Automated transcript, estimated accuracy about 92% for this source; report an error.
Words the recogniser was unsure of are underlined with dots. Use “Report an error” beside any passage to tell us what the teacher actually says.
Key passages
The teacher's own words, quoted from the transcript below and chosen automatically as representative.
- 3:41
I don't intend to deny that possibility, that religion can be in many ways responsible for wars and conflicts, but also we must recognize that religion is something not an end in itself, that it's a convention, it has a form, it's something that's created. It's not ultimately true or ultimately real. So religions can be used by human beings skillfully or unskillfully, like anything.
- 8:57
We should stop that or religion. That's one extreme view of annihilation. The other is that only our form of religion is right. What we're doing is the way and nobody else has it quite right. And therefore you have to become exactly like me. You have to do it exactly like I do it. You have to become Buddhist monks, every one of you, and you have to think and practice just like I do.
- 22:24
When you're aspiring to the transcendent reality, then on the practical plane of living and breathing as a human being in a community of other human beings, in a family, in a society, on a planet, This means that we need to be responsible for what we do and say, how we live. And so our intention as aspirants towards the ultimate, the transcendent reality, is to determine in our minds to do good, our intention now is to do the good and refrain from doing the evil.
- 38:14
One reflection I'd like to present to you is a unity at the base. I see a unity of religion at the base in moral commitment. Say, with Christianity, Judaism, with Islam and with Hinduism, with such modern religions such as Baha 'i and so forth. These are highly moral, highly...
- 48:56
But morality at least allows us to develop, to have a place in which we can contemplate safely. Our lives aren't just caught up with surviving. ourselves from the wild animals and from the murderers and thieves. it? we have moral commitment, moral responsibility, each one has that in their lives, we can, there's a certain amount of trust and relief that we experience in which our spiritual lives can develop.
Transcript
0:00 To welcome you all to Amaravati on this Sunday afternoon. And the subject that I will reflect on is the unity of religions. Report an error in the passage at 0:00
0:16 And for those of you who have not been here before, I want to tell you that anything I say is a reflection, not a... I don't mean it to... To sound opinionated or tell you anything that you should do or believe in. But how we teach Buddhadharma is to contemplate and reflect on subjects or the way things are. Report an error in the passage at 0:16
0:53 We contemplate our own humanity, our own ability to feel and be conscious. Report an error in the passage at 0:53
1:05 So what I'm trying to do in these Sunday afternoon talks is encourage that in your own minds and hearts to just look at things, open yourselves up and look and contemplate with your mind the subjects of the spiritual life or religious life. Report an error in the passage at 1:05
1:34 or whatever way you approach it psychologically or philosophically not asking you to look at it in any certain way not trying to convert you to Buddhism not trying to make you pay allegiance to Buddha and to become a Buddhist because a Buddhist who attaches to Buddhism is not a real Buddhist Report an error in the passage at 1:34
2:08 Because the whole purpose and point of the Buddhist teaching is to awaken the human mind rather than just to convince it, convert it, and condition it with doctrines, ideas, and teachings. One Report an error in the passage at 2:08
2:28 of the common criticisms of religion that I hear in this country and in many other Western countries is that To many people it seems that religion is a very divisive, quarrelsome convention. They look what's happening in Northern Ireland, Roman Catholics and Protestants. Look what's happening in Iran, Iraq. Look at the problems in Sri Lanka. Look at the, in China, the Tibetans. Report an error in the passage at 2:28
3:01 We can go on and on listing all the conflicts, wars. problems right at this present time and say this is due to religion. We can particularly contemplate history or study, examine historical phenomena as due to religion and the conflicts that arise amongst different religious attitudes and religious views. Report an error in the passage at 3:01
3:41 I don't intend to deny that possibility, that religion can be in many ways responsible for wars and conflicts, but also we must recognize that religion is something not an end in itself, that it's a convention, it has a form, it's something that's created. Report an error in the passage at 3:41
4:11 It's not ultimately true or ultimately real. So religions can be used by human beings skillfully or unskillfully, like anything. You can use any form, can't you? You can use it for doing something good, generous and kind, or doing something mean or brutal. For example, we could take the Buddha Rūpa on the shrine. Report an error in the passage at 4:11
4:43 It could remind us of the qualities of the Buddha, of being moral and good and awake and wise. Or we could just take it and hit somebody over the head with it. Report an error in the passage at 4:43
4:57 Because the Buddha-rūpa is a convention. It is not an end in itself. And even though it was created by human beings in order to help us toward realization, towards goodness. For living in a good way, how we actually use it is really up to each one of us. And we can use it to be, we can be superstitious. Report an error in the passage at 4:57
5:24 We can project onto that Buddha image all kinds of values that it doesn't have. We can believe it is possessed with all kinds of powers or something inside it or something around it or whatever that we project onto it. Report an error in the passage at 5:24
5:47 But what as a Buddhist we use these images for is not to worship them as if they have supernatural powers or project anything onto them, but to use the forms we have, the religious forms, the conventions, for awakening, for remembering, for Report an error in the passage at 5:47
6:12 acknowledging, for remembering to... What we're doing, what our religion is all about, what its purpose is, what its aim, its direction, its goal really is. Report an error in the passage at 6:12
6:30 So in this respect, religions can be many. You can have many, many religions. There's no, there's no, it would be impossible, literally impossible to have one convention, conventional form, religious form, that would suit. Absolutely every human being. Report an error in the passage at 6:30
6:55 It's just not possible because within the sensory realm, sensory consciousness, in the realm of feeling and sensitivity, it's infinitely variable. It's like all the people in this one hall, in this one room, this afternoon. Even though there's men, there's women, and all of those certain common... Report an error in the passage at 6:55
7:51 The way that my mind has been conditioned and affected by life is going to be different in many ways than anyone else. So one can even contemplate the fact that there are as many religions as there are human beings. There can be, as the Buddha said, 84,000 dharma doors. That means lots and lots of doors, lots and lots of religions or conventions. Report an error in the passage at 7:51
8:24 The Report an error in the passage at 8:24
8:28 problem then isn't really with the differences of religious convention, but with the blindness that one might have toward them, either total blind acceptance of them or blind rejection of them. For example, some people think that all religions should be banded, they're just archaic, all they do is cause problems to people, we should just get rid of them, we should be atheists. Report an error in the passage at 8:28
8:57 We should stop that or religion. That's one extreme view of annihilation. The other is that only our form of religion is right. What we're doing is the way and nobody else has it quite right. And therefore you have to become exactly like me. You have to do it exactly like I do it. You have to become Buddhist monks, every one of you, and you have to think and practice just like I do. Report an error in the passage at 8:57
9:26 That's the other extreme. That I'm the only one that has the right religion and all the rest are slightly off to totally wrong. Report an error in the passage at 9:26
9:43 But that is, what is that? Either extreme, the annihilationist, that we should just destroy and outlaw, get rid of all religions, or we should, or that only mine, what I'm doing, is the right one. And this is the thing. This doesn't mean that even somebody's unique personal religious experience is wrong, but it needs to be in a perspective. Report an error in the passage at 9:43
10:18 We need conventional religion as a kind of criterion. Convention, orthodox religion offers a kind of measuring stick or something to measure. ...religious experience with, because inevitably each one of us is going to have our own unique personal religious experience in whatever religion or non-religion we might be involved with. Report an error in the passage at 10:18
10:50 So if we take too hard a line on the conventional plane, such as my way is right and there's no other, or they're all wrong, or we're very attached to just say Theravāda Buddhism is the only right way, or... Maybe we're a little grounded in that, just Buddhism, and then we might be just a very conservative kind of person of a tolerant nature that only the really orthodox forms of religion, like orthodox forms of Christianity and Judaism, Islam, they're all right. Report an error in the passage at 10:50
11:26 But these kind of cults and sects and all this, they're totally wrong. And so we can pick and choose, we can have opinions and views about it all. But what the religious experience is, is the realization of a unity, oneness, in which the views that come from, say, sensory consciousness, And the seemingly alienated separation through sensory consciousness, that is in perspective. It's no longer deluding us. Report an error in the passage at 11:26
12:12 Because what the human condition really is about is that we are now in a seemingly separative state. I mean, just being individual human beings, persons. Report an error in the passage at 12:12
12:31 We have this appearance, this feeling of alienation and separation and this is what consciousness is. It's a separative function of our minds. Consciousness always implies subject and object and for our lives we are always the subjects, aren't we? And you're the objects. You are the subject of my life and never will be. Report an error in the passage at 12:31
13:02 This is the subject and you're the objects. And that's just the way it has to be. Not that I don't want you to be the subject. It's just, it's not possible for you to be the subject. Unity Report an error in the passage at 13:02
13:21 then is a concept in our mind which we can't really, we can't realize in the way, through thought or through form. We can have symbols for unity only like circles or Various symbolic representations mean unity. But the actual experience of unity is a realization of an individual being. And therefore, it can't be just the word itself. Even though we might believe that there's oneness or wholeness or whatever, even that belief, that grasping of even the concept of unity can blind us. Report an error in the passage at 13:21
14:10 He can be so attached to the idea of unity that we reject the apparent separations that we're involved in. We reject the consciousness, the way things really are, as they're directly experienced through sensory consciousness at this time, by grasping an idea of unity or oneness. For example, if I think we're all one, we're all equal, We're all the same. There's no difference. That's a concept or an ideal of unity and community. Report an error in the passage at 14:10
14:52 And yet on the practical level we have to cope with hierarchy, don't we? That some of you are in front, some of you are in back. Not everyone can be in exactly the same place. We all have different qualities. Some people are better at some things than others. Some people are younger, older. There's men and women. There's infinite variety, differences and qualities and quantities that we can't label as being one and equal because on this plane of conditions and sensory experience it's all Report an error in the passage at 14:52
15:38 and changing, nothing's ever the same. There's no equality. Report an error in the passage at 15:38
15:46 no unity, there's no appearance or feeling of unity as long as one is bound up in the infinite variety of the sensory. So that's why materialism and atheism, these kind of ideals, Report an error in the passage at 15:46
16:11 Only lead us to confusion. Because if you're trying to find peace and unity and contentment on the materialist plane, by Report an error in the passage at 16:11
16:26 rejecting anything higher than just the sensory realm that we're involved in, if you reject that totally, just like an atheist or a materialist, Then we're just going to have to struggle and get confused with the ever-changing varieties of conditions that impinge on us. And that can just be very depressing, very stressful for us, as we see very much in our modern society, where materialism has really had such a strong impact over the past hundred years on European societies. Report an error in the passage at 16:26
17:07 What is the result of that is we find Report an error in the passage at 17:07
17:20 through variety of conditions and picking and choosing and trying to get what we can for ourselves and hope that the things we don't want we can stay away from or get rid of. Report an error in the passage at 17:20
17:37 I remember 25, 30 years ago, in the United States, there was a strong feeling at that time that modern science was going to be able to solve all the problems of sickness. Report an error in the passage at 17:37
17:56 In 30 years, we would solve all the illnesses. We would have vaccines and everything so that nobody would ever have sicknesses anymore. Report an error in the passage at 17:56
18:09 And that would be nice, wouldn't it? But 30 years later, we've got all kinds of... sicknesses that we didn't even know about 30 years ago. Admittedly, TB and some of those aren't so much of a problem, but the idea that just making life comfortable and pleasant on this planet, on the material plane, is going to make us content, give us contentment. Report an error in the passage at 18:09
18:39 Really, even if we're healthy and wealthy, And have the best of everything. We still find ourselves discontented. Something is missing. So then I like to consider religion then as those conventions pointing beyond just the appearances. Report an error in the passage at 18:39
19:08 One can say, have a mental image of pointing to the ultimate truth, the deathless. Now these words, they are metaphysical concepts. Report an error in the passage at 19:08
19:29 And so metaphysical concepts are the concepts, even though the concepts themselves are conventions, they are suggestions to the human mind to look beyond just the appearances, the way the mind, our minds have been conditioned to think. and react to the sensory realm that we're involved in through birth. So metaphysical concepts such as God or in Buddha approached it in a very skillful way in which the Dhamma, the ultimate truth Report an error in the passage at 19:29
20:15 monistic forms of religion tend to use the The very positive forms of, inspiring forms of oneness, the one, or the god, or the one, or the totality. And Buddhism very much approaches the subject from what we call non-dualism, neither this nor that. It goes beyond just even the monistic oneness to the letting go of even the concept of oneness. Report an error in the passage at 20:15
20:58 Because the problem with monistic concepts is that people attach to the concept. We believe in monists. And then we get very upset with anyone that doesn't. Report an error in the passage at 20:58
21:24 Religion also, as a convention pointing to transcendence, to transcendent reality, then its foundation... It can't be just pointed with no foundation and just some kind of intellectual way alone. It has to have practical conventions. And of course the very basis of religious experience, the very foundation for it is morality or sīla, the Buddhist word sīla. Report an error in the passage at 21:24
22:05 So sīla... In Buddhist terminology means the willingness of an individual human being to be responsible for their actions and speech. Report an error in the passage at 22:05
22:24 When you're aspiring to the transcendent reality, then on the practical plane of living and breathing as a human being in a community of other human beings, in a family, in a society, on a planet, This means that we need to be responsible for what we do and say, how we live. And so our intention as aspirants towards the ultimate, the transcendent reality, is to determine in our minds to do good, our intention now is to do the good and refrain from doing the evil. Report an error in the passage at 22:24
23:11 Because like Buddha Rūpas, You can use them for goodness or you can use them for wickedness. With your own body, you can use your body for goodness or for badness. With your ability to speak, we can use our speech to tell the truth, to communicate truth, to be able to talk to each other in meaningful and important... Report an error in the passage at 23:11
23:43 And lovely ways. Or we can use our speech to curse and swear, to lie, to confuse, to insult, to hurt and harm others. So as one who is aspiring towards the ultimate reality, we have to determine, make this determination and this intention to do the good, the will to the good, willing the good in our lives. Report an error in the passage at 23:43
24:14 And willing not to do the bad, because we're going to have impulses going through our minds that are both good and bad. And Report an error in the passage at 24:14
24:27 as individual beings, this is something that we have to take that responsibility for ourselves. If morality is kind of imposed on us, I'll punish you if you tell a lie, and I kind of become a tyrant, don't I? I stand over you and I say, I'm going to hit you if you tell a lie, then when I'm around you won't tell a lie, will you? But it's still out of fear of me that you're not telling lies, not out of your own clear decision, wisdom and understanding and aspiration towards the holy light. Report an error in the passage at 24:27
25:10 It's merely your obeying laws out of fear of being punished. And that's one level of human. But for the realization of the transcendent reality, we have to grow up a bit more than that. We can't just stay on that emotional plane of I'm going to be good because I'll be punished if I'm bad. We need to, we must determine to do the good because that's what we really, that's what we know is the right thing to do. Report an error in the passage at 25:10
25:47 We make that resolution, that determination in our lives, not to use our bodies for harming other beings, for taking or stealing or destroying their property, or for exploiting or taking advantage for personal indulgence or pleasure, or Report an error in the passage at 25:47
26:14 to use our ability to speak. To insult or harm or upset or disparage anyone. So that this sīla then, this moral commitment is something that we're doing because we see its value. Report an error in the passage at 26:14
26:32 I'm moral not because I'm afraid of being immoral but because I want to be moral. I like being moral. I don't want this body And the words that come out of this mouth to cause any more confusion than necessary for harm. I don't want this being here to be that in the society which upsets it, disrupts it, confuses it, causes more problems because the society has enough problems already. Report an error in the passage at 26:32
27:11 I don't need to add any more problems to it. But what would be a great gift? An offering, rather, to the society is a determination for each one of us to try to live in the society to do the good and refrain from doing the evil. Report an error in the passage at 27:11
27:35 So now we're down to earth, aren't we? From the transcendent reality, the unity, the one, to just life as we're feeling and living and breathing as separate individual beings who are born. And we'll live in this seemingly alienated or separated state of life with the death of the body. So this is another thing for contemplation is that we are now, all of us, involved with living. This life is like this. Report an error in the passage at 27:35
28:14 It has pleasure and pain. Life has youth. It has middle age and old age. What is born dies. Life is breathing and feeling and consciousness. Life is this way. And this means that we can experience anything in this lifetime, from birth to death, from the most pleasurable sensory experiences to the most painful one, the most fulfilling to the most alienating and frightening. Report an error in the passage at 28:14
28:56 On the emotional plane and sexual plane therefore we are subject to anything that we can think of from the most pleasant to the most unpleasant because this is what life is about. Life is like this. Life is about this appearance of separation having been born into a separate body thrown out of the womb of our mother into a cold cruel world. Report an error in the passage at 28:56
29:33 The umbilical cord severed, and here we are, a separate being for a lifetime, having to live, and we're conscious and we're feeling. Report an error in the passage at 29:33
29:51 A separate being for a lifetime, having to live, and we're conscious and we're feeling. So from the day you're born, out of your mother's womb, then this is your involvement experience of life, to the time that your body dies. And so life is something that we all share in common. We're experiencing living and sensitivity and consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 29:51
30:23 And yet that as an end in itself is not enough. Because the appearances that we have, the limitations that we find ourselves under as human beings, sensory beings, We're very limited in what we can know, what we can do. We have to live on this planet, even though scientists are trying to find ways off this planet, curious to find out what's on the other ones. Report an error in the passage at 30:23
31:00 Even if the scientists do manage to get up to Mars in the next hundred years, they're still going to find themselves on that planet. it. Report an error in the passage at 31:00
31:15 Once they get there, they might run into a Martian now and then, but the one they'll really discover is themselves, which is what we have right now, isn't it, on this planet. So Report an error in the passage at 31:15
31:31 obviously, this is what we must learn from, from life and from ourselves as we are, the way we are. If you think you have to learn about Martians, you can't really realize that ultimate truth. And be free from all ignorance till you get to Mars and communicate with Martians. Report an error in the passage at 31:31
32:00 That's being ridiculous, isn't it? But yet many people do have thoughts, maybe not quite as foolish as that one, but there are thoughts of that type swirling in the minds of many beings. Something else, you have to go somewhere or find somebody special. Or have some special place or some special teacher or special situation that isn't here. This is not the place. Report an error in the passage at 32:00
32:29 You can't do it here as you are. It's maybe in India, in the Himalayas. Or maybe you think it's in Australia, Lake Titicaca. I met Report an error in the passage at 32:29
32:51 a man who thought that the real religious path was at Lake Titicaca. In Bolivia, which would mean that anyone who wasn't at that place wouldn't have much of a chance. But it's like trying to find a Martian, isn't it? When you do find it, what are you left with? Yourself. And so whether you're at Lake Titicaca or you're here at Amaravati or in your home, where are you? Report an error in the passage at 32:51
33:23 You're really with yourself, with your thoughts, with your feelings. The things that are impinging on you, the heat or the cold, the pleasure or the pain is this way. So the sensory realm, sensory consciousness is like this. It's this way. And so reflecting in this way, we open our minds to the whole of life. Until we do that, then our life tends to be merely reacting to sensory impingement. Report an error in the passage at 33:23
34:00 We're just trying to be safe and secure and happy and trying to make life pleasant. And we dread, we worry all the time. Worry is one of the kind of most horrible human problems. It's just the endless worry, worry, worry, worry about experiencing pain or being alone. Or being ostracized, or being criticized, or being condemned, or getting sick, or getting old, or dying, or not having any money, or this and that. Report an error in the passage at 34:00
34:37 So worry, worry is what we produce when we don't have anything higher, when we have no aspirations, when we don't have that faith, that trust in something beyond just the material realm. So, the religious path, then, is an opening of the human heart to the totality of human experience, which is very highly, we're going to say, just the symbol in Christianity alone of crucifixion. Report an error in the passage at 34:37
35:14 Isn't it? To a Buddhist, that's quite an amazing religious symbol. When you go into a Roman Catholic church and you see a crucifix, a kind of agonized, Body nailed to a cross and blood pouring out of it. To a Buddhist that looks a bit, you know, over the top. Report an error in the passage at 35:14
35:44 But Report an error in the passage at 35:44
35:49 that is a very strong religious symbol, isn't it? Of the human experience of pain, humiliation. actually. Report an error in the passage at 35:49
36:03 Condemnation, criticism, and that's a religious symbol. And that's what most of us don't want to ever have happen, isn't it? Most of us don't want to be crucified, stripped naked in public, nailed down, made fun of, condemned, publicly executed like a criminal. Report an error in the passage at 36:03
36:28 And that's one of the most horrible possibilities for our human condition. And yet, that is possible, isn't it? Most of us will probably escape that one. We recognize that there are variations of misery that we are inevitably going to experience. And that is being human, isn't it? We are involved with this process of pleasure and pain, of birth to death, of the aging process, of the sensory realm. Report an error in the passage at 36:28
37:00 As we get older, our senses get less strong, less vital, don't they? Report an error in the passage at 37:00
37:08 As we get older, the vision, the hearing, the tasting, the smelling, all these sensory experiences tend to lessen or weaken. Report an error in the passage at 37:08
37:24 One of the common complaints with older people is, I can't remember like I used to. Report an error in the passage at 37:24
37:34 That's the frightening, to not be able to remember. And yet that's part of just the aging process, maybe that's part of our religious path, is to give up our attachment to memory and to sensory, pleasant sensory impingement. Report an error in the passage at 37:34
37:54 So that in our dharma practice, our practice of the holy life, is to contemplate what this is as we're experiencing it, whatever age you are, whatever type of person you are. Report an error in the passage at 37:54
38:14 One reflection I'd like to present to you is a unity at the base. I see a unity of religion at the base in moral commitment. Report an error in the passage at 38:14
38:26 Say, with Christianity, Judaism, with Islam and with Hinduism, with such modern religions such as Baha 'i and so forth. These are highly moral, highly... I can't imagine a Christian saying, well I believe we should do evil and refrain from doing good. Report an error in the passage at 38:26
39:04 There's no disagreement there. Or with a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, a Christian scientist, or even a humanist. Report an error in the passage at 39:04
39:22 Even high-minded humanism, or the idea of, say, behavior for an individual, we can agree on a common base. Report an error in the passage at 39:22
39:38 Now this moral base, this moral foundation needs to be considered because even the atheists, the communists, the conservatives, the Asians and the Europeans, the Americans, The third world, communist world, the affluent western world, all of us think we could agree on just a moral deportment. And even if we just took the first moral precept to refrain from intentionally killing human beings, that'd be quite a marvelous thing, wouldn't it, if all human beings today decided, or tomorrow's all right too. Report an error in the passage at 39:38
40:33 All decided to keep the first precept of the five precepts, moral precepts, to refrain from taking the life, and it's Kuru's sport, to refrain from taking the life of other human beings, intentionally doing so. Report an error in the passage at 40:33
40:50 Last night we gave the eight precepts to five people, called Hanagarikas, and they... They've committed themselves to not taking a life of other beings, so they can't even kill ants and spiders. But we wouldn't even demand that kind of refinement, would we? Just as a moral commitment to refrain from intentionally taking the life of other human beings. That would mean the end of war, wouldn't it? We'd have to stop having wars. Report an error in the passage at 40:50
41:24 Just on that. We can agree to do that. The human condition allows us to make that agreement. Because we do have a choice. We all probably at moments have felt like killing somebody. I have. Certain moments in my life I've realized the potential are for murder. Me. Report an error in the passage at 41:24
41:56 But I'm very glad that I didn't follow it up with any actions. That's why I'm here. I would be here. Report an error in the passage at 41:56
42:06 So, I mean, I'm not, you know, it's not that such an impulse or feeling has never passed through my mind, because it certainly has many times in fact, but I've said no to it because of a moral commitment. I don't want to, I'd rather not do that, and I'm determined not to act on that impulse to murder, to kill another human being, and I can do that. Report an error in the passage at 42:06
42:41 Now, with the animal kingdom, we recognize that they can't do that. When I was in the Hammerwood one time years ago, I was watching, noticing that all the rabbits, there's lots of rabbits down there, and they're very frightened creatures. As soon as they see you coming, they run into their holes. So the squirrels and the trees, they... Report an error in the passage at 42:41
43:08 They look fairly confident up in the trees. As soon as they get on the ground, they look incredibly threatened and frightened and they have to run up a tree. And just this whole sense of nature and the animal kingdom living in this realm of fear became very apparent to me. And I thought, wouldn't it be nice if all the foxes and the squirrels and the rabbits and the fox hunters Report an error in the passage at 43:08
43:38 And the English farmers all agreed to respect the lives of each other. Wouldn't that be nice? Then the squirrels could kind of take walks on the ground and pat them on the head and everyone could be friendly and nice. Report an error in the passage at 43:38
43:59 And then I realized that animals can't make those kind of agreements. You can't get a fox and a rabbit to agree not to. A fox would be not to kill, intentionally kill a rabbit because their minds are not of that nature. That's the animal realm. The animal realm is like that. It's a realm of fear and survival. And that's its nature. That's when, if you're born into that realm, that's what you have to put up with. Report an error in the passage at 43:59
44:30 Now as human beings, we can live very much in that realm, which many human beings do, don't we? Humans do good. What percentage live in that realm of survival, just instinctual survival as an animal? But we don't have to because we can agree. What are laws for? Why do we make laws? What is civilization and culture and all this above that human beings have produced is agreements, moral agreements to respect each other's lives, to each other's properties and these are agreed on. Report an error in the passage at 44:30
45:10 by humanity in order to live together. Because if we didn't have these agreements, it would be survival of the fittest. And Report an error in the passage at 45:10
45:24 now at this time, we've almost forgotten that. On a worldwide scale, globally, we might obey the laws of Britain while we're here. Maybe because we're frightened of being punished. Maybe we just obey the laws of... UK, United Kingdom, because we're afraid if we break them we're going to be put in prison. And we don't want that. Report an error in the passage at 45:24
45:54 Maybe Report an error in the passage at 45:54
46:01 we want to obey the laws of this country as a kind of offering to the society. So we can have a society where we can trust each other. Where I respect your property then you respect my property. I respect your right to live and then you respect my right to live. Report an error in the passage at 46:01
46:21 This is what we call humaneness, humanity. It's compassion, compassionate, kind. Doesn't mean we don't want each other's things. We might still look at each other's possessions and they all would like to have that. But we refrain from taking it out of our commitment to this moral foundation. And then we have a society that we live in trust and competence and respect with each other. Report an error in the passage at 46:21
46:58 And all this very much needs to be, say, established as a global moral commitment. Because all these kind of meetings of disarmament and trying to control the nuclear weapons and Ronald Reagan's Star Wars plan was... It was absolutely ridiculous. Trying to just use power to frighten each other into not harming us is not really developing the human potential and developing that which is really beautiful in humanity. Report an error in the passage at 46:58
47:39 Because what is really superb in our human condition is our aspiration and our will to do the good. And this needs to be encouraged. ...and inspired and developed in humans through education, through religion. Report an error in the passage at 47:39
48:05 Both from the communist world, the third world, the capitalist world, whatever world it happens to be, economically or politically, we can agree it would be very important, very great advancement for peace would be to suggest moral commitment. and respect for each other's right to be. Report an error in the passage at 48:05
48:42 Religion then is the convention which points beyond morality because morality is not enough in itself either. Report an error in the passage at 48:42
48:56 But morality at least allows us to develop, to have a place in which we can contemplate safely. Our lives aren't just caught up with surviving. Report an error in the passage at 48:56
49:11 ourselves from the wild animals and from the murderers and thieves. it? we have moral commitment, moral responsibility, each one has that in their lives, we can, there's a certain amount of trust and relief that we experience in which our spiritual lives can develop. can spend our time meditating and praying and developing developing I've been. Report an error in the passage at 49:11
49:39 So the religious conventions which are pointing beyond themselves toward their ultimate reality. Because the ultimate reality is a realization. It's not concrete. It has no form. Any symbol for it is obviously only a symbol. It's nothing more than a symbol. And because it's not form or concrete, you can't prove it through Report an error in the passage at 49:39
50:26 or or show it to anyone only can realize it for yourself it's a realization a direct realization of an individual being that realization is The transcendence of this individuality and this apparent separation alienation that we're experiencing from birth to death is called a lifetime. Report an error in the passage at 50:26
50:58 So then one can say that the ultimate reality is the same reality. Now I know some people really object to that. They say, I've known Christians who really get angry when you say that. I say, no. Buddhist ultimate reality is not the same as Christian. They're determined, Christianity has this reputation of being determined to be right and everyone else wrong. Report an error in the passage at 50:58
51:30 So they take the position that only their God and their ultimate reality is the right one and all the rest is slightly off. Report an error in the passage at 51:30
51:41 And that's the very, when sometimes... Very conservative Christians will get very upset by this kind of, or they'll say it's just Hinduism or this airy-fairy idealism. Report an error in the passage at 51:41
51:55 It's not the same because they're very much committed to the fact that their particular convention is the right one. Report an error in the passage at 51:55
52:11 But what I'm presenting to you is the reflection. If there is ultimate reality, then how can it be Separate from anything. How can it be even Christian or Buddhist? How can you give it any form? You can only point to it. You have to use words like ultimate reality. With your abstractions. You can't hold ultimate reality like that and say this is it. But you can say ultimate reality and then what does your mind do when I say ultimate reality? Report an error in the passage at 52:11
52:52 Goes blank, doesn't it? Report an error in the passage at 52:52
52:58 Nothing, nothing manifests. I can't get any kind of image out of ultimate reality because that image, imagination ceases. Report an error in the passage at 52:58
53:14 And so the religious path then is, the religion itself is pointing, is the conventions, the pointers to that ultimate reality. And like anything you can point from different angles, pointing at the same thing. But from different positions. The position you're in isn't, there's no right position as long as it's morally based. Report an error in the passage at 53:14
53:45 If the position is morally based, then the position is to look toward the ultimate reality rather than to attach to the convention. And the convention is for that, is to always be seen as the pointer. It encourages, it inspires, it uplifts you, it directs your attention, it reminds you. So when you see monks, Buddhist monks, or you see Buddhist nuns, or you see Buddhist images, or you see Christian churches, or synagogues, or mosques, or any of these kind of religious symbols, Report an error in the passage at 53:45
54:36 You can just look at them as just through prejudices or biases or just habitual thinking, or you can actually transmute all religious symbolism as pointing beyond itself to that ultimate reality. Report an error in the passage at 54:36
54:54 So now, like Buddhist monk living here in England, I determined when I came here to use Christian churches, because there's Christian churches everywhere, rather than Buddhist temples. In Thailand there's Buddhist temples everywhere. In England there's Christian churches everywhere. So what are they? Report an error in the passage at 54:54
55:16 They're pointing to the ultimate reality. Report an error in the passage at 55:16
55:22 It's not because I've become a Christian, I'm still very much a Buddhist in convention, but it's the willingness to use religious symbols and respect religious symbolism and really try to use it skillfully, whatever religion it might be. Report an error in the passage at 55:22
55:41 So therefore we have a sense of unity of religions. Not that everybody's becoming using the same convention, but we begin to appreciate the variety and appreciate religious symbolism as that which points toward their ultimate reality. So whether you're in a Buddhist country, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever, whatever religious... Report an error in the passage at 55:41
56:12 Symbols might be around you. You're no longer seeing it from a religious bias, but with a sense of gratitude and appreciation for the reminder. Because we do forget, don't we? The pleasure and pain on a sensory plane can be so strong and urgent. We forget the transcendent. And we forget our direction, so we can easily get overwhelmed and caught up in the reactions to sensory experience. Report an error in the passage at 56:12
56:47 And this is where we really can use the existing religions and symbols for that reminding, reminding of what is beyond just this temporary experience of living as a conscious, sensitive, separate being. Report an error in the passage at 56:47
57:10 So now I will end my talk. It's three o 'clock and I think I've given you enough to reflect on and contemplate for today and the rest of the time we can use for any questions. If you'd like to have a short break, go ahead. We can have a five minute break and then we can open it up for any questions or discussion. Report an error in the passage at 57:10
57:40 Can Report an error in the passage at 57:40
58:07 you say something about phrase you use, not this, not that. One of Report an error in the passage at 58:07
58:19 the least understood religious paths is what we call non-dualism. And Buddhism, like Theravāda, very much is a non-dualistic approach. And this is where many people get confused because they're used to maybe monistic. forms of religion where it's more affirming things like a metaphysical doctrine or the oneness of everything and so that is very uplifting to the human spirit the devotional side the inspiration Report an error in the passage at 58:19
59:10 monistic forms do bring that feeling Where non-dualism is not an inspirational form. It's a practical way of freeing the mind from attachment. So that you're like with the Buddhist contemplations on impermanence, suffering and no self. These are not doctrinal positions. They're not metaphysical at all, are they? Report an error in the passage at 59:10
59:46 I mean, impermanence is certainly no transcendent doctrine or suffering or no self, nanata. But they are non-dualistic conventions. Report an error in the passage at 59:46
Related talks
Talk by Ajahn Sumedho. Original at Amaravati Buddhist Monastery via Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ajahn-sumedho-dhamma-talks. Licensed CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Transcript generated automatically and may contain errors; the audio is the authoritative version.
Talks of Ajahn Sumedho, archived on Internet Archive. More from Amaravati