This is an AI-generated transcript from auto-generated subtitles for the video above. It likely contains inaccuracies, especially with speaker attribution if there are multiple speakers.

Meditating from an Ethical Core

Well, hello everyone. Here we are, and I'm delighted to be here and see new and familiar names in the chat.

Meditation could be seen as a special place, kind of unique, where for the duration of the meditation, you are forgiven for everything. For the duration of the meditation, you don't have to bring the past with you. You don't have to carry it. You don't have to be under the burden of it. If you think it's useful to do that, then think wisely, and maybe it is sometimes. But you are really allowed to put it aside, kind of as if you're forgiven.

And then imagine that for this meditation, you're going to meditate from the most ethical place that you know. The place where you're least inclined to cause any harm to anyone, intentionally or unintentionally. Least inclined to be mean or spiteful, or least inclined to be greedy. This is what I would call the most wholesome place that we know; maybe in English, we could say the most ethical place. Assume that stance. Assume that place that you might know already, or that you intuit, or that you have some vague feeling for—a place which is maybe the ethical source for yourself.

From that place, meditate on your breathing, as if that is the center of it all. Then gaze upon your experience. Be mindful of your breathing and whatever else is going on. Assume a posture of being confident in your ethics, at least for these minutes of the meditation. Before and after is a whole other story, but for this time, sit upright and meditate in a way that you feel reassured in your ethical stance.

Gently close your eyes. Without breathing deeply, just breathing simply and tenderly, breathe with whatever ethical sensibility, sense, or feeling that might be here for you, just here and now.

Perhaps as you exhale, relax any holding in your body—any holding from the busyness or activity of life or of the mind. Relax the body as a way of relaxing both the body and the mind. Relax the belly, softening in the belly. Relax in the chest.

As you relax and feel the relaxation, begin the process of quieting the mind. Relax and soften around the shoulders. Also soften and relax in the face, the cheeks, and around the eyes. And perhaps soften and relax the brain itself, or the thinking mind.

If thinking are waves in the mind, let those waves flatten out so the mind becomes more like the flat surface of a quiet lake, broad and peaceful.

Now take a few moments to see if you can connect to some place in your body that holds, manifests, or expresses a feeling for being ethical. A place where there's an appreciation for the absence of tension that comes when we're not hateful, greedy, mean, or critical. The absence of contraction or tension, the absence of fever or agitation. Perhaps there is the presence of some sense of ease or openness, peacefulness, or some sense of care, respect, and valuing of others.

If there's a place in your body that this is associated with, breathe with that place. Breathe through it, and let that place be a mutual support with settling in with your breathing. Settle in to accompany your breathing one breath at a time. Let the thinking mind get quieter with every exhale, letting go of thoughts. Settle in with the ethical goodness that lives within you.

Whatever you're aware of in meditation, see if you can be aware of it in a wholesome way. In the place of ethical wholesomeness, meet each thing with a dedication to cause no harm to oneself or anything else.

[Silence]

As we come to the end of the sitting, take a few moments to see if you can sit quietly, accepting of your own wholesome core—the place inside that's the source of an ethical life, a motivation to attempt to not cause harm to others and to oneself.

Appreciate that for this meditation, we're sitting in a wide circle of community, of people who are touching in and considering their own core of goodness, their ethical core, a core of non-harming. What a unique thing to be in relationship to such a large group of people with a similar orientation for these minutes.

May the connection we have to our ethical core be a place that we stay close to, so that we can go through the world in a way that supports the welfare and well-being of others. It supports other people's feeling of safety, and maybe is even a catalyst for other people to recognize their own ethical core, which is so easy to lose touch with in the busyness, activities, and challenges of life.

May it be that our practice today spreads from us as a catalyst for the welfare and happiness of others that can come when we treat each other with respect, kindness, and a dedication to non-harming.

May no beings be harmed. May no beings be disrespected. May no beings be marginalized or diminished in value. May all beings be happy, safe, and peaceful. May they live in such a way that they breathe easily and freely, and that their hearts can sail and fly on the winds of freedom.

Buddha's Criticism of Caste Divisions

Hello everyone, and welcome to this time for a dharma talk.

Today I want to bring forth some teachings of the Buddha which are timeless for our society. In our world, in many countries and down through the ages, there have been people who consider themselves superior to other people. Lots of conflict arises from that, and lots of inequities arise from that. People who are considered superior will have greater access to wealth, power, status, and all kinds of things.

It was the same way in the time of the Buddha. In the time of the Buddha, there was a particular class of people—some use the word caste in relationship to them—known as the brahmins^[1]. At least some of the brahmins at the time of the Buddha thought of themselves as superior to others. They believed they were the only ones who were really pure, that they came from the divine source of life in a way that was superior to every other form of life, and that they should be treated that way. They believed they should be treated with respect, power, and a sense that they were purer than everybody else.

What we find is that the Buddha, who is sometimes called a peaceful sage, was very definitive in not standing for this kind of teaching. He was very strong and direct in opposing this idea. It wasn't that he was accepting of everything or just sat in the background and let these things go along without addressing it. He addressed it very forcefully, especially when people came to ask him about it.

I want to read a passage where a brahmin is quoted claiming that they are the best. Someone comes to the Buddha and says: "Master Gotama, the brahmins say thus: Brahmins are the highest caste; those of any other caste are inferior. Brahmins are the fairest caste; those of any other caste are dark. Only brahmins are purified, not non-brahmins. Brahmins alone are the sons of Brahma, the offspring of Brahma, born of his mouth, created by Brahma, heirs to Brahma."

That's the claim. It's a pretty confident, bold thing to say. People would come to the Buddha and make this claim, and then say, "What do you think of this?" In the Majjhima Nikāya sutta number 93, he goes through a whole series of arguments undermining that statement. The person asking him just won't accept any of the Buddha's arguments, and the Buddha keeps going, opposing the argument that it's by their birth or their purity that they are born brahmins. He step-by-step goes through it all.

There is another sutta which I think is beautiful. It's mostly poetry. It's called the Vāseṭṭha Sutta, number 98 in the middle-length discourses. This issue of caste superiority is a big theme in a number of these suttas. In this one, there are two brahmin students who are extremely learned in brahminical lore, texts, and histories.

They ask themselves a question: "How is one a brahmana?" One student says, "When one is well born on both maternal and paternal sides, of pure descent as far back as the seventh generation of ancestors, unassailable and impeccable with respect to birth, then one is a brahmana." So it's really a matter of birth. How you're born makes you a brahmin. And if you have this pure descent from seven generations, and maybe before that from the god Brahma himself, then you get to claim this superiority.

The other student, whose name is Vāseṭṭha—and that's the name of the sutta—has a different point of view. He says, "When one is of good behavior and proficient in the observances, then one is a brahmana." What makes a brahmin is their behavior. When their behavior is ethical, and they know their brahminical observances and rituals, then they are a brahmin.

They have an argument, and one can't convince the other, so they decide to go see the Buddha. They think he is well-respected and wise, and certainly he'll have some good things to say about this. They say, "A dispute has arisen between us over the doctrine of birth. One of us says one is a brahmana by birth, but I say one is a brahmana by action, by what one does. Since neither of us is able to convince the other, we have come to ask you, sir, widely famed to be enlightened."

The Buddha says, "I will clearly explain this to you. I will explain it to you both in proper sequence as they are the generic divisions of living beings, for their kinds differ from one another." He is going to describe how the different species of beings are unique and differentiated. Some people translate what follows with the word species to distinguish them.

He begins by talking about grasses and trees: "Know the grasses and trees as well. Though they do not even make any claims for themselves, their distinctive mark is produced by birth." What makes them distinctive comes along with being born as particular kinds of trees or plants, for their varieties and types differ from one another.

"Next come the moths and the butterflies. Even through the various kinds of ants, their distinctive mark is produced by their birth, for their kinds differ from one another. Know the four-footed beings, both small and large; their distinctive mark is produced by birth. Know that those whose bellies are their feet, that is the serpents, those long-backed creatures; their distinctive mark is produced by birth. Note too the fish that dwell in water, and next the birds who fly with their wings in the sky."

He's going through all these beings and saying their distinctive mark is made by birth. The repetition stands out in this oral culture in which he was teaching; it's almost like a song.

"While among the many kinds of beings their distinctive marks are determined by birth, among humans there are no distinctive marks produced by their particular birth." There is no species differentiation or significant difference produced by birth that makes one person superior to someone else.

"Not by the hairs of the head, not by the ears or the eyes, not by the mouth or the nose, not by the lips or the brow, not by the neck or the shoulders, not by the belly or the back, not by the buttocks or the breast, not by the anus or the genitals, not by the hands or the feet, nor by the fingers or nails, not by the knees or the thighs, nor by their color or voice. Birth does not make a distinctive mark as it does with other kinds of beings."

There is no characteristic that we're born with that separates us out from other human beings as being superior. "Separately, among human beings, nothing distinctive is found in their bodies." Of course, we know there are lots of differences in people's bodies, but there's no inherent distinction that is the source or reason to classify people as superior or inferior.

Then he makes an interesting statement: "Classification among human beings is spoken of by designation." It's by convention, by the constructs of the mind that we classify people in particular ways. As soon as you call it a designation, it becomes a product of the mind and culture, not anything inherent. Classification of people has some usefulness, but it's always going to be fragile because it's just a concept overlaid on top of human beings. It's provisional and contextual.

The Buddha goes on to say: "The humans who live by husbandry you should know as farmers. Those who earn their living through crafts you should know as craftspeople. Those who live by trade, know them as merchants. Those who live serving others you should know as servants. Those who live by stealing you should know as thieves. Those among human beings who earn their living by archery, know them as warriors. Those who live by priestly service, know them as priests. And those who rule a village or realm, know them as a king. And none of these," he says, "are a brahmana."

The Buddha's orientation is to classify people by their roles, by what they do. Remember, one of the arguments was that people are brahmins by their action. The Buddha says that by their action is what we call people. That means it only really applies when they're doing that action. People change what they do and, in a sense, change their roles.

A significant moment with my first senior Zen teacher happened when I was talking about my relationship with my father. He said to me, "Your father was a human being before he was your father, before you were born." Don't only see this person through the lens of being a father. This person has a whole other way of being in the world that's free of being a father. Certainly, my father acted like a father, but someone is a father when they're fathering. Someone is a worker when they're working. Someone is a barber when they're barbering. Someone is a cook when they're cooking. People shift these activities and take on different designations.

But all of that does not make a person a brahmin. Rather than throwing away the concept of a brahmin as someone worthy of respect, the Buddha redefined it for his own purposes:

"I do not call someone a brahmana based on genealogy or maternal birth. One who, without hatred, endures insults, attacks, and bondage, whose power is patience—that is the one I call a brahmana. One who is without anger, observant of good behavior, tamed—that is the one I call a brahmana. One who understands right here the destruction of suffering for oneself—that is the one I call a brahmana. One who, having put down weapons towards all beings, frail and firm, is the one I call a brahmana. Not hostile among the hostile, peaceful among those who have taken up weapons, not taking among those who take, not killing or making others kill—that is the one I call a brahmana. One from whom lust, hatred, and conceit have dropped away—that is the one I call a brahmana. One who utters no rough speech, whose speech is articulate and truthful, by which one does not hurt anyone—that is the one I call a brahmana. One here who does not take anything in the world not given—that is the one I call a brahmana. One here who has abandoned craving, who wanders without a home with craving and existence destroyed—that is the one I call a brahmana."

The factors that the Buddha says make someone a brahmana have to do with ethical behavior and action. These passages appear in a number of places in the suttas, both the Dhammapada and the Sutta Nipāta, emphasizing that the worth of a human being is defined by how ethically they live. The Buddha wasn't going to see someone in the lowest class of society as inferior; he saw them as worthy and valuable if they lived ethically.

When the Buddha created a monastic community, there was no differentiation between those who came from the brahmin class, the ruling class, the merchant class, or the worker class. Everyone was folded in with equal roles and status. It must have been remarkable in the ancient world to come from a society of social divisions into a community where those divisions had evaporated.

The Buddha continues: "For whom name and clan ascribed to one are designations in the world, having originated by convention, they are ascribed here and there."

Here again is the insight that there is nothing inherent in the natural world regarding status and position. We know that these concepts, like racism, were inventions that became so strongly solidified that they are difficult to shake off. Even people who consciously don't live by these designations have inherited unconscious biases from a bifurcated culture.

"One is not a brahmana by birth, nor by birth a non-brahmana. By action one becomes a brahmana, by action one becomes a non-brahmana. That is how the wise see action as it really is, seers of Dependent Origination^[2], skilled in action and its result."

To be skilled in Dependent Origination means seeing how things occur and exist in dependence on conditions that come together, understanding that there is nothing inherent that doesn't change. Because of that, they become skilled in action. The Buddha was sometimes referred to as a teacher of action because, for him, action was the way to liberation. How we live defines the worth of a human being.

He concludes: "By action the world goes around; by action this generation of people spin around. Sentient beings are fastened, tied up by their actions, which is like the linchpin of a moving chariot. By the spiritual life, by self-control and taming, by this one becomes a brahmana. This is supreme brahminhood."

To me, it's a little bit jarring to put forward that any individual is a brahmin, or more worthy than anybody else. But it's certainly a very powerful critique of the racism and classism that existed at his time. This teaching still resonates in India today as a way of stepping away from the caste system.

In the 1950s, there was a doctor named B.R. Ambedkar^[3]. In my youth, I thought he was one of the few people with the moral stature and integrity to be critical of Mahatma Gandhi. He belonged to the "untouchable" class, the lowest caste in India. Around 1954, after a big search for a religion that wouldn't promote the caste system, he landed on Buddhism. He led mass conversions of the untouchables into Buddhism because the Buddha was so clearly breaking down these caste divisions and emphasizing ethics.

I love the idea of breaking down these divisions and emphasizing our ethical life. A life of harmlessness and dedication to not stealing, killing, or lying can be a common ground where these divisions soften. Rather than thinking of ourselves as higher or better than anyone else, it frees us from higher-lesser language altogether. We can have simplicity, openness, and respect for everyone. We can support everyone in discovering that deep inside our core is an ethical nature—a heart that wants to live harmlessly.

All the ways that we humans cause harm come from a more superficial surface area of life that falls away when we settle deep down into ourselves. That's part of the role of meditation: to shed the superficial and settle into the origin for a life of ethics and goodness. From there, maybe we can contribute to dissolving these painful divisions in our society. It's needed in these times just as much as it was needed in the time of the Buddha.

Thank you.