffering is often a big tangle. The Buddha described suffering in that terms. a tangled ball of thread. But that the 12-fold principle of dependent arising, 12-fold factors, it lays out all the different conditions, sequentially, kind of, is supposed to help us tease it apart, to look into it more carefully.

[18:52]

And now, in the history of Buddhism, as I said earlier, probably every school of Buddhism has teachings on dependent arising. and has teachings on this 12 factors of dependent arising. But it's been 2,500 years of Buddhism. That's many years of people having a chance to do interpretations. And in fact, that's what's happened. There's a history of interpretations about dependent arising and these 12 factors. So I was not a particularly good student in the 1970s when I first came to Zen Center. But I'll tell you my, you know, maybe my inaccurate way of taking in the teachings I heard about these 12 factors of Penderizing at that time. Some of you were here, so I don't know, maybe you can agree or disagree. The way I heard it was this was supposed to explain everything.

[19:56]

That everything, it was a theory about reality. about existence. And it describes existence, that all of existence arises dependently on conditions, arises interdependently, co-arises, sometimes it's good that people can say, whatever it is, co-arises with everything else. And that's a kind of broad existential claim. And even the idea of the 12-fold link of dependence arising, I had in my mind that this was all supposed to explain reality. in my little mind. That's what I kind of thought. It never occurred to me to study it in detail, but that's kind of how I took it in. But the idea that dependent arising is a theory of everything is found also in Buddhist scholarship. That dependent arising explains how things in the world exist.

[20:59]

And it's very satisfying to some people to be lumpers. to get these broad, general kind of statements to be, oh, that's what reality is like. Because, you know, after all, religion is supposed to explain everything. You know, it's supposed to come, you know, certainly the big things, like the universe. It's, you know, it's good to get it. But when you're a splitter, and you go back to this early Buddhist tradition, try to understand what's going on there, the Buddha seemed to have no interest to really, in his really core teachings, to provide us with the theory of the universe, what reality is like. What he was trying to do was to explain our psychology. Not psychology in terms of post-Freudian psychology, but rather the working of perceptions, conceptions, how we see, how we understand, the conditions and the processes of the mind that come into play,

[22:05]

leading to suffering. And so he was not a scientist of the world. I don't even want to call him a scientist, but he was a student of how the mind works. And so when he talked about dependent arising, it was never about things in the world more generally. It was about specific things. So, for example, this principle of dependent arising that when this is, that comes to be, with the arising of this, that arises, all except for one place, whenever the Buddha uses that phrase, he follows it immediately by describing the 12-fold link, 12-fold factors of dependent arising, which are very specific. They're there to explain the last factor, which shorthand is said to be suffering, But in the longhand, it says, is old age, death, sorrow, limitation, despair, and one more good thing like that.

[23:19]

It's not meant to explain everything. It's meant to explain the cause and conditions of suffering. Excuse me. Yes. Excuse me. Yes. And so, in this... And then he's very specific about why he does this, to explain something, is to explain how there is consciousness that is not eternal. And he actually had a number of different lists, not just a 12-fold list, he had a 9-fold list, a 10-fold list, and the shorter lists have something very interesting in them. he says, as he does in the longer list, he says that with the presence, with the distinction, as the mind, as the mind makes the distinction between name and form, name and appearance, when we distinguish things by their appearance and by their name, he says this way, when there's consciousness, that's the condition for making the distinction between name and appearance, name and form.

[24:34]

But then in the shorter list, he also says that the distinction between name and appearance, name and form, is the condition for the rising of consciousness. So it's kind of like they go around each other, right? Why do you think he taught that? That name and form, this body and mind, is dependent on their being consciousness, and consciousness is dependent on their being, name and form, body and mind. Why do you think he emphasized that? Yes? Well, perhaps to suggest that consciousness is dependent on being informed and sort of see through the commonly held view that consciousness

[25:37]

or different interpretations of consciousness as eternal and sort of operative. Exactly. So when you see that consciousness is dependent on the body, name and form, the body comes and goes, it dies, then you can't posit a consciousness outside of the mind and body. So the idea that there's a permanent or abiding or transcendental consciousness was not something the Buddha posited. And one reason, one suggestion of why he didn't posit that is that he did not think it was helpful for the purposes of untangling clinging and suffering. And exactly why he thought that might be the case, maybe you can think about why. But for one thing, one reason is that it's very easy, I don't know, easy, if a person has an experience of kind of pure, undifferentiated consciousness.

[26:38]

Deep meditation is possible to have an experience where everything drops away except experience of vast, infinite consciousness that seems to have all the permanence you'd ever want. And in that experience, it's very easy to think, aha, this is it. I have it. And it's possible then to come out of that experience and still kind of in the background have kind of a maybe residual memory of that experience that again reminds you there's a permanence here of awareness of consciousness and as long as you have that idea and you think that's the resting place of the mind that's it then that gets in the way of being able to see that consciousness also arises and passes it comes and goes and this is the core insight that this early tradition is based on. The core insight is to see that things arise and pass, come and go.

[27:41]

And in fact, that's why dependent arising comes with the principle of dependent ceasing. Not only is a person supposed to see, understand, the 12-fold factors of dependent arising, they're also supposed to see how those cease. that they're not always there in the proper way. And these are all kind of subjective experiences we're having in the present moment. Nothing about the world out there, existence out there. The idea of dependence seizing is very important. And here's why. So people like Thich Nhat Hanh have profound teachings, wonderful teachings about all this. But he's in this school where he says, he really loves to point out that the world is interconnected. It's all interdependent, the world. And I feel that way too. It's an inspiring teaching. But it's not the teachings of the Buddha. It doesn't make it bad or wrong teaching at Thick Island, but it has a different purpose.

[28:44]

In this early tradition, the Buddha wouldn't talk about it that way because you have to see the dependence seizing and its cessation, not just the dependence arising. So, Paper depends on the existence of a tree, usually, right? Don't push there. Paper depends on a tree. But the tree's already gone, dead, ceased, before the paper's been made. So you can't say the paper, the tree rises, and therefore there can arise the paper, With the ceasing of the tree, there is the ceasing of the paper, the ending of the paper. It doesn't work because, you know, the tree's already gone. So that principle of the end and arising that the Buddha gave does not apply, is not relevant for these broad kind of ideas of interconnectedness that we have here in the world.

[29:50]

Thich Nhatu also often pick up a piece of paper in order to see the interconnected world. which is certainly a very useful exercise for other purposes. But what the Buddha was trying to do was to point to in the moment, not through reflection, not through imagination, see forests and people cut down the forest, is to see that things arise and pass. And any positing or holding on to consciousness as being permanent gets in the way of that. Same thing with the idea of self. Any sense, feeling, assumption of a self that has any semblance of permanence also gets in the way of seeing things come and go as you pass. So you don't want to get stuck. Those are the conditions of staying stuck. What the Buddha was looking for is what are the conditions that support us to get unstuck, to not cling, to not get caught, to not be attached.

[30:56]

And it's very hard to let go of our core attachments, our core clinging, clinging to self, clinging to life, clinging to, you know, there's deep things inside. And you can't just tell someone, you know, let go. You know, it's, you know, it's, they can't even, some people, it takes a long time to even find, discover that we're clinging inside. You know, you could, you know, I sat up here in the Zendo for a long time until I saw, only slowly, slowly, slowly, did I finally kind of say, look at that. Wow. Where I'm attached. But there's something about seeing that things come and go, arise and disappear, when we realize that it doesn't actually make sense. It's not very strategic. It doesn't really work to cling to something that's vanishing all the time. It doesn't really work to resist and try to stop something

[31:58]

that's going to arise anyway. So how do we follow the middle way? The middle way is to see that things arise and pass, come and go. And I'll end with the last principle, a reason, a purpose for the principle intended arising that the Buddha gave. And that was to offer the middle way between the idea that something, anything, the self, consciousness, anything at all, the world, exists permanently, or that it's going to end sometime and end finally and forever. The idea of eternalism and the idea of annihilationism. And what he offered as the alternative to that is the principle of dependent arising, independent Ceasing.

[33:00]

Things come and go. And then he went into detail and explained the 12 factors of dependent arising. So, dependent arising, to summarize, is used, this principle, to describe in one form or other human conflict. It's used to describe human suffering, how it comes into play, the conditions that bring it about. It's used to describe as an alternative to understand how there's no abiding permanent consciousness. It's used to, as an alternative to ideas of self. The Buddha never said that the self is dependently or innocent. He, instead of the self, analyzed or understood the world through dependent arising. And he used it as an alternative to certain beliefs that undermine people's interest in putting in place the conditions that support the growth of this wonderful plant that we have inside, the flowering of our liberation, our freedom, and our compassion.

[34:11]

And I think that it's very helpful, this idea, for people who take too much responsibility or too much blame for their situation. You don't have to be so responsible for what is. What is, is. But where we take responsibility is to put in place the conditions that allows something to unfold in the direction that we want it to unfold. So in the Buddhist tradition, for example, one of the core conditions to put in place is ethics, being ethical. It's very hard to let this Buddha nature flower, this thing, unfold if the conditions are lying and stealing and killing and all those things. These early traditions said it's very helpful to practice generosity in body, speech, and mind.

[35:14]

It's very helpful to practice kindness in body, speech, and mind. It's helpful to practice contentment in a wise way. It's helpful to be very careful with the sense input that comes into you. And when you look at things or hear things, that you don't get to latch onto them. That you don't see new cars in Palo Alto. And think, new cars, got to get a new car. So this idea of being very careful, putting into these conditions in place. And then as these all kind of allow... something very different to grow and mature in us than if we're unethical, greedy, angry and hostile to everyone, if we are discontented with everything, if we are constantly wanting what we see, avaricious for everything.

[36:20]

It's like a fork in the road And which fork do you want to take? And how fast you go, where you go, exactly is, you know, a little bit has to do with pausing conditions, but we can contribute those conditions. And I think it's a very generous and can be loving and way of relating to oneself to feel or know that We don't have to fight ourselves. We don't have to be critical of ourselves. We can kind of start where we're at and just take that as a given. And then, as we go forward, what are the conditions we want to put in place? And then, in a sense, allow something to arise. But if we're the farmer who plants the corn... And then after the corn is sprouted in a couple of days, and you have little leaves poking up, and the farmer wants to see how the corn is doing, so they pull it out of the ground to look.

[37:33]

You can't plant the corn again. You can't replant it. Corn doesn't work that way. It's very hard, so it does. So you don't want to be that way with yourself. You put together the conditions to be the gardener of your heart, but don't be so, you know, impatient. Don't tug at it. Allow it to grow, develop. And this is one of the things you can do in your zazen. You sit here in the zendo. You put together the conditions. Greg, this morning, the Tabata this morning, talked about zazen being a body practice. A lot of the reason for that is it's a condition to be in our body, to be present there, because that's a very powerful condition to be present in your body. It's kind of like getting space and room. when you're really here in your body, there's something to begin to unfold, to show itself, to move through us that needs to go through. But if you spend your time, you know, in Zaza, thinking and planning and being irritated with people and seeking revenge, you know, planning to overthrow the government, you know, all kinds of things, you know, in the mind.

[38:50]

It might be important thoughts you have, but those thoughts are a different condition. And they actually are a little bit claustrophobic, and they get in the way of allowing what needs to, or what can, move and flow and bubble up if we make the conditions to get out of the way. And so I think often in Buddhism, down through the ages, from early tradition and up to modern world, There's a tremendous respect and the value of getting out of the way and allowing what's in here, trusting what's in here as it moves through us. Keep deep trust. Put together the conditions, trust and allow it to bubble up, allow it to flow, allow it to show itself. And one of the very best places that I know to do this is in meditation or in dhasa because You're kind of committed in zazen, within reason, not to move.

[39:56]

And not to get involved in your thoughts and your stories and your planning. So just kind of get out of the way. Keep getting out of the way. And just let it course through you. Let it be there. And see what flower comes out of your Buddha nature if you do that. So conditions. So I hope that made some sense. And I spared you the list of 12. So now you can ask questions. Anything? Yes? You have to speak louder for my sake. So you said that things die. I'm wondering, do they really die or do they just change form? Like a hatch that's burning, where is it? Where do they just change form? plant that's taking up water and using the soil and the minerals, it's changing form.

[40:57]

It goes into our body, it's changing form. So if I have a plant and it dies and I put it through the compost and it becomes compost and then I put it back in the garden and what the earlier plant was a tomato, and now the nutrients that come through the compost become a carrot, is it, in your kind of way of understanding, has that tomato transformed into a carrot? Yes. Yes, okay. I think different people, other people would not, would see that's kind of a stretch. But if you see it, that's the way you understand it, I think there's some value in that. Jesus said that in order to be happy, you have to follow ethical teachings.

[42:04]

And then you'd be unified with my father who was in heaven. Now, he's talking about following the ethics, just like the 12 precepts. As a condition for... But what was he missing... the logic that you put forward. Jesus. Yeah. Ethical living with happiness. No suffering. Yes. The Buddha said that too. The Buddha talked about the bliss of blamelessness that comes from living ethically. But the Buddha also taught there's other forms of happiness as well. And there's actually the whole early Buddhist tradition The whole path of practice is understood to be kind of filled with happiness, happy states that arise. It's kind of like part of the growth is that the joy, happiness, gladness, delight are all part of the different stages as we kind of move through these states.

[43:14]

But the point is not to experience these kinds of conditional forms of happiness. But the end result, the Buddha talked about, is to be liberated, and in that liberation, experience a kind of happiness that is long-lasting, or has some kind of stability. But exactly what that happiness is, because is is probably not a good word to describe it. Does this at all address your concern? I don't know much about Jesus, but... You know, I hadn't really studied Christianity much, so I can't, not in good shape. Well, there was an answer to what creates happiness, and Jesus said, if you follow the rules, you know, then you'll be happy. Good. I think that what the Buddha, the Buddha also had this wonderful teaching where he said that, kind of shorthand, that it's very important to be ethical,

[44:17]

There's a happiness in terms of being ethical. But being ethical is kind of a trifling issue. It's kind of a small, small thing. It's kind of interesting. They're both championed in tremendous importance of being ethical. But it's kind of like a, it's pretty trifling. Well, Jesus always said, you can come back tomorrow and be for simple. Ah, nice. So, yeah, you're putting this way. Yes. It's a little harder in Buddhism to have a clean slate because there's not a God who's involved in forgiving and judging and all that. So you don't have to worry about someone's judging. So that's good. But you don't have the benefit of someone forgiving you either. What you have is your karma. And so you have to kind of figure out how to live wisely with your karma. And if you have done things in the past... that the consequences in the present are some kind of suffering or something. You have to figure out how to meet that in a wise way.

[45:18]

Because your karma doesn't love you. It doesn't hate you either. It's kind of neutral that way. It's not going to give you a break. But you can give yourself a break. You don't have to be caught in the momentum of your karma. You can step back and not be in the middle of it. Do you see something more about ethics being a tribunal now? Well, because there's much better things. Like? Like liberation. Like, well, the Buddha kind of described it. Much better than that is insight. Much better than insight is non-cliving. Which would lead to an ethics. Oh, is it a loop? I think, yes. So you also said that once a person has the first experience of liberation, that then the expectation then or what follows that is a certain level of ethical behavior that a person's able to break some of the precepts, but there's a certain level of ethics that can no longer break.

[46:35]

They simply wouldn't. It wouldn't occur to them. And then as people mature further and further, The expectation is that it just, unethical just wouldn't happen because the conditions, the factors of the mind that leads to intentional unethical action are no longer there. So the focus is not on ethical behavior or something else, it's something that inspires. The one word I couldn't hear, inspires? The emphasis is not so much on being bullied and being ethical and doing things right. There's something that inspires that. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I think that's much more right. So, you know, I don't know what to say, but, you know, the reference point for this talk has early tradition as opposed to what I believe, exactly. So, you know, I don't know where to go with this, but...

[47:37]

You know, there are times when we decide to be ethical because we see the consequences and dangers in doing that and we're trying to, you know, not have those dangers. Other times we're ethical because it really inspires us, the goodness, the potential, what's possible there. And the Buddha talked about living by the precepts as the precepts are gifts. There can be an act of generosity to the world. So it's also possible to be ethical. not because of some moralistic should, but because one sees what a wonderful benefit it gives to others in the world. I've had now a few people come on a meditation retreat and say that at this retreat, it was the first time in their life where they felt safe. Some people don't have the experience of safety. And so what a wonderful gift. And so living ethically, we give people the gift of safety.

[48:41]

And that's a wonderful thing that we're safe, you know, because of how many people don't have that. And then, you know, places like Tassahara, you know, are, you know, ideally, hopefully what we're inspired to do is that we collectively are creating a... the community of safety. So that people who come here can get the benefits of feeling safe. Because I bet there's people who come here who've never had experience of safety also. And how many people have spent days, weeks, years in growing up and in their life without locking their front door? And I think most people here don't lock their front door. Does anybody have locks? You don't know. We used to have raccoons. And we have hookah eyelashes for raccoons.

[49:46]

I see. Yes. Way back at the beginning of the summer, I taught a class on three trainings. I'm saying that correctly. The way I understood that, I didn't cook enough. I said, You have to practice shila first. That, I don't know, we would call it a trifling matter, but in order to really cultivate this money, you have to have life in order. You have to have your body and mind in somewhat order, or you can't really cultivate it, or if you do, it's going to be chaotic and kind of random. You know, there's a lot of people who started Buddhist practice, Buddhist meditation practice, without having their ethics in place. And they found it helpful and supported them.

[50:51]

And then eventually they found because of their meditation, they started wanting to live more ethically. So it's a little bit painful to those people who have had that benefit someone might say, you have to have your sila placed first, when that's not what they had. So whatever door people take, and different people have different doors, different ways of getting in. Some people, it's through prajna, they have understanding first, and then they do meditation, and then eventually they get around to being ethical. I mean, better later than never. Or not. or not, but there's a lot of people who, or not, don't do it. Anyway. Yeah, but some of them have futures. Oh, well, that's not, that's a bigger issue that we should talk about elsewhere. Yes. I really like the idea because it helps me not to try so hard.

[51:58]

Great. Just being in the moment and allowing and starting where I am. Right. Great. Perfect. I like that. So without trying so hard, it's possible to still be very devoted to your practice. But you're not trying so hard because you don't want to... It's like, you know, you have a little kitten and you want it to grow. You try really hard to help it and you squeeze it. You know, it doesn't grow, right? So we have to kind of feed it, take care of it, do the things, and then it can grow well. So yes, so we don't try too hard, but we also don't slack off. That make sense? Great. Yes? Right now, when you were talking about this kitten, it made me think, oh, that's a nice question for our practice. Like, what is the little kitten that I want to take care of in practice? What's essential or...

[52:58]

Beautiful. And then I thought of the question that you've often put forth. What is your deepest intention? Could you talk a little bit about that question that you've sometimes talked about and maybe how it relates to this more systematic kind of... Oh, so the idea of one's deepest intention. It also relates a little bit to Greg's question, which I appreciate. It's an important one. If you look at the Eightfold Path, that the Buddha laid out, the first two factors are not ethical. They have to do with intention, have to do with understanding, the perspective we have, and the intentions, the attitudes we live with. And so some people say that those are actually more, those are, in one point of view, those are prior than ethics. And one of the reasons why maybe, you know, in an ideal world, you would start with your attitude and intentions is that then we can practice ethics for the right reasons. And there's plenty of people who don't understand the value of ethics.

[54:01]

And so, or they understand it in a moralistic way or as a hard and fast, you know, judgmental way. It doesn't get, there's not much life in that. Not much can grow in that kind of environment. And so they resist it or they rebel it or they're ethical for a while and then it breaks apart because, and so to discover what the right, what is your heart's deepest intention? It's something I teach often, it's what Milo's saying. And I have a very profound faith and trust in people's most profound intentions. And where they get in trouble is their surface intentions. And so if you spend time, just keep reflecting, what is my deepest intention? What's the deepest wish I have? And just keep exploring it, exploring it, going through layers and layers. And some people, when they answer this question, will answer it in the negative. My deepest intention is to live without fear. But if you have a negative answer, which is fine, then ask yourself, if I live without fear, what then?

[55:05]

Because, you know, how would you live that? And I did this when I lived at Green Gulch for a year or for some time. I kept asking myself, what is my deep intention? Every day I'd ask myself that question. And I found that as I did that over the year, that it morphed and changed. In interesting ways, sometimes they're the same. And it was such a learning experience for me, a deepening experience to keep asking that question. And so to repeat myself, I think one of the reasons such a good question is that in the depths of who we are, we have really valuable, beautiful, profound intentions. It's there in us. Part of the reason to get out of the way and to shed some of the surface kind of chatter and surface kind of concerns we often have and really shed and drop down, drop down, drop down, is to discover this beauty that exists in all of us. I think that, you know, I'm a little bit psychic, I think, or something like that, but this is the moment where I think Greg starts getting a little bit restless.

[56:18]

Should I answer another question? Okay. So much for my psychic abilities. Yes. So, non-clinging is a very supportive condition for happiness and ease, having peace in one's life. Any clinging in and of itself is uncomfortable. Any clinging in and of itself is a kind of suffering, is a kind of stressful, situation in the system. Now, clinging to practice, if you cling to practice, you will have some stress. You'll be uncomfortable because of the very nature of clinging. But you have to be very careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Because it's not a sin to cling in Buddhism. It's not a sin.

[57:22]

You're not like a bad person because you're clinging. It's just like, unless you're harming people, it's okay if you're clinging. So that's very important to understand. So you have to decide whether you're clinging at this point, this juncture, is actually helping you and supporting you along the way. Keep your clinging. And the day will come where the path is self-correcting. The day will come when you realize it's no longer serving you and you're let go. So I wouldn't be too worried about the clinging thing. Because if you stay on the path to practice, it'll be self-correcting in due time. And if someone comes along and kind of casually says, oh, let go, let go, let go. Don't listen too much. Just keep doing your practice, and then it'll become clear over time. Does that make sense? Yes? So I have a friend where we were walking on the same path for a long time.

[58:27]

And so it's kind of like I created conditions for her to grow. She created conditions for me to grow. Yeah. And then we hit a fork in the road. Right. And I'm like, I can't be okay with that. And, and then she wants, she's wanting me to be more like how I used to be. And I'm wanting her to be more like how she used to be. And we've both grown like this, but yeah, Because we had such a rich past, I don't want to just discard the relationship. And at the same time, it's changed. I mean, she's a different person now. I'm a different person now. So how can I... And there is some clinging. And I especially feel like, well, I don't want to get pulled back to, like, you know, earlier stages of my life where I was not as stable or whatever. So how should I approach this from... non-clinging, but compassionate, loving, you know, like how do I stay connected and at the same time not get pulled down? I don't know. That's a good answer.

[59:28]

Me neither. But one of the principles that I think that's probably useful is it's your task to understand your friend better. You don't have to condone what she's doing. You don't have to agree with what she's doing. But if you really wanna stay connected, try to understand her as best you can. Try to really understand what's going on with her, who she is, what's underneath the surface, what's deep inside of her, what she's trying to do, why she's trying to do it. And probably, because I think if you, for most people, if you really understand them, their depth, you'll be able to open to that and meet them with some generosity, some love, some kindness. And then ideally, She would do that to you as well. And you might end up feeling like, yes, there's parts of us, there's certain things, actions, behaviors, which we don't feel happy about. But maybe you'll have something else that you appreciate.

[60:30]

And if you can distinguish behavior from the person, and you really understand the person well, maybe you'll find a way to have your friendship. There's some nutrition. That's okay with me, but... I'm taking direction from you. So my question is, you mentioned that you need to operate from the level of your deepest intentions. You don't have to. Well, not have to, but say you are in that space as you deal and interact in this world. But not everybody is in that space. So you're acting with your deepest intentions and you're creating those conditions. Well, you're not creating, but those conditions are emanating because you're in that space of your deepest intentions, the ethics and so on and so forth. But as you interact, everybody around you is not there, right?

[61:38]

I mean, they're interpreting what you're doing from what you described as superficial intentions. And with that comes a lot of anguish pain to people that you are wanting to be compassionate with and wanting to help. So how important is it? What I found is that it's really important to communicate your deepest intentions because people can't read that because they are over here on your superficial intentions. When that happens, then that's... So how important is it to actually communicate your deepest intentions when you are in the conditioned world? I don't know. I don't know because sometimes it's not useful. People can't handle the information. It doesn't land anywhere. So you have to have a lot of street smarts. So you have to be able to read the person, the situation, and know what is useful, what they can take in, what...

[62:41]

what's helpful and what's not helpful. So then my follow-up question is, would it be better then to walk away? So how do you balance that? How do you balance that? You want to act from a space where it's compassionate from the good intentions that you have, but then if somebody else is not in that space, does that then go into the situation where you only be with people, like-minded people, and then not... Do you see what I'm getting on? Yeah, there's no way for me to answer your question because I'm a splitter. And so to make a general statement, it just feels dangerous because then some people will be left out in some situations. So what I can offer you is some principles that might be helpful. And that is be very careful not to take responsibility for other people. Loved ones?

[63:43]

Even loved ones. You can support them, you can help them, you can wish them well, but don't take responsibility. Let each person take responsibility for themselves, unless it's a little kid that they have to kind of... as they grow up. And the other is, be very careful to yourself and stay free of other people. Don't have your happiness and well-being. dependent on anybody else. And if you have those two principles, then you can study the situation and do your sweet smarts, try to figure out what's best. Thank you for listening to this podcast offered by the San Francisco Zen Center. Our Dharma talks are offered free of charge, and this is made possible by the donations we receive. Your financial support helps us to continue to offer the Dharma. For more information, visit sfcc.org and click giving.

[64:48]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_90.07