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.

The Way to the Beyond: A Study of the Pārāyanavagga (3 of 4)

Introduction

And welcome, everybody. Sādhu, Sādhu, Sādhu. So good to see you. I hope you're all doing well. You're all in different parts of the world today. Will, Korocat, Kim, Alex, and everybody else who's there joining us. Eric, how's it going? So you've got your camera working. I'm joining you today, as always, from Harris Park in Sydney, just near Parramatta. This is the traditional land of the Burramattagal people of the Darug nation, and we pay respects to their elders past, present, and emerging.

For the last couple of weeks, we've been doing a series of classes on the Pārāyanavagga of the Sutta Nipata. I've been reading through my translation of the Pārāyanavagga, talking a little bit about the meaning of the text, how it's formed, why we've chosen to translate it in this way, and so on. This week, we will continue with that.

The first week, we looked mainly at the introductory narrative. We noted the somewhat lowbrow emphasis of the introduction to sort of get people involved and excited. If somebody was reading it and looking forward to having a good story about curses and black magic, they were probably going to be disappointed with the second part, which was all about very advanced states of meditation. Throughout this, we are seeing a glimpse into the meditative culture in the time of the Buddha, particularly how the Buddha responded to the meditative culture of what appeared to be the most advanced of the Brahmanical Rishis of the time. Clearly, the questions and the meditative culture around these discussions are reminiscent of the teachings of the Buddha's former teachers, Alara Kalama and Uddaka Rāmaputta^[1], with a special emphasis on the dimension of nothingness, one of the formless attainments. In addition, I would suggest that it's likely that these Brahmanical issues were of the Upanishadic^[2] school, perhaps related to that of Yajnavalkya^[3]. It's a bit difficult to specify this exactly, and I'm sure there was a lot more diversity and richness to these cultures than we are even aware of. So I wouldn't want to push this too far in terms of identifying the people, but just as a general affinity of ideas, that is certainly there.

I also suggested that one of the reasons for the framing of the narrative in the way we have it today is as a conversion narrative, especially bringing the Dhamma to new lands. This is very interesting, because I'm speaking to you from Australia, and many of you are listening from the United States. These also are new lands where the Dhamma is being introduced. In a similar way, we find ourselves having to find a way of articulating the Dhamma that is going to somehow connect with the people in these different countries. Of course, we're not going to do that in exactly the same way that was done in early Buddhism, but still, I think it's interesting to listen to how that was done and to see what things there are to learn from that.

One of the overarching features of the conversion narratives in Buddhism is that the narratives are much more interested in incorporating, subsuming, and relating to the things that they found in other places, rather than in replacing them. So we see in Buddhist cultures today that it's very common. If you look in Sri Lanka, there's a devala^[4] at each temple, or many of the temples, like a Hindu shrine. In Thailand, there is a spirit house or something. And in Chinese Buddhism, it's almost related to folk Buddhism and so on. It would be a mistake, I think, to imagine that these were late creations in the Dhamma. In fact, I believe that right from the beginning, these things were part of the Buddhist culture. What they do is that they express a relation of friendliness and connection with the beliefs and practices that are found around in a particular culture, rather than a very contested and aggressive relationship. Buddhists have never felt that they had a need to displace, replace, or eliminate people who were believing and practicing other things. On the contrary, our main motivation has always been to try to uplift people to freedom from suffering.

Now, that said, let us continue with the discussion today. The chat is open, please ask questions in there. I'm going to try to take it a little bit more slowly today and leave the opportunity for you to ask questions as you would like. Let's begin with the next one of this series of questions. I should also just mention, as a kind of meta-comment, that what we've got is a series of questions. It shows how important it is that the manner of the Buddha's teachings was shaped by the kinds of questions that people were asking him. Being able to ask good questions is a skill all in itself.

The Questions of Nanda (5.8)

So this is number 5.8, The Questions of Nanda.

“People say there are sages in the world,” said Venerable Nanda, “but how is this the case? Is someone called a sage because of their knowledge, or because of their way of life?”

“Experts do not speak of a sage in terms of view, oral transmission, or notion. Those who are sages live far from the crowd, I say, untroubled, with no need for hope.”

“As to those ascetics and brahmins,” said Venerable Nanda, “who speak of purity in terms of what is seen or heard, or in terms of precepts and vows, or in terms of countless different things. Living self-controlled in that matter, have they crossed over rebirth and old age, good sir? I ask you, Blessed One; please tell me this.”

“As to those ascetics and brahmins,” replied the Buddha, “who speak of purity in terms of what is seen or heard, or in terms of precepts and vows, or in terms of countless different things. Even though they live self-controlled in that matter, they’ve not crossed over rebirth and old age, I declare.”

“As to those ascetics and brahmins,” said Venerable Nanda, “who speak of purity in terms of what is seen or heard, or in terms of precepts and vows, or in terms of countless different things. You say they have not crossed the flood, sage. Then who exactly in the world of gods and humans has crossed over rebirth and old age, good sir? I ask you, Blessed One; please tell me this.”

“I don’t say that all ascetics and brahmins,” replied the Buddha, “are shrouded by rebirth and old age. There are those here who have given up all that is seen, heard, and thought, and precepts and vows, who have given up all the countless different things. Fully understanding craving, free of defilements, those people, I say, have crossed the flood.”

“I rejoice in the words of the great hermit! You have expounded non-attachment well, Gotama. There are those here who have given up all that is seen, heard, and thought, and precepts and vows, who have given up all the countless different things. Fully understanding craving, free of defilements, those people, I agree, have crossed the flood.”

All right, so here Nanda wants to ask about the idea of a sage, of somebody who's become free. Now this idea of a sage, a Muni^[5], is a... I don't know if it's unique, but it certainly is a very characteristic feature of the Indian tradition. From a very early time, even long before the Buddha, there was somehow this idea in the culture that it was possible for a human being to find some kind of transcendence, some kind of perfection. That it was possible to recognize the change, the sufferings, the things that are binding us to this world, and through that recognition, by acting in the right way, to become free of them.

Now, in a certain sense, that understanding is quite common sense and quite empirical, because we've all seen that happen, at least to some degree. We've all been subjected to some kind of suffering, some kind of being entrapped, and through some way, we've been able to get free of that. It might only mean little things, but still, we have some idea of what that means. But the Indian tradition says that it's possible to do this completely, that this being of entrapment is not inherent to who we are as human beings. In fact, nothing is inherent to who we are as human beings. There's no such thing as having an inherent nature of any kind. If it's possible for us to be entrapped, then it's equally possible for us to be freed. From a very early time, people believed that there were these sages, and of course, it's not easy to know who is a sage and who is not. Who is really freed and who is not. Why do we believe this? Because of their knowledge, because of their way of life. These are still similar kinds of criteria that we have today. We don't say that someone's a sage because of their view, because of oral transmission, their learning, or because of a notion.

Now I'm going to comment a little bit on these terms here. "Terms of view," I'm gonna actually revise that translation. With that view is correct, I'm going to have to double-check that in any case. Normally, when we have this diṭṭhiyā na sutiyā na ñāṇena, it means what is seen. Ahh, diṭṭhiyā, right. Again, I'm going to have to just review this a little bit. Normally what this means is in terms of seeing, what's heard, and what's known. This is referring to the different kinds of epistemological sources of knowledge that were recognized in ancient India. These categories and these ideas are used extensively throughout the suttas, most characteristically in the Aṭṭhakavagga^[6], the previous chapter in the Sutta Nipata. But we're finding them also here in the Pārāyanavagga.

So, the vision. We see somebody who's a sage, they look like a sage, they strike us as being one. It is still very powerful, isn't it? Very powerful thing to be able to see somebody and to recognize, "Ah, this is a sage." Because of oral transmission, because of their learning, because they have been part of a lineage. Again, very, very common these days, right? "So-and-so is from such-and-such a lineage, therefore they must be a sage." Or from a notion. This is the word ñāṇena, normally translated as knowledge. But when we find it in this kind of usage in the Aṭṭhakavagga, it is often used for a kind of mistaken understanding of things and misrepresentation of things, so I use "notion" when it's used in this kind of sense.

So sages live far from the crowd, untroubled, with no need for hope (nirāsā). The word āsā is probably the closest word in Pali to what we would have as a sense of hope in English. It is not exactly the same, but it's still that idea that you're not longing to have to realize something in the future because you have already realized it.

Precepts and vows, of course, being another of the criteria by which people are sometimes judged as being sages. "So-and-so is very ascetic. So-and-so is keeping all of these precepts. So-and-so has these vows," and so on. These things can be very impressive. The Buddha says that anybody who understands purity in this way has not crossed over rebirth and old age. If you believe that all of these things—your knowledge, your transmission, your tradition, your precepts, your vows, and so on—grant you purity, then you have not crossed over old age.

But then who has crossed over?

One of the things that this dialogue is getting to is that the things we use to judge spiritual practitioners are the things that are obvious, the things that are on the surface. But those things are ridiculously easy to be fooled by. As somebody who does this professionally, I can just tell you, honestly, as one of the tools of the trade, that there is nothing easier than fooling people who want to believe. I can tell you some of the tricks of the trade if you like. For example, if you are a monk and you meet somebody you want to impress, you meet someone for the first time, you silently nod and say, "Ah, we meet again." See, that's all it takes. And then they're going away thinking, "What does he mean? Has he seen us in past lives?" That's all you have to do. It's ridiculously easy to convey these kinds of things. Unscrupulous spiritual practitioners are doing this kind of thing all the time. It's literally going on; it's part of the business of religion or spirituality. It has been since the time of the Buddha. It doesn't matter whether it's Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever it is; it's exactly the same all the time, and it's so easy.

I remember one time I was at this temple in Singapore giving a talk. It was a fairly large temple. Sometimes with these big places, you might have different people doing different kinds of things. The people who invited me were the sutta or meditation group in the temple, and they wanted me to come and talk about meditation and so forth. I was in the Dhamma hall giving a talk. At the back of the Dhamma hall—it's a large hall so it wasn't interfering with us—there was a monk who was doing blessings and amulets. As I was giving my talk, I was keeping an eye out for what was actually going on at the other end. You could see there was this constant line of people coming to see this monk for the whole hour. Each one, he would give some blessing, give a short chant, sprinkle a bit of holy water, give them an amulet, and they would give him money. That's it. They would give money, and then they'd get this stuff in return. Okay, next, next, next. There was a purely material relationship. That's just how it works. It's so easy to slip into these kinds of things.

So the Buddha redefined someone who is free, not in terms of the things you can identify, but in terms of what they've let go of. They've given up all of these different externals. They've given up all of these attachments. They've given up craving, and they're free of defilements. These are the ones who have really crossed over the flood. Who is that? How do you tell? Well, not easy, right? Still today, people wonder about these things. It's kind of a hot topic of conversation: who's enlightened and who isn't enlightened. It's easy to make a nice list of all the red flags that are going to show you who isn't enlightened. Not so easy to tell who is. I'm not sure if I can solve this problem for any of you, but my only consideration would be to say, atta dīpā viharatha^[7]. The Buddha said, rely on yourself, rely on your own wisdom. There's nobody out there who is going to be able to save you. If you can find wisdom, it doesn't matter if you find it from a coffee mug, a fortune cookie, a Dhamma talk, or from the dog next door. It really doesn't. You can find wisdom wherever it is. But you can also find delusion and attachment wherever they are. You can go to all the great teachers and do all the great retreats and all of these things, and then do nothing but increase your own attachments. So I just always try to encourage people: learn the Dhamma, learn the simple principles of the Dhamma. And then just try to let go and be peaceful. Don't be in too much of a hurry. Don't try to skip things over. Don't be caught up in the latest new thing, the latest shortcuts and methods.

Okay, Nancy's asked to have one of these suttas read through in Pali. Interesting idea. Sure. Kim has mentioned the movie "Kumaré" is about a man who plays at being a fake guru; he is shocked when he succeeds. Also, Monty Python's The Holy Grail being another one, right? The Buddha's response, to answer Debbie, is to talk about whether a sage defines themselves in terms of their purity through those different kinds of things. A sage is somebody who is pure, but they don't define their purity by those external things.

Advice on addressing charlatans? Yeah, not easy. There's a great podcast called Conspirituality, which, if you're not familiar with, is a really excellent resource. I think one of the things to do is to become familiar with the patterns because usually these things are pretty... like, you're not dealing with the upper echelon here, right? It's like, "If you have sex with me, you'll get enlightened." You're like, "I don't know, doesn't feel like you have to strive for great wisdom to be able to see through this kind of nonsense." Most of it seems pretty straightforward. Have your own inner strengths. Don't be afraid to check in with people. There are a lot of frauds and pseudo-gurus around the place. Stick with the Dhamma and just be cautious. If we familiarize ourselves with the means and methods of cultish behavior, that can be really important.

The Questions of Hemaka

Okay, let's go on to the next sutta, and I'll try doing some in Pali. We've got a nice short sutta, so I'll read this through in Pali, and you can read the English as we go.

“Ye me pubbe viyākaṁsu, (iccāyasmā hemako)
Huraṁ gotamasāsanā;
Iccāsi iti bhavissati,
Sabbaṁ taṁ itihītihaṁ;
Sabbaṁ taṁ takkavaḍḍhanaṁ,
Nāhaṁ tattha abhiramiṁ.
Tvañca me dhammamakkhāhi, taṇhānigghātanaṁ muni;
Yaṁ viditvā sato caraṁ, tare loke visattikaṁ”.
“Idha diṭṭhasutamutaviññātesu,
Piyarūpesu hemaka;
Chandarāgavinodanaṁ,
Nibbānapadamaccutaṁ.
Etadaññāya ye satā, Diṭṭhadhammābhinibbutā;
Upasantā ca te sadā, Tiṇṇā loke visattikan”ti.

So there you go. There's the Hemakamāṇavapucchā in Pali for you.

All right. Hopefully, you were reading along with that. Now, the first part of this is a very interesting one, and this will reappear at the end of the sutta as well. "Huraṁ gotamasāsanā". Before the Buddha's teachings was "thus it was or ‘so it shall be’ (Iccāsi iti bhavissati). All that was just the testament of hearsay (itihītihaṁ). All of that just fostered speculation (takkavaḍḍhanaṁ). I found no delight in that."

Hemaka has come from a Brahmanical background, studying under one of the great sages of the time, and he has no doubt devoted a large amount of his life to studying the Vedas, probably studying Upanishads, listening and studying to probably a lot of traditions that have been lost and we don't know anything about. And yet he says, until he came to Buddhism, everything was just hearsay: "thus it was, so it shall be."

This is a really important perspective to notice. It's a perspective that is echoed a number of times in the suttas, that we find brahmins discussing their own tradition and having a variety of sometimes critical views about it. It's not just in the suttas that we find that, because we find similar discussions in the Brahmanical literature itself. We find expressions of skepticism, of questioning, and doubting within that tradition as well. It's really important to bear in mind that when we speak of a tradition, whether a Buddhist tradition or other traditions, we're not talking about a monolithic block of people who uncritically accept everything within it. Clearly, Hemaka found something worthwhile—perhaps the lifestyle, perhaps companionship, perhaps support for meditation. But there was something at a root level which was really dissatisfying about what he had encountered within his own tradition. That sense of missing and longing for some meaning is, of course, something we find all around us today. I'm guessing probably most of you have been through something like that. Certainly, that was the case for me. When you come to Buddhism and start reading Dhamma, practicing Dhamma, and so on, you begin for the first time to realize, "Oh, this is something that's talking about experience. It's not just a theory. It's not just a speculation. It's actually about the reality of how I'm living my life, and it's given me a capacity to be able to live better and become a better person."

That spirit of inquiry, of questioning and disillusionment with where you come from, and that feeling of recognition—almost like coming home to Buddhism—is something that we'll find recurs in the Pārāyanavagga, especially in the last chapter.

So this one isn't actually really quite a question, but an implied question: how do you destroy craving? The removal of direct desire and lust for what is seen, heard, thought, or cognized here, diṭṭhasutamutaviññāta. Once again, we find that similar list we saw in the last set of poems. You may have noticed when I was reciting it that this particular line is hypermetrical. Usually, it's eight syllables. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12. Twelve syllables, as opposed to the normal eight syllables. I'm not quite sure what's going on there. I won't speculate too much, but just to notice that particular line is hypermetrical. It sounds a bit clumsy when you're reciting it.

"Yaṁ viditvā sato caraṁ, tare loke visattikaṁ”.
“Idha diṭṭhasutamutaviññātesu, Piyarūpesu hemaka;"

It's kind of noticeably quite longer and has a different rhythm.

The Questions of Todeyya

Okay, Todeyya. Another interesting, subtle question here.

“In whom sensual pleasures do not dwell,” said Venerable Todeyya, “and for whom there is no craving, and who has crossed over doubts—of what kind is their liberation?”

The Buddha is talking about all of these things which are like the qualities of an enlightened sage, right? They've let go of all their attachments, they don't have any more craving, they've crossed over doubts. That's fine. But then, what is that freedom? What is that state of freedom that you're talking about? What do you actually realize as a result of that?

“In whom sensual pleasures do not dwell,” replied the Buddha, “and for whom there is no craving, and who has crossed over doubts—their liberation is none other than this. (Vimokkho tassa nāparo).”

This is a slightly tricky translation. Another possible reading would be "their liberation is one from which there is no return." But I don't think that's what the sense is there. The point that the Buddha is making here is that there's not another thing which is the liberation. It's the freedom from those things that is itself the liberation. Again, to contrast with other metaphysical or religious systems, where you might say, "Well, I will become free of my worldly attachments, and then I will achieve union with Brahma." For Buddhism, it's that we become free of those attachments, and that is the state of what we call Nibbāna^[8]. It's not a separate state that you go to when you're free of attachments. Nibbāna is simply a word that we use to describe that state of freedom from attachments.

“Are they free of hope, or are they still in need of hope? Do they possess wisdom, or are they still forming wisdom? O Sakyan, elucidate the sage to me, so that I may understand, All-seer (Samantacakkhu).”

Here Todeyya is again not quite clear about the notion of the sages. Are they still growing? Are they still learning things? This comes back to the point that I made a little bit earlier about the nature of a realized one. There is this conception that there is an end of the road, a state of perfection and freedom. Normally, we think as human beings that to still have hope, to still be looking to the future, to still be longing for better things, is part of our nature as humanity. It seems hard to imagine what it would be like if you were like, "Actually, no, I'm not longing for better things. This is fine, just as it is."

A similar thing with learning knowledge. "Paññāṇavā so uda paññakappī". Again, paññakappī is a slightly difficult word to translate here. I've got a footnote there you can read. Kappī, I'm taking it in terms of forming, creating, or making. Are they somebody who is in the process of forming wisdom? Are they growing, or do they already have it?

It seems almost a bit arrogant, doesn't it? Normally, we think that humanity should be humbled, that we should always be in a state of growing, wanting to learn. It doesn't mean that an enlightened person can't learn anything—obviously, they can still learn things. But in terms of what matters for their spiritual freedom, they're not growing or evolving spiritually in that way. They've already reached that state of freedom.

The Buddha's answer: they are free of hope. They're not in need of hope. This idea that hope, as something which is bound to the future, contains within it the seeds of fear. If we are hoping for a better future, then we are dissatisfied with our present and we are afraid of a worse future. Whereas somebody who's truly freed, they're content now, and they'll also be content in the future. They possess wisdom; they're not still forming wisdom. "That, Todeyya, is how to understand a sage, one who has nothing, unattached to sensual life." The Buddha is making a strong claim for his notion of what a sage is.

The Questions of Kappa

The Questions of the Student Kappa. I mentioned before, but each of these is called a māṇavapucchā. So the Kappamāṇavapucchā. Māṇava is a word meaning a student or Brahmanical student. Literally, it means a follower of Manu. Many of you have probably heard of Manu, the mythological first man in Hindu or Brahmanical mythology. So māṇava is like a follower of Manu.

Kappa's questions are less philosophical, more existential.

“For those overwhelmed by old age and death,” said Venerable Kappa, “stuck mid-stream as the terrifying flood arises, tell me an island, good sir. Explain to me an island so that this may not occur again.”

“For those overwhelmed by old age and death,” replied the Buddha, “stuck mid-stream as the terrifying flood arises, I shall tell you an island, Kappa. Having nothing, taking nothing: this is the isle of no return. I call it extinguishment, the ending of old age and death. Those who have fully understood this, mindful, are extinguished in this very life. They don’t fall under Māra’s^[9] sway, nor are they his lackeys.”

This is quite a famous one. The imagery of the flood and overcoming the flood is an often-quoted verse. It's not a comforting image, particularly spoken in India where flooding is quite a regular occurrence. Certainly in the Ganges valley it is, because of the runoff from the snowmelt from the Himalayas. We regularly find stories of travelers getting caught in floods. "An island or refuge so that this may not occur again (nāparaṁ siyā)."

One of the characteristics of the Buddha's teachings is that he doesn't minimize or dismiss people's fears and experiences. Sometimes when we're put in this kind of situation, our compassionate response might be to think we need to comfort somebody. We say, "There, there, it's okay. It's not really that bad. You'll be alright, I'm sure everything will be okay." We give these comforting words when somebody expresses a state of terror, depression, anxiety, fear, and all of these overwhelming emotions. One of the problems there is that when we give people generic words of comfort, we're not really hearing what they're talking about. We're implying, "You're going through a bit of emotion now. Just calm down and everything will be okay." Obviously, there are plenty of occasions when that's a perfectly fine, valid way to do it. But when the Buddha is responding here, you notice that he's not minimizing Kappa's experience. Kappa is clearly expressing this existential fear. This existential fear reminds me of the Attadaṇḍasutta in the Aṭṭhakavagga, where the Buddha speaks in a similar way of his own experience of existential fear and terror before he went forth. It was one of the things that drove him to go forth—this idea that we're surrounded by a world which is shifting, where there's no stability, and looking for something that we can find some stability on.

While the Buddha affirms and shows Kappa that he is listening to him and taking him seriously rather than dismissing him, the Buddha is not extreme about this. He could have said, "Yeah, you're overwhelmed by old age and death. Everything is impermanent. Deal with it." He could have taken the approach of being overly harsh. "Yeah, that's just how the world is. Everyone's gonna die. Get used to it." Sometimes it's tempting to speak in that way as well. But the Buddha doesn't. He says, "Yes, I shall tell you an island. You are right. This is terrifying. All of these things that are happening genuinely are scary. And I shall also tell you an island." Very psychologically skillful approach.

What is that island? That place of solidity? It's an island, dry land. Something solid. "Having nothing, taking nothing. This is the isle of no return." I don't know about you, but it doesn't sound all that solid. The Buddha is offering him this island, but he defines it purely in terms of negatives. "I call it extinguishment, Nibbāna (Nibbānaṁ iti naṁ brūmi), the ending of old age and death."

If you want the most simple and powerful key to understanding how the Buddha spoke about Nibbāna in the suttas, I'll give it to you: when the Buddha spoke about Nibbāna, it was always psychologically positive, and ontologically negative. It's an island in the stream. It is blissful. It is a state of peace. It is a state of freedom. It's going to make you feel like you want it. But when you try to say what it is ontologically, it's nothing. Taking nothing. It's not born, it's not aging, it's not dead. There are always these negatives about what Nibbāna actually is.

“Those who have fully understood this, mindful, are extinguished in this very life. They don’t fall under Māra’s sway, nor are they his lackeys.”

As a passing note, it's always interesting how often mindfulness is mentioned throughout these verses and throughout the suttas. Obviously, there are plenty of other virtues mentioned as well. But that simple practice of mindfulness that we all try to do—as we're sitting here, I hope we are being mindful of our posture, trying to be present, being mindful of our mood—that simple practice of mindfulness here the Buddha is saying is characteristic of somebody who is freed from old age and death.

Okay. I've got a few comments here in the chat. Korocot says, "Seems to go in the direction of the nature of liberation." That is very true.

Eileen says, "'Having nothing, taking nothing' seems to advise us to let go of possessions as we age." Yes, definitely. Those words do have that dual meaning: having no possessions as well as letting go of attachments. As we get older, it's easy to accumulate stuff, but perhaps it's more and more important to be able to let go of things as well.

Josh asks, "Is 'extinguishment' the go-to translation of choice for Nibbāna, and if so, insights into this choice?" That's how I translate it. There are obviously a number of different translations. "Extinguishment" is a pretty literal translation. I usually use extinguishment, although I sometimes waver with "quenching," which is K.R. Norman's translation. The main metaphorical basis for the idea of Nibbāna, of course, is the going out of a flame. We saw that last week with the questions of Upasiva.

Just a note on translations. In my translation project, I decided to try to translate every single word into English, rather than leaving technical terms in Pali. One of the reasons for that is because Pali words have meanings that are not necessarily the same today as they were then. Even a word like Nibbāna is such a pregnant term. You can leave that word in there, and everyone knows you're talking about Nibbāna, but what everyone understands Nibbāna to be can be very different things. Another good example is the word bodhisattva. If you Google bodhisattva, it will tell you the meaning is somebody who delays their own enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. Whereas in the suttas, a bodhisattva is specifically somebody who goes forth from home in order to seek their own enlightenment. It's actually quite a different meaning. This is why I always try to translate everything.

Eric asks, "Is the 'psychologically positive' only applicable to Nibbāna with residue?" I wasn't really meaning that Nibbāna itself is psychologically positive; I was more talking about the way that it's talked about. It's talked about in a way that's attractive, that makes you think, "Oh, that sounds good." It draws you in. The Buddha has this way of drawing you in and then pulling the rug out from under you. "Ah, yes, that sounds good. It's blissful, and safe, and happy." "Oh, there's nothing there." What? So that's more talking about the manner in which the Buddha discussed Nibbāna.

Mike mentions that the simile is a little confusing. "You would have thought Nibbāna was the far shore, and an island would be just a temporary resting place." Of course, that comment by Mike has far more poignancy given the fact that he's writing from New Zealand. Yeah, sure. I mean, it's just a simile. But generally speaking, an island is used in the suttas as a place of safety.

"I wonder if 'having nothing, taking nothing' speaks to the culture he's addressing." Yeah, I'm sure it does. Remember that akiñcana, the same word, was used in the introduction of Bāvari^[10]. His teacher was described as being a brahmin who had nothing. It has those different meanings: having no possessions, the meditation on nothingness, and here, Nibbāna as well. Clearly, it was an important idea for these brahmins.

The Questions of Jatukaṇṇī

Let's go ahead and read one more set of questions before we wrap up for today. This is the Questions of Jatukaṇṇī.

“Hearing of the hero with no desire for sensual pleasures,” said Venerable Jatukaṇṇī, “who has passed over the flood, I’ve come with a question for that desireless one. Tell me the state of peace, O natural visionary. Tell me this, Blessed One, as it really is."

A bit of a comment here. The exact sense of the unique term sahajanetta is open to interpretation. Surely Norman's "omniscient one," following Nidessa, is not right. The term here is sahajanetta. Netta meaning one who sees, like an eye. Sahaja is an interesting term: saha meaning together, ja meaning born. So sahaja meaning born together. "The visionary one born together"? But sahaja is also used in the sense of being something which is nature or natural. I've translated it as a "natural visionary." That idea of nature as being sahaja is quite a nice idea. It's the idea that nature is something where everything is born together, everything arises and is dependent.

“For, having mastered sensual desires, the Blessed One, the natural visionary (sahajanetta), proceeds as the blazing sun shines on the earth. May you of vast wisdom explain the teaching to me of little wisdom so that I may understand the giving up of rebirth and old age here.”

I love this verse here. I love the humility of it. Remember that these are accomplished great sages who've been practicing, learning, studying, and meditating for so many years, and this is the attitude he brings when he sees the Buddha. "I've come to the Buddha." "Parittapaññassa me bhūripañña". He's not being excessive about it. Just saying, "I've finally found somebody who understands. Please tell me so that I can understand."

“With sensual desire dispelled,” replied the Buddha, “seeing renunciation as sanctuary, don’t be taking up or putting down anything at all."

A few comments on this line. "Nekkhammaṁ daṭṭhu khemato" is a line we see a few times in the suttas. It's a bit of an unusual line linguistically. "Daṭṭhu" is to see. "Khemato" is "as sanctuary," in ablative form here. Now, the word khema is usually translated as safety or security. But khema is actually not dissimilar to the dīpa as the island. It's a place of safety and refuge, and originally was probably the oasis which was reached at the end of the day's journey by the Indo-European wanderers. Khema is a place where the animals and the people will live in harmony. Whether it's water, food, or plenty, khema has this very beautiful connotation of safety, ease, and sanctuary.

"Don't be taking up or putting down anything at all." This idiom of taking up and putting down, uggahītaṁ nirattaṁ vā, is extremely reminiscent of the Aṭṭhakavagga and is one of the most characteristic forms which we find throughout the Aṭṭhakavagga. One of the things that I learned in my translation of the Aṭṭhakavagga was that we have to be very careful about how we're phrasing this, because these are past participle forms. If we translate them with excessive grammatical literalness, we would say "nothing has been taken up or put down," which seems a bit weird, right? Because we know the Buddha's always saying we should put things down, we should let go of things. But in fact, in all these cases—and we can see this by looking at the variety of uses of similar idioms through the Aṭṭhakavagga—these are past participles that are used in the present perfect sense. What they mean is that we are not engaged in that process of taking things up and putting things down. An arahant is somebody who has already put everything down. They no longer are going and taking up or putting things down. This is an idiom which took me a long time to get my head around, actually. It was always a bit puzzling to me when I read previous translations.

"What came before, let wither away (visosehi). And after, let there be nothing (māhu kiñcanaṁ). If you don’t grasp at the middle, you will live at peace (Majjhe ce no gahessasi)."

We already saw, in one of the previous sets of questions, this idea of the two ends and the middle. Here we find that same idea in a slightly different form. In this particular case, it seems that one extreme is the past, and the other extreme is the future, and the middle, presumably, is the present. If you recall, in that previous case, when we looked at that series of questions of the past, the one extreme, the other extreme, and the middle, that was actually one of the interpretations that was offered, even though it wasn't the intended meaning in that context. But here, it's more explicitly that this is what's meant.

"One rid of greed, brahmin, for the whole realm of name and form, has no defilements by which they might fall under the sway of Death. (Āsavāssa na vijjanti, Yehi maccuvasaṁ vajeti)."

Notice the use of the term "name and form" (nama rupa). Many of you will be familiar with the concept of nama rupa as spoken about in Buddhism. But I think it's really important to bear in mind that it is in fact a Brahmanical term, and we'll find it a number of times in the Upanishads. Clearly, it's a case where the Buddha was adopting and responding to that Brahmanical usage. In this kind of case, I wouldn't insist on a particularly technical understanding of what name and form means. Really, what it means is just that whole world of phenomenal reality, everything that we know and see and experience and think of as name, and this whole world of appearances that we're surrounded by.

Conclusion

Alright. Approaching the end, I'll just see there's one more question here from Josh in the chat: "Are the names of any of the questioners to be translated? Or are they kind of like American names, not really having much apparent meaning? Or English names even perhaps. I wonder if the term sahajanetta alludes to understanding the relationship with seeing objects of sight and contact?"

Yeah, I'm not sure. Like I said, it's a bit difficult to nail that one down. Although the interesting thing is that it was spoken to the Buddha by brahmins, so it does suggest that perhaps it was one of those very many terms or epithets used in the culture. Bit hard to say.

"If the theme of taking up or putting nothing down speaks to the theme of nothingness, or that you're talking about the meditation on it?" I think it can do, although in these cases, it's more talking about Nibbāna.

But just to come back to the point about the names, it's actually quite common in Pali that names will be more of a kind of epithet than they are really in English. In a number of cases, it's quite common in Pali that names are given which are clearly back-formed as an epithet from the story that they're attached to. A good example of this is the various Bharadvajas which we find in the suttas. Bharadvaja being a common Brahmanical name, and it seems to be used as a kind of a generic term for brahmin. Then it's attached to the kind of thing that we find them doing. For example, if you have a brahmin who's yelling abuse, they call him Akkosaka Bharadvaja, the abusive Bharadvaja. If they're doing a fire ceremony, then they are Aggika Bharadvaja doing the fire ceremony. So a lot of the times there is that tendency to use these kinds of epithets where we find names. But also, obviously, not all the time. The Buddha's name, Gotama, literally means "dark cow," but I don't think anybody was thinking of dark cows when they used the word Gotama.

Thank you. Well, we've managed to make it through another lesson. We're doing pretty well on the apocalypse meter right now. In Australia, there's no flood, no fires, mild pandemic situation. So not too bad. Hopefully, that will remain similar for the next week. Hopefully, the world won't completely come to an end before we can have our next class. I mean, look, if the world's gonna come to an end, we might as well study Dhamma and practice Dhamma, right? What else is there to do?

I hope that you all stay well, and I hope that you all find something of usefulness and some wisdom, some joy to find in the Buddha's teachings. I wish you all the best.