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.
- 2:20
Because the principles we might have about nonviolence... are more like standards, criterion that we use, that we look to as a general guide and direction for our lives. But then in particular situations that occur we have to depend on our own mindfulness and wisdom to be able to respond, which does not mean
- 4:44
It arises and it's appropriate to a situation. It's not an ideal that we fix on. And the principles of moral commitment or doing what is right, having a standard for conduct, What is fair? What is just? These are also principles we must respect, but as ways of acting, sometimes if we're merely acting from principles, we can lose sensitivity.
- 9:04
But for these two to harmonize we need to have this mindfulness and reflectiveness to be able to intuit a situation, to bring into our consciousness both the principles that we have, that we respect. And also, trust in maybe our own response in a compassionate way. If we have too many fixed ideas about compassion, about what is compassion, sometimes we lack a sense of what is appropriate. It's like just somebody that wants to only kind of smother you with
- 12:21
And so when we have, say, the first moral precept of bhana-dibata, to refrain from taking the life of other human beings, or... We can refine that to not respecting the lives of all sentient beings. The precepts are, you can interpret them on a coarse way, just on a very basic kind of moral position, or also as a refinement of your own kind of respect for the environment, respect for life in general, respect for the lives of animals, of insects, of birds.
- 29:37
But if we're taking this principle of non-violence and non-killing to an ultimate position, then of course we'd better just kill ourselves first because our lives are, you know, we're inevitably involved with certain destructive forces that are just part of our karmic experience. But our intention isn't. That's what the Buddha emphasized. Our intention is to not deliberately, intentionally kill or destroy life just out of maliciousness, meanness of heart, selfishness, just for the thrill of destruction or violence. I think violence is very exciting to men anyway. Physical violence is a very exciting energy.
Transcript
0:00 Thank you to Amavati this afternoon and the opportunity we have to contemplate dharma and the subject of course is principles and compassion. This is I think a subject worth reflecting upon because sometimes we feel very confused when in our lives over as they are. Report an error in the passage at 0:00
0:34 we value, and then the appropriate actions to take in regards to specific particular situations that occur. Report an error in the passage at 0:34
0:47 our society itself tends to very much come from principles ideals, we tend to... I love them all together in a kind of fixed, absolute kind of positions that we take on life. So, I mean, many times people have asked in regards to, say, conscientious objectors who are against, say, violence or war, use of weapons. Report an error in the passage at 0:47
1:26 would ask them about their principles and then ask them what they would do in a particular situation like if you say if you're a conscientious objector and you have this principle of non-violence and then what would happen if in a situation where and they always bring in the most kind of fraught situation most impossible possibilities of like some dreadful Dreadful, demonic creature attacking your sweet, dear, helpless mother. And then you're supposed to, out of some principle, state what you would do in a situation such as that, which of course is really an unfair question. Report an error in the passage at 1:26
2:20 Because the principles we might have about nonviolence... are more like standards, criterion that we use, that we look to as a general guide and direction for our lives. But then in particular situations that occur we have to depend on our own mindfulness and wisdom to be able to respond, which does not mean Report an error in the passage at 2:20
2:56 principle, but say what would be the right and compassionate appropriate response to this particular incident. Report an error in the passage at 2:56
3:08 you're trying to absolutize compassion, must always be compassionate, matter what, and kind of a fixed kind of... Report an error in the passage at 3:08
3:28 can't, then we lose our ability to, say, work from principles, of moral principles. Report an error in the passage at 3:28
3:42 we tend to think that anything we must accept and be kind and... And always understanding, and this tends to come in a way that we have no edge to ourselves. We have nothing to go by. We just merely kind of get caught in a kind of wishy-washy, kind of tasteless porridge state of having no edge to our lives because we're always thinking in terms of being terribly kind. Report an error in the passage at 3:42
4:17 But when we have principles and moral standards, high standards that we look to, this does not prevent compassion in particular instances, but even helps us to respond compassionately in a way that we might not conceive compassion as if we make a principle of compassion, because compassion is a dynamic Report an error in the passage at 4:17
4:44 It arises and it's appropriate to a situation. It's not an ideal that we fix on. And the principles of moral commitment or doing what is right, having a standard for conduct, What is fair? What is just? These are also principles we must respect, but as ways of acting, sometimes if we're merely acting from principles, we can lose sensitivity. Report an error in the passage at 4:44
5:30 We can't respond to a particular situation or an individual's particular needs of the moment. But this doesn't mean that one cancels out the other. It means that they actually complement each other. They support each other, like the yin and yang, or the male and the female. If we see them from preference, we prefer one over the other, then we immediately see the other, its opposite, as something that is a threat. Report an error in the passage at 5:30
6:02 If we're attached to masculine principles and need for justice, then we sometimes feel mercy. is wishy-washy and weak. Compassion is just a kind of sloppy kind of overlooking of the things that are not up to our standards. And so, say if one is very attached to high principles, you sometimes do not, you're not interested in the different conditions, qualities. Report an error in the passage at 6:02
6:44 That exists in the moment and the particular individual's needs of that moment. So a person with principles but has not developed a sense of compassion, has not developed sensitivity, can be very harsh, very judgmental, self-righteous and condemning. Report an error in the passage at 6:44
7:06 Then take the opposite. If there's no principles particularly but only compassion and mercy, then Then everything is kind of overlooked for the sake of the moment, and therefore there's also something lacking. There's no guideline, there's no sharp edge to one's mind. Report an error in the passage at 7:06
7:34 Now, of course, the problem you can always trace to attachment to one or the other, a view about morality or laws or justice. A view that we attach to and identify with or even the view about being compassionate and kind can be taken and oftentimes interpreted in a way of just going along with what everyone is doing, justifying everything, understanding everything, being terribly nice about everything and Report an error in the passage at 7:34
8:21 not really being aware of Maybe compassion isn't going along with somebody, but saying no to somebody. Maybe compassion is a kind of slap in the face rather than a pat on the back. Report an error in the passage at 8:21
8:40 Because I've known from my own experience, sometimes a slap on the face has been the more compassionate force that has helped me to kind of realize something. Somebody just going along with me and saying everything's all right. Report an error in the passage at 8:40
9:04 But for these two to harmonize we need to have this mindfulness and reflectiveness to be able to intuit a situation, to bring into our consciousness both the principles that we have, that we respect. And also, trust in maybe our own response in a compassionate way. If we have too many fixed ideas about compassion, about what is compassion, sometimes we lack a sense of what is appropriate. Report an error in the passage at 9:04
9:46 It's like just somebody that wants to only kind of smother you with with sweets and love and affection and doesn't give you any what you really need any real vitamins and minerals and nourishment you're merely living on a diet of maybe incredible sweetness which can be considered you know it's what we consider as delicious and attractive and Report an error in the passage at 9:46
10:20 what we might think what people will want and what What we think is being kind, but it can also be insensitive and unreceptive to the needs of that individual at that moment. To trust in our own intuitive response is also very difficult because we don't trust ourselves. We tend to mistrust. We tend to feel very uncertain, very insecure about our own responses to life. Report an error in the passage at 10:20
10:57 And therefore we maybe want others to tell us what we should do in this case, how we should react, what would be the right thing to do. Having Report an error in the passage at 10:57
11:14 principles gives us something that we can, say, keep our directions clear. For example, the five precepts, this kind of commitment to Report an error in the passage at 11:14
11:35 Refraining from actions that are disruptive and harmful to ourselves and to others. And so this is, we do this in a reflective way, not in a kind of fixed way of grasping moral principles and just trying to obey moral rules. We're actually... Using these moral precepts as something to use in situations to remind us. It's principles to reflect upon, to remember in the flow of our life. Report an error in the passage at 11:35
12:21 And so when we have, say, the first moral precept of bhana-dibata, to refrain from taking the life of other human beings, or... We can refine that to not respecting the lives of all sentient beings. The precepts are, you can interpret them on a coarse way, just on a very basic kind of moral position, or also as a refinement of your own kind of respect for the environment, respect for life in general, respect for the lives of animals, of insects, of birds. Report an error in the passage at 12:21
13:01 Fish, even plants and what not, when we can not think that killing a fly is an immoral act, not making it absolute, but taking on a stronger commitment towards the respect for the life of other creatures. Report an error in the passage at 13:01
13:26 Giving them a chance to live their lives, even though their lives might be annoying our lives, we're willing to be annoyed because it's more beautiful behavior, it's finer to have a sense of respect for the life of another creature, even if that other creature is particularly maybe a nuisance to us and would be easier or expedient to just annihilate it quickly. Report an error in the passage at 13:26
13:55 One thing with the planet that we live on, we're more and more beginning to reawaken to the fact that we're all on this planet together. We're somehow all supporting each other. We begin to see the possibility to awaken to a universal perception, a sense of everything being connected, everything supporting everything. Report an error in the passage at 13:55
14:28 Dependent. Interdependence. When we think of ourselves only, say the totally selfish position, is where I just think, if this fly is annoying me, I'm going to kill it. It doesn't have any right to be around. If I don't like it and it's in my way, then I just annihilate it. But that kind of thinking can also easily go into things like human beings. Report an error in the passage at 14:28
14:56 You know, somebody else, some human being is in my way giving me a difficult time. Then one can easily assume that it would be more expedient, more useful in the long run to just annihilate that person. It's like we have these wars now, isn't it? And we read the kind of horrific news about Yugoslavia and you can't help but feel sickened by human behavior that has no respect for the life of other people. Report an error in the passage at 14:56
15:36 in ruin the lives of other human beings. For what? some idea of nationality, nationhood, or some just the excitement maybe of That violence has. There's no principles in it. It's not principled. And therefore there can be no compassion either. Report an error in the passage at 15:36
15:58 Maybe there's a kind of illusory ideal of we've got to protect our side from those others. Or we can make the other side look like they're very bad. Like they're all kind of contagious insects that need to be exterminated. Maybe They're a plague. I suppose if you're a Christian Serb, you could look upon killing a Bosnian Muslim as maybe you could see it as maybe that's a good thing to do, to get rid of those because they're different from us. Report an error in the passage at 15:58
16:44 And that, of course, is lacking in compassion. And principles, they aren't acting from principles either, but just from ignorance and biases, prejudices, stupidity. Report an error in the passage at 16:44
17:00 The danger with acting from only principles, without compassion, without understanding, is that principles as an end in themselves blind us to what's really happening. If something doesn't fit into our idea, We can think that it is absolutely wrong. For example, if we believe that, say, Christianity is the right religion, then we can assume that Islam is wrong. Report an error in the passage at 17:00
17:41 And then there's a kind of spurious logic that comes from that, thinking that if it's wrong, we should get rid of it. Report an error in the passage at 17:41
17:50 We Buddhists can also be that kind of way. It's a human problem, not a religious one. Even with the kind of tolerance and compassion that is so much the kind of essence of the Buddha dharma, still people can be very attached to the idea of compassion. Report an error in the passage at 17:50
18:17 Like sometimes in Mahāyāna, people are very attached to the idea that somehow compassion... is the best way. And therefore, because in the Theravāda we may not give compassion such the most significant place in our perceptual structure, it's kind of, we usually put wisdom first, then the spirit's logic is that somehow we aren't as kind as the Mahāyāna. Report an error in the passage at 18:17
18:55 That's a kind of false logic, isn't it? It comes from just attaching to words or ideas. Or the Theravāda can equally be as blind with their principles of no God, no self, no soul, none of this ceremony, none of this hocus-pocus. We're the pure form of Buddhism. Buddhism, we're not... Buddha never taught about Bodhisattvas. He taught about Arahants. We can be equally self-righteous and blinded by our self-righteousness and not really be able to respond to another way of looking, another perspective that the Mahāyāna have. Report an error in the passage at 18:55
19:46 But the human mind, fortunately, is one that can look at things in different perspectives because we're not conditioned. We can transcend our conditioning. Therefore we can reflect, we can look at things from different angles and appreciate the views that we have from different perspectives. Report an error in the passage at 19:46
20:15 And this is liberating the mind so that we can see things in ways that maybe we've never thought of before. We can open our minds to look at life From different angles and appreciate the views that we see and not say one view, one particular angle is absolutely better than another. Maybe we prefer, maybe we feel the particular angle we have is, we like that, that's what we're used to. Report an error in the passage at 20:15
20:54 But that doesn't make it, say, better. qualitatively better than another one. And ultimately the Buddhist teaching is a realization of non-attachment rather than finding exactly the right view to grasp. And that's why it has no kind of doctrinal reinforcement. There's not a creed, not something that is a position that one must take as a Buddhist. Report an error in the passage at 20:54
21:27 And that's what's so frustrating about Buddhism to many people because they often talk in terms like a man of no fixed position. And to us, that sounds like you're just kind of floating around in space. Anything goes. No fixed position. Then you have no principles. You're just kind of like having no skeleton or no bones. Report an error in the passage at 21:27
21:54 You're just kind of... Flexible mass of ectoplasm or something. And therefore it's nothing you can kind of say Buddhists are this way or that way. Report an error in the passage at 21:54
22:12 But when we identify religion with a very strong creed, a belief in the God, the right God or the one God, Or this kind of thing gives us something to kind of position to take. So you get questions like, do you believe in God? And this do you believe in God has this power of do you believe in God, which seems very real to the person saying it, so real that everybody should know what they mean by that word. Report an error in the passage at 22:12
22:49 But when you ask... People, what they think God is, there's so many different versions, so many different ways to perceive God or create God. Report an error in the passage at 22:49
23:01 God can be a racist. I've seen that in the whites in America. They certainly believe God prefers white people to black ones. Report an error in the passage at 23:01
23:15 He doesn't prefer them, but he wants, he doesn't want, he's an apartheid God. He wants them to have, he loves them both equally, but he wants them to remain separate, this kind of thing. And so God takes on our own kind of preferences and prejudices easily. Report an error in the passage at 23:15
23:37 Like in the modern feminist movement where women are saying, why does God always have to be a man? Why can't God be a woman? And of course the traditionalists get very upset. I heard in New York City they made a crucifix. With Jesus Christ as a woman, very nice shape too, and hung it up in the cathedral, in Episcopal Cathedral in New York, St. Report an error in the passage at 23:37
24:11 John the Divine. And everyone, people got very upset, like sacrilege, and that because those who were very attached to the idea of God as Jesus as a man. I found that putting a woman's form on the cross was sacrilegious or blasphemy. But that is because we create, you know, that's the view, that's the perception that we have of God as a man, and therefore when anyone suggests any other thing, then we feel threatened and offended. Report an error in the passage at 24:11
24:49 But God as a woman also seems to me a pretty dodgy position to take. take. Because, you know, in If you're just trying to create a god out of attributes, out of qualities, out of conditions, then you end up with anything goes. Anyone has a right to form god in any way they want. You know, you can make god into any kind of homophrodite or kind of a chimera of different creatures or All assembled into one thing. It's all fair enough if you're trying to present God as a thing. Report an error in the passage at 24:49
25:37 But as we begin to understand how our mind works and how to understand the nature of our own conditioning and how to transcend the conditioning of the mind, then this problem dissolves. It's not really a problem at all. Report an error in the passage at 25:37
25:55 we're We're moving toward a realization of truth rather than a definition and a limitation on the condition plane and saying God is this or that. Report an error in the passage at 25:55
26:12 So when somebody says, do you believe in God? It's an unfair question because what do you mean by God and belief and all that? Believing is a function of the mind. God is a perception. Report an error in the passage at 26:12
26:28 And even you is a conditioned perception. And so all these things, when seen in terms of dharma, dissolve as problems. They're non-problems. And therefore, there's no need to quibble and quarrel about just the symbols we might find ourselves inheriting in our particular religious preferences, conventional preferences. Report an error in the passage at 26:28
27:03 One thing on the level of principles, we all, I think most religions agree that murder and the killing of other human beings is something that should not be done. Report an error in the passage at 27:03
27:19 That doesn't mean they don't do it, but I think we all agree that that is something to refrain from doing. Report an error in the passage at 27:19
27:32 And Buddha also pointed to It wasn't trying to make this into a rigid, absolute fixed position that killing a human being was always bad, but the intentional killing of a human being. Sometimes, inevitably, we find the circumstances happening in which we're responsible for the death of another human being, but we had no intention of that, doing that. Report an error in the passage at 27:32
28:07 And that we have to accept too as part of our life experience. Hopefully none of us will have such an experience as what we most don't want to have, isn't it? What we most dread when we're driving our cars, isn't it? It's one of the most frightening possibilities is hitting somebody, killing them. Report an error in the passage at 28:07
28:30 So we certainly have no intention of when we get into our car to go out and hit somebody. The intention is to drive carefully, so we don't. We aren't responsible for the death of others. But inevitably, things happen in which we are. Inevitably, Buddhist monks who take very strong kind of refinement positions on say this non-violent principle, where we're trying to Report an error in the passage at 28:30
29:05 insects or birds, fish, reptiles. Report an error in the passage at 29:05
29:14 then what our life as human beings means that we always, there's some, we are responsible for the death of, just our breathing, our body walking on this planet, we inevitably step on things and cause the death of certain creatures. Sometimes we don't even see or know about. But if we're taking this principle of non-violence and non-killing to an ultimate position, then of course we'd better just kill ourselves first because our lives are, you know, we're inevitably involved with certain destructive forces that are just part of our karmic experience. Report an error in the passage at 29:14
30:07 But our intention isn't. That's what the Buddha emphasized. Our intention is to not deliberately, intentionally kill or destroy life just out of maliciousness, meanness of heart, selfishness, just for the thrill of destruction or violence. I think violence is very exciting to men anyway. Physical violence is a very exciting energy. Report an error in the passage at 30:07
30:36 Why do little boys like to hit each other, beat each other up and fight? That it seems kind of innate part of masculinity. Report an error in the passage at 30:36
30:47 And why do they? Because it's exciting. The aggressive instinctual energies of masculinity are that way. It's outgoing aggressiveness. The male body itself is a symbol for that. When you want to To symbolize aggressive power, you usually have a male figure. That's a very strong-looking male figure in a very belligerent, aggressive position. Report an error in the passage at 30:47
31:21 It's a power symbol. You wonder, I remember years ago when I was a layman living in California, you'd see these Hell's Angels, these kind of motorcyclists kind of zooming around, and they'd carry all these symbols with them. I have swastikas on there which is a peaceful symbol but has been identified with aggression and brutality through Hitler and therefore then leather and spikes and mean looks and every possible kind of helmet and guns and knives and razors and all these things are Are there signs of power in aggression? And I think this has a certain exciting effect, especially on a man's mind. Report an error in the passage at 31:21
32:19 Why is that? Is that because men are bad or that this is wrong? Or is this just part of our instinctual karmic inheritance of being born in a male form that we can reflect upon and we can transmute? I mean, Report an error in the passage at 32:19
32:42 we can just follow the kind of instinctual tendencies of masculinity and just go along with it, which is not hard to do for us, but to try to neutralize that, to use that energy, which is very powerful energy, towards a doing good rather than destroying or harming. more compassionate I mean, Report an error in the passage at 32:42
33:07 And this of course takes, we need principles, we need guidelines to be able to do that. One wonders why do people, why do men commit like rape or violent actions or just beating up helpless people or just loving to shoot and kill. Report an error in the passage at 33:07
33:32 You hear about the destruction of North America with the With men shooting buffaloes from the train, you know, just enjoying, just aiming a gun at something and shooting it and trying to kill just for somehow the power that one has over the life of some other creature. So this is an undeveloped kind of, even demonic kind of energy, a love of power and the ability to To have power over others and destroy things. But this can also be channeled into compassionate action. Report an error in the passage at 33:32
34:15 But we need the principles to be able to do that. If you don't put principles first in your life, then it's easy to just follow the instinctual excitement of violence and sex and that is a part of our physical and instinctual... Report an error in the passage at 34:15
34:47 to say adhere to principles are, say, non-violence, non-killing, stealing, regards to sexuality, to respect the... The body, one's own body, and not to exploit it or misuse it just for excitement or pleasure for oneself, or the body of someone else, isn't it? To take responsibility and try to channel that energy, sexual energy, towards something that is compassionate and wholesome and skillful rather than just indulgent and selfish. Report an error in the passage at 34:47
35:30 But we need to have these principles or these standards, moral standards, to remind us because if we don't put these standards first, then sometimes we forget them. Then we get carried away by the mass energies, the mob. You can see that here in Britain, the footballer mentality, isn't it? How easy it is for footballers to just get caught in a mass violent Report an error in the passage at 35:30
36:02 It's very powerful. And if you don't have principles, if you don't put your principles first, then all of us, especially the men, would easily get pulled into that rather exciting, violent energy of the crowd. And a couple of years ago, I was watching this video about the, it was called Return to Milai, which is the... Report an error in the passage at 36:02
36:30 A Vietnamese village that was destroyed by the American troops back in 1968. I think it was 1968. Report an error in the passage at 36:30
36:45 These American soldiers were flown in and said that there were all these Viet Cong people in this village and that they were just to annihilate them. And so they were flown in and they... 1968. Report an error in the passage at 36:45
37:02 But they weren't. They were just kind of old women, old men, children. Nobody was aggressive or violent from the Vietnamese side. But suddenly these soldiers started just shooting and they just murdered everything in sight, including the water buffaloes and children. These people were not in any way fighting them or causing any reason. Report an error in the passage at 37:02
37:31 There's no reason to do this, except they've been conditioned to do it, and the military, of course, isn't into nonviolence as a principle. Report an error in the passage at 37:31
37:42 But the interesting thing about the film was that there was, I mean, it gave kind of testimonials of people, of American GIs who were involved in this, and one was a A black man who had been very much involved with the slaughter, killing many people. And it showed this man is shaking with fear, sitting in his home in America, taking all kinds of drugs, absolutely frightened and seeing nothing but the ghosts in the faces of the people he slaughtered 20 years before. Report an error in the passage at 37:42
38:20 So he was haunted like the furies in the Greek tragedy. Report an error in the passage at 38:20
38:29 That heedless action of just being caught in the excitement and violence and fear of that moment where he acted on that fear and just started killing everything he could find. The result is the karmic result then is this neurotic or even psychotic anxiety. Just totally Frightened by everything. And just the ghosts, the faces. He could see the faces of these people that he'd murdered. Report an error in the passage at 38:29
39:07 Then there was another interview with another man, another black man from the South who said that he knew it was wrong and that he was a good Christian and he didn't believe in killing people so he refused to kill anyone. And you can see this man, 20 years later, had a lot of self-respect, was able to go back to life in America and somehow live a fairly decent life, from what it implied in this video, anyway. Report an error in the passage at 39:07
39:43 But he had principles. In other words, when he saw the situation, he saw that these people were unarmed, that it wasn't... filled with the enemy ready to shoot them down and destroy them, that then he in no way was going to participate in the slaughter. I noticed that Report an error in the passage at 39:43
40:35 I was brought up when we think of our own lives, notice that Report an error in the passage at 40:35
40:39 In a very kind of moral family, where principles and morality were instilled in me at a very young age, good Christian principles. Report an error in the passage at 40:39
40:55 And this I'm certainly grateful for, but also it tended to blind me to oftentimes the actual drives that were affecting me. Report an error in the passage at 40:55
41:12 Because the principles I valued so much and they were so important to me that sometimes I couldn't really accept into consciousness some of the actual instinctual energies that I started having, especially at the time of puberty, developing the sexual nature. So this was very confusing because one... Report an error in the passage at 41:12
41:42 One felt a very strong attachment to these principles and ideals and one didn't quite know what to do with these energies that one was feeling. Also, I was brought up to be non-violent, so the kind of natural violent tendencies tended to be feared and rejected and repressed. And so I remember One time just feeling sometimes some very strong violent energies as a boy and being terribly frightened by it and just trying to control it, feeling very threatened by these forces because my principles were there that I was attached to. Report an error in the passage at 41:42
42:36 But there wasn't mindfulness and wisdom to know what was actually taking place or how to integrate, how to transmute any of this into, say, wisdom or active compassion. Report an error in the passage at 42:36
42:51 All one could do was just hold it back, try to run away or hide or be frightened by the forces that one has that don't fit into the principles that that have become dominant in one's conscious experience of life. Then in meditation, strange enough, becoming a celibate monk, Report an error in the passage at 42:51
43:17 interesting what celibacy does, because I'm sure many of you think celibacy is just a mere repression of these energies, and see it only as a kind of maybe neurotic men that are so frightened of women they hide behind robes. Report an error in the passage at 43:17
43:41 Which in some cases is probably true. Report an error in the passage at 43:41
43:57 But also, what you're doing is opening up the mind, but you're in a form, say the monastic form, and the principles, the precepts of monasticism. Report an error in the passage at 43:57
44:17 And then, of course, in that way you somehow have the courage and the encouragement to look at what you're actually feeling. And this is what I think most of us appreciate about monastic life, is that we have been encouraged to really look and honestly accept and notice what we're actually feeling, even though the energies that we're having, rather than really just pushing them away because they don't fit into the principles of monasticism, but we've seen that the principles of monasticism are more for supporting and giving us the confidence to actually look at the instinctual nature that we have and integrate that energy through, and this is done through mindfulness and through wisdom, through satipanya. Report an error in the passage at 44:17
45:19 So if you're living in the right way, using the form in the right way, then rather than being a mere suppression in a kind of trying to live up to Monastic ideals and then failing, because monks that do try to live up to the ideals of monasticism without mindfully accepting and noticing what they're actually feeling and the forces that they're experiencing and integrating them, then of course you can only be a principled monk for a while and then it doesn't work. Report an error in the passage at 45:19
45:56 After a while you just can't stand The life, because you tend to feel unworthy. You tend to think that because you're still having these strong drives affecting your life, and they even become stronger in monastic life, things become intensified in monastic life, that you just can't be a monk, or you can take it very personally as some inadequacy in yourself. Report an error in the passage at 45:56
46:28 Or you can go into the New Age kind of thinking, which says monasticism, I always knew it was a kind of cop-out, and modern life is expressing these energies by acting on them and fully indulging and enjoying everything that these impulses tell you to do, a kind of hedonistic approach. Report an error in the passage at 46:28
47:03 Compassion, then, seems to be like the dynamic. Report an error in the passage at 47:03
47:22 ...response to the suffering of other beings. It's not, I wouldn't want to put it in terms of a principle, but much more in terms of a response to life that comes from an understanding of the suffering of oneself. Of course, you have to understand from your own experience. And from there, you begin to understand the suffering that all beings have, whether they're human beings or animals or whatever. Report an error in the passage at 47:22
48:02 Compassion then, as a universe, we can feel compassion for all sentient beings because we can, we realize the forces and energies and the vulnerability and the pain, the discomfort. The unfairness, the injustice, the brutality, the insensitivity, all the things that are wrong in our society, in the people that we live with, in the families we're from, in the countries we live in. Report an error in the passage at 48:02
48:42 Here in Britain, as a country where principles or ideals are very high, to be fair and just. And this is very important that things be fair in this country. And then when we hear about the unfairnesses and the injustices, we feel very indignant. And we feel angry at the people who we think are being unfair or unjust. Here animals are regarded with great respect. Report an error in the passage at 48:42
49:15 respect, you that people... Respect the lives of animals. It's interesting to see here in Britain how much wildlife there is. Here, just in this area, in Ash Ridge, there's deer running wild in the woods, and rabbits and squirrels, and there's birds everywhere. I mean, in Britain, there's a lot of respect for wildlife. And in Thailand, there's... Report an error in the passage at 49:15
49:48 Hard to find a rabbit anymore. People, not that they disrespect it, they see the wildlife as something you eat. They aren't into just killing. They don't like to just go around shooting things, but oftentimes as the population pressures increase, then the animal life diminishes. Report an error in the passage at 49:48
50:17 It's just because of the necessity for food. For sustenance. But here in England we find that we have a comfortable enough, we have enough food, we don't need to kill the rabbits around here. Chithurst, there's so many rabbits, hundreds of them running around, that there's every reason to, that a few kind of shots at a few rabbits would be greatly appreciated by the neighboring farmer. Report an error in the passage at 50:17
50:50 In fact, he'd love to come over and shoot our rabbits because they're pests. But we see a kind of Buddhist monks, we want to protect these sweet little creatures and we like the idea of protecting the innocent or these creatures because we're not farmers and they're not harming anything of ours. Report an error in the passage at 50:50
51:19 Principles then, they are what we... What we see as something to really look to and to reflect upon and to use as something, a direction to follow. Then in particular instances or situations, contingencies, we have to rise up to a situation and do what is appropriate. Report an error in the passage at 51:19
51:54 And that, of course, The principle is involved in that, but also there is a natural response to a situation that isn't coming from blindness or stupidity, but from mindfulness and wisdom. And that I would call compassion. Or joy, joyfulness. Report an error in the passage at 51:54
52:20 The human state also can be a very joyful one, when you have the muditā. Report an error in the passage at 52:20
52:29 This joy for the beauty around us and the goodness of others. When the mind's not caught up on the egotistical plane that causes jealousy and envy, then the natural response from the heart of any human individual and the pure heart of that individual is joy. When we see the beauty of someone else or the goodness, we don't, instead of feeling... Report an error in the passage at 52:29
53:00 Jealous or put down or lesser, we feel a sense of gladness. Report an error in the passage at 53:00
53:10 And that's not because we're trying to feel that way, it's because that's a natural way to feel. When the mind is no longer lumbered with the ego and the conditioned view of oneself as being this person or this type or this thing. Report an error in the passage at 53:10
53:43 So your true nature then, Putting it in these terms is purity and intelligence. And not intelligence on the IQ type of intelligence, but on the universal intelligence. The human nature then, our human state, has this potential of ultimate liberation. In other words... To be free from just the mere conditioning habit formations that we find affect us, such as the body we have, the conditioning of the mind, the karma that we have, particular character tendencies and so forth that we have, or things we inherit from our ancestors. Report an error in the passage at 53:43
54:33 All these things are affecting us in any given moment, but they're seen no longer. In terms of self, but in terms of truth, of dharma. In terms of dharma, then we're seeing that they arise and cease. And then in regards to action, how we respond to a situation is through our ability to work, to have principles, moral values, but not be attached to them. Report an error in the passage at 54:33
55:10 Use them as... Guides for reflection. And then to be able to trust and respond to a situation in which we would say would be compassionate or joyful. That is according to the particular situation of that moment. Report an error in the passage at 55:10
55:34 And then ultimately abiding more in the equanimity, emotional balance. We're not trying to seek joy. We're not trying to find happiness. We're not trying to make joy the goal of our life or compassion. But we're opening the heart, trusting in the dharma so that we can respond to the vicissitudes that we experience and then... Report an error in the passage at 55:34
56:11 To abide in equanimity, in a state of calm and serenity, and trust in just being with this flow of life and this experience of consciousness. I was thinking the other night how this human state is one, the miracle of conscious experience. We're all involved in it, aren't we? Through our birth in the human form on this planet, And we're this way. We're conscious beings. But we're not conscious just through habit. I mean, we're not bound to the consciousness, but we can reflect on it. Report an error in the passage at 56:11
56:57 And so that is the great miracle of our humanity, is that consciousness is now to be seen as a way of learning, a way of understanding ultimate principles and realize... And the ultimate reality within this very highly conditioned state we find ourselves and very subjective experience of life from the position we happen to be in all the time and just this human body wherever it happens to be. Report an error in the passage at 56:57
57:38 So Report an error in the passage at 57:38
57:42 now I think I'll end my formal talk on this. And then to invite you all for a cup of tea, a break. And for those of you who want to pursue this further, in about 15 minutes we can meet again for discussion. Report an error in the passage at 57:42
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