I'd like to give an overview tonight. I think I've told you before that there's two kinds of right view. Did I tell you about that? Yes. And what are the two kinds? What? Mundane. Mundane and... I hate to say it, but super mundane. Or you might say dualistic and non-dualistic. One kind of right view is still from the point of view of self and other being separated, still from the point of view of there being an independent self, still not understanding the nature of self. And the other kind of right view is having overcome the illusion of separation of self and other, having more non-dual view of the world.

[01:14]

Okay? So, going through the Eightfold Path, I'm just going to go up to Right Action, which is sort of our topic for this week. First is Right View. And Right View is also called right understanding. It's like the cognitive, it represents the cognitive aspect of the mind as it is applied to the path. So right understanding or right cognition about the path. So right view is basically understanding this is right view and this is wrong view. And what is wrong view? Wrong view is, in short, the most important aspect that I've been emphasizing is wrong view is that action does not have consequence.

[02:22]

That what you do doesn't have consequence. That's the core of wrong view that I've been emphasizing. It's the worst part of wrong view. Other aspects of wrong view are like liberation is not possible. There never have been any people who've been liberated. There never was a Buddha who became enlightened and became free and so on. This is another aspect of wrong view. What's right view? Right view has two types, which I just told you. First kind is right view which is, it's somewhat tainted or it has this kind of faultiness to it due to the sense of self and other being separate.

[03:34]

However, it is, it does partake of merit. It is meritorious. And the merit ripens along the lines of the self which is believed to be separate. And of course, as long as the self is believed as separate, there's some attachment to that self. So the action, if the action's done, the right view is meritorious, is beneficial, and all the actions which flow from it are meritorious and beneficial, and the benefit ripens for the self which is imagined to be the actor. The other kind of right view is this right view which doesn't have taints, is not tainted, doesn't have like leakage around the separation between self and other. It's beyond gain and loss and actually doesn't even meritorious because it doesn't partake of action because it's no longer involved in the idea of a self which does things.

[04:48]

However, it is totally harmonious with the path of liberation. And it is basically wisdom. Then comes right intention. And this is the intentional intention. or the volitional aspect of mind. And in a sense, just like right view started with this is right view and this is wrong view, right view comes first in the practice of right intention too. Because first of all, there is right view that this is right intention and this is wrong intention. And again, the right view could be either type. Mundane right view can see this is wrong intention, this is right intention.

[05:52]

And mundane view that is beyond dualism also can see this is right intention, this is wrong intention. You can still see the nature of intention. It just sees it dualistically or non-dualistically. At the beginning of right intention is right view. This is wrong intention, this is right intention. What is wrong intention? Wrong intention is the intention based on sensual desire. Sensual desire. It is intention based on ill will. It is intention based on harmfulness. That's wrong intention. Or you could equally say wrong thinking, wrong volition, wrong will. Okay? And just parenthetically, I did talk before at some length about that wanting something like...

[07:03]

Dinner is not necessarily sensual desire. It's not necessarily the intention of sensual desire. It goes with, for example, salivation. But when you're in a state where you feel like you're missing something and you use things of the world, of the sensory world, to try to satisfy your sense of lack, that's sensual desire. But just to eat when you're hungry or sleep when you're sleepy or defecate when it's time to do that, that's not sensual desire. That's just natural bodily function. And you don't expect that kind of eating, that kind of sleeping, and that kind of defecation or that kind of sweating, you don't expect that to satisfy your sense of lack. It just seems like an appropriate thing to do and your body just tells you to do it and you do it and that's it. And you stop at the point where the body's done.

[08:07]

Now, what about right intention? There's two kinds of right intention. Again, one that's tainted and meritorious and ripens for the actor and ripens on the side of attachment. This is right, this is right intention. The other kind of right intent and those kinds of right intention which are meritorious and still dualistic are the intention to renounce this inappropriate desire, this harmful desire. To renounce, well not renounce but to have intentions based on loving kindness, to have intentions based on harmlessness. This is right intention of the first type. Second type is also right intention would include abstaining from sensual desire, abstaining from ill will, and abstaining from harmlessness.

[09:18]

Same thing. It's abstaining from those things and also practicing the positive side of them. Right view that is the path, I mean right intention that's the path, is the same. It's also renunciation, loving-kindness, and harmlessness. It's just that it doesn't have any taints. In other words, it's not tainted by the belief in the actor as a separate thing from the rest of the world. It's intention with us, not karma. It's intention that doesn't fall into belief in existence and non-existence. It's pure intention, and it goes along with this right view, which is wisdom, rather than just a clear understanding of what is wholesome action.

[10:24]

So following from right view, you have right intention. Following from right intention, you have right speech. And again, right speech starts with right view. Right view is, this is right speech, this is wrong speech. And right view, wrong speech is harsh speech, lying, gossip, you know, telling stories that aren't, excuse me, that don't like, well, let's just say gossip and idle chatter, and then telling, slandering people or saying things about people, even if they're true, that undermine relationships and hurt people. That's wrong speech. Of course, that wrong speech is just one type, namely dualistic and not meritorious. And the lack of merit, or the demerit, ripens for on the side of the actor.

[11:35]

Now, the right speech is two types. The kind that is taints, in other words, that's karmic, dualistically, I do it, and that is... To abstain from lying, harsh speech, slander, and gossip, or idle chatter. To abstain from those things and to practice telling the truth, speaking kindly and gently, speaking of others' merits, and even if you have to talk about somebody's problems, to speak about them in such a way as to benefit everybody, including the person you're talking about, and not to talk about things that are a waste of time. But still, even telling the truth is still from the point of view of I'm telling the truth, and that's meritorious, and the merit comes back to me, which is good for me and good for everybody else too.

[12:38]

But the right speech that's non-dualistic, that doesn't have any taints, That's also kind speech, truthful speech, speaking of others' merits and how good they are and speaking of things that are helpful. But doing all that speaking happening out of the space we were talking about last week where, I don't know how, maybe I shouldn't say we talked about last week, I'll tell it again, it's coming out of this sense of a self, an actor that's not an independent actor. But it's speech that's coming out of the inner relationship of all beings through one mouth at a time. That's right speech which doesn't have any taints. And it's not meritorious, it's liberating. And last week I was talking about how right speech in the dualistic sense happens in time.

[13:51]

Now, sequential time. And sequential time happens in a place where this time is separate from that time, separate from that time. Just like it's dualistic space. This space is separate from that space, separate from that space. This body is separate from that body. So right speech has a lot to do with timing, speaking at the right time. finding that harmony and that rhythm in the speech of when is the right time to speak. And I spoke about how Buddha said, if you have something to say and it's harmful and not true, don't say it. If you have something to say that's harmful and true, don't say it. If you have something to say that's true and harmful, don't say it. But if you have something that's harmless and true, wait for the right time.

[15:00]

And there's the timing thing. Timing is important even when you have something that's not harmful and true. But actually, if you think about it a little bit more, you realize that something... That's true today might have been false yesterday and what might be harmful today, what would be harmless today was harmful yesterday. So really it's a lot about timing. There's almost no word that is per se harmful or not true. So really it's in many ways this speech thing is very much having to do with timing. Because like to say it's Thursday, today is not true, but a couple of days it will be. And some days, to call somebody fatty might be harmful, and other days it might not. If the person's trying to gain weight and you call them fatty, it's very encouraging. If they're trying to lose weight and you call them fatty, it might hurt them. So the word fatty and the word Thursday, the speech is not necessarily harmful per se.

[16:10]

It has almost all to do with timing or what's appropriate at the moment. So that timing and the timing of I, the actor, is right speech. The timing would also apply, in a sense, to the person who's speaking, not from the point of view of personal action, of an independent person, except in that world, there's no time. Everything happens at once because you're not acting by yourself. And when you're not acting by yourself, there's not this segmented time. So you don't have to worry about timing anymore. But in fact, if you look at it, the behavior of a person who has this understanding of her relationship with everybody, they seem to have perfect timing, or very good timing anyway. Sometimes off, but the off seems to be helpful. Just a little bit late. Not too perfect.

[17:12]

That's not, that's discouraging. So, now coming into right action. Right action starts with the right view. Namely, this is wrong action, this is right action. What's wrong action? Wrong action is action of the body. And it is killing sentient beings, killing living beings. That's wrong action. Sexual misconduct is wrong action. And taking what's not given is wrong action. Of course, those are always tainted. They're always based on a separate self, based on the belief in a separate self. And those are karmic acts which ripen back to the place of attachment. And they're demeritorious.

[18:14]

What's right action? Right action is two types. Again, type that's tainted, dualistic, is meritorious, and the merit, the good merit comes back to the actor, back to the imagined actor. And so right action is not killing living beings, not stealing, not taking what's not given, and sexually appropriate activity or activity which is appropriate to sexuality. And that can be two types. Again, dualistic and non-dualistic. So maybe we'll start with dualistic.

[19:19]

The dualistic, well, we can start dualistic wrong view, dualistic right, dualistic wrong action, dualistic right action, and then non-dualistic right action. There's no non-dualistic wrong action. In non-dualism, just right action. All wrong action, wrong speech, wrong livelihood, wrong view, wrong intention, wrong everything comes from dualistic thinking. When there's not dualistic thinking anymore, everything's right. Anyway, so want to start, want to talk about anything? Like you want to talk about what is... I guess talking about dualistic wrong view and dualistic wrong action and dualistic right action, they're kind of related. So let's talk about, shall we? Killing and not killing. Killing living beings and not killing living beings. Any questions about that? Basically, it's not to kill them, right?

[20:21]

And that means not intentionally killing. It doesn't mean killing things unintentionally isn't relevant here. It means the killing that you do intentionally Okay. Let's see, we have Daniel and then, and then Carol. I know, I know. It's hard to see. You don't have those, you haven't developed the back of the head eyes? No, I'm telling you. I had first a kind of an invitation and then a question. to the request or invitation was that when we ask questions of Rep, it's maybe a lot more interesting and useful to him if we bring specifics from our life. I know it takes courage, but for me, I'm gonna ask you about a specific situation rather than something general, because I think it gives you a chance, and other people a chance to really hear the reality of it.

[21:24]

So I just asked people maybe, might make Rep's answers more relevant to us. So if that was an idea I had, you can take me up on it or not. And the specific situation I'm thinking of is, by killing, do you mean literally killing or somehow lying and killing people off that they're seeing connected? Do you want to take a question about lying or do you think that's not relevant to your killing? You want to talk about lying now? Well, I don't know. I was thinking of killing people off and never talk to them again, but that's sort of writing them off and they feel sort of killed off in life, but you mean literally, talk to us about literally killing? What do you mean by lying and killing people off? Like deciding that someone has never... They lied, therefore I won't participate. Oh, they lied. That's not your lying.

[22:26]

Never ever participate with them or never talk to them. Yeah, I think that's... Literally, of course, it means to kill, but I think there's primary and secondary killing, and that's secondary killing, and that counts. Does it count? Yeah, it's not as serious, of course, but, I mean, if you... If you, for example, torturing people, okay, that sort of comes under this heading. That's kind of like secondary killing. It's also related, of course, to the intention to do harm or intention to ill will. But intention of ill will, thinking of torturing someone, and hoping that they would be harmed, that that intention fulfills itself into, could be speech, you could talk in a way that would hurt people, but of course, due to it physically is, what do they say? Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Of course, words can hurt you, but sticks and stones do hurt worse for a lot of people.

[23:28]

To say I want to rape you is different than to actually rape somebody. So... Of course, rape is related to the next category. But non-rape type of physical harm to people that doesn't kill them kind of comes under the heading of killing. This is a body thing, right? So torturing people is a second, is kind of like very closely related to actually killing them. And of course, sometimes the torture does lead to killing, right? I mean, sometimes people give up when they're being tortured. And some people who are very sensitive can give up very easily from being tortured. So that counts. So writing somebody off is almost like torture for some people. In China, in places, in countries where they have a very highly developed society, at golden times of the history of the world, in China or Rome, in Greece,

[24:33]

The way they kill people off was exile them. You put those people away from the culture center, they just die pretty quick. Because they lived at the perimeter of the empire, it was like hell. And so anyway, yeah, so writing people off, sending them off is almost like killing. So my question was about something I noticed that a lot. I had a guy I was working with starting a business. And I won't mention the name, but he says, would you like to start a business with me, work with me? And I go, sure. And he's a very smart guy. And he said, for example, when I first met him, he lied to me about it. He graduated from school because he actually dropped out. because he didn't want me to think bad things about him. And then later, he was working on someone else's time and doing work that we later used on a project that we were going to sell. And what I decided was, this guy's a liar, and I can't work with him.

[25:37]

Although, as much as his business is cool, and these aren't lies that really damaged anyone terribly. And then I also think, well, maybe I'm just too picky. Because he's not really hurt anyone. It's just annoying, and I just decided this guy's a liar. No, I don't think you're too picky to decide you don't want to work with someone who lies. But I think, and that wouldn't qualify, I think, necessarily as the second, you know, like the subtle version of killing the person. But if somebody lied to you, and then you decided to torture them, that would be, or kill them, that would apply here. But I don't think you're too picky. If you're doing business with somebody, I think it's okay to say, hey, I can't work with you if you don't tell the truth. I think that's perfectly fine, and I don't think that's killing. But if you say, I can't work with you because you lie, and your intention is to demoralize and, you know, throw the person into a suicide or something, then, of course, it would apply.

[26:42]

But I think it's very helpful if someone lies to you to tell them, hey, guess what? me don't want to play this game anymore. I'm not going to do this. That's sometimes very helpful. If your intention is to let them know that you don't want to play if they do that. But if your intention is not just to let them know how you are, but to hurt them, then it's kind of like violence. That's what this is talking about. If your intention is to hurt rather than to clarify, communicate, and educate, you've got to look at that. Carol? Thanks. Sure. What about either killing things or people, hopefully not people, but other things, other living things? Animals? Yeah, this applies to protection. Pardon? As a protection?

[27:45]

Yes, in either self-defense or the defense of someone. Uh-huh. Well, if the intention... If the intention is you don't have ill will and you don't want to harm, and you're not... And it's not... In your case, you're trying to protect some other living being. And particularly if... You know, if it's a human who's trying to kill a human, it's beneficial to that human to stop them from killing. You're helping them from getting into more trouble. So if possible, it is good to try to stop beings from harming or killing other beings. of course, if possible, by not killing them, but if they are harmed in some way in trying to stop them from harming others, your intention is not primarily based on wanting to get them, but wanting to protect others.

[28:53]

Wanting to protect others from someone who's trying to hurt others protects both parties. So if your motivation is sincerely to protect both parties, that's not what's meant here. As long as it comes from what the intention is. You can do something that may, from the outside looking in, look like wrong action. But if the intention is to protect... Everybody. Everybody. What about if your intention is to literally protect yourself? Only yourself? Yes. So, it's essentially, it would obviously be mundane. It would obviously be dualistic. Yeah, we're talking about dualistic. Let's keep it the dualistic situation. And that is, you want to protect yourself, but you don't want to protect the person who's trying to hurt you.

[29:59]

Yes. Okay. That's not as good as really wanting to protect the person who's trying to hurt you. It's not as bad as like wanting to hurt the person when they're not even really harming you much. But you can say, well, you know, like someone could, you know, stories of someone, someone insults one person and the other person, you know, sticks them with a sword, right? In Japan, during the height of the samurai time, if a peasant insulted a samurai, they could wet their sword on the person. They could kill the person. And also other times in history, people would have their tongues cut off or limbs amputated for making faux pas in the presence of emperors. So that's... That level of hurt to the one person balanced with that level of hurt to the other person, of course, isn't really protecting the first person.

[31:09]

They've already been hurt. If someone was about to insult you, you know, to kill them because they're about to insult you is too much. To torture them because they're about to insult you is probably too much. If they've already insulted you and they're done, then there's no need to hurt them. You've already been hurt. Okay? Then you just... It's a different situation unless they're going to do it again. Anyway, the ideal situation, I think, from the point of view of this, this whole system, the point of this whole system is to liberate the practitioner and thereby liberate all beings. So if your intention is to protect yourself and the other person or protect all parties involved, that's really your motivation. This is not what's meant here. And if it does look to someone else like you're killing, then of course you would do well to know that it's going to look like that to them.

[32:15]

And then you would say, well, even though it looks like that to them and I might get in trouble for it, for the sake... of protecting the parties involved, I will take upon myself the fact that it looks like I'm killing, and I may actually go to prison or something in order to protect these beings. So it's possible that you would go to prison in order to protect the murderer and the potential victim of the murder. You might do that, and that might be conducive. It would actually help both parties. For a person to die from the Buddhist point of view is not so bad as for a person to murder somebody. Everybody dies, but not everybody murders somebody. So if you stop somebody from murdering somebody, even if they should die in the process, spiritually speaking, they're better off. And the other person, hopefully, is protected too. You may get in trouble. in the world, but spiritually you're elevated because your motivation was actually to help everybody involved and not worry about yourself too much or maybe worry about yourself a little, but say, well, you know, I guess, you know, I'm sorry for myself.

[33:24]

I'm going to get in trouble for this, but... Other people's welfare is more important. And you're not trying... You do not hate anybody in this situation. And you're not trying to get anything out of it for yourself. You're trying to protect others so there's no greed. And you don't hate anybody so there's no hate. So... And you're actually pretty clear too. And let's say also you're correct, you know, that this is actually a murderer. This is actually their victim. That would be... a spiritually elevating situation for everybody involved. So it would be meritorious. And it would be very meritorious. Very meritorious. Now, this is done as a dualistic thing. As a non-dualistic thing, you wouldn't have thought of it in terms of you doing it anyway. You would be like, there would just be this concerted activity of all three people. You would not see it as you doing it. you wouldn't see yourself as separate from these people. It would be a concerted project.

[34:26]

And it would be enlightened activity. And it would be to the liberation of all people. You would be already liberated, and your liberation would take that form of that kind of enlightened action. And it would not be meritorious. Because there's no merit for you. It would just be another Buddha activity. And it would help, and both people involved, including the person killed, would be touched by Buddha and would be enlightened by that activity. And the person is protected if anybody, if they saw it, that would enlighten both parties and it would be an expression of the enlightenment of the actor, of the parent actor. Outrageous as that may sound, I do mean that. Fortunately. Unfortunately. Fortunately, in one sense, these things don't happen very often. Unfortunately, they don't happen very often. I mean, the unfortunately is that when things like that happen, there's not somebody there to act in an enlightened way. I'm not saying it's unfortunate that there aren't more murders.

[35:31]

We've got plenty of murders. What I mean is unfortunate is that there isn't somebody like there at the time of the murder more often. The fortunate thing is that there are sometimes people there like that. There are times like that. They do happen. They do happen. In the middle of war, there are people out there doing stuff like this who are protecting people in the middle of war. It does happen. And, you know, not by big famous bodhisattvas, but like, you know, soldiers. Soldiers sometimes do kind things right in the middle of a battle. They're both sides. Like one story is at the Battle of Waterloo. A French officer was in retreat and he stopped to pick up one of his wounded soldiers. And an English infantryman was going to shoot the officer. And his officer said, leave that guy alone. I said, this is a, you know, he's endangering his life to help one of his people.

[36:39]

Don't shoot that guy. He's not going to hurt us anyway. He's in retreat. Don't shoot him. It would have been cruel to shoot him. And not only that, but the person who shot him would get in big trouble for shooting a bodhisattva. They're shooting a person who risks his own life to help another person. So the person he's helping is out of action. And the person who you shot, he would be out of action too. But the thing is, you're shooting the kind of person that really prevents wars. So it's not a good deal to shoot those kind of people. And that officer saw that. And so that officer did the right thing. Now, he didn't have to kill his own soldier to stop him. But actually, if it came to that, that's what the officer should do, dualistically or non-dualistically. If it was a Buddha, the Buddha or the Bodhisattva would actually have to kill his own person to stop him from doing something which would really be bad for him and be bad for... It wouldn't be so bad for the other guy, actually.

[37:47]

It doesn't hurt Bodhisattvas that much to kill him. because they're in the process of doing something really good. But really, there's nothing worse than killing a bodhisattva. Don't do it. Well, actually, there is one thing worse than killing a bodhisattva. That's killing a Buddha is a little bit worse. Don't kill Buddhas. Don't kill ants. Don't kill regular people. But especially don't kill Buddhas. It would really be bad for everybody. Unless Buddhas are trying to kill somebody. Then they're temporarily not Buddha. Hate. well is it really necessary you know like one thing is well we're we're killing these animals you know and our intention is we do not we're not we're not trying to harm them we don't mean to harm them okay that's not our intention here we don't hate these animals okay now that's what they say right We don't hate these animals, but if you go into some lab, as a matter of fact, right over there, about six blocks into some of those labs, the way they were treating some of those animals before some people from Zen Center got them, was they were treating those animals not very nicely before they killed them.

[39:10]

Before they did the experiments which killed them, they were treating these animals, these animals did not have luxury accommodations. So if you feel like, okay, I love these rats, I love the rats, I love the rats, I love the rats, but, and I hope the best for the rats, but for the welfare of all beings, I think it's okay to ask these rats to donate their lives to this great project. If that were the case, how come you wouldn't treat them nice up to the point of them dying? How come you would spend the least possible, how come you would use all your money to get more rats rather than have better housing for the few rats that you got, for the number of rats you got? The hygienic and life situations of rats prior to the test were incredibly cruel prior to the actual final killing experiments. So you show me the person who takes care of the rat, who loves the rat, who treats the rat with respect, who venerates the rat, and then to this animal that it really respects, it's willing to ask this animal somehow to give its life for the welfare of, I don't know what, cows, humans, what?

[40:25]

And then, is it really necessary? Is it really necessary? And also, I mean, if you get into it, and I have gotten into it a little bit, because like I say, some people from Zen Center started some of these organizations which study these things. What relevance does it have, you know, between, is there between a rat living in a man-made environment of horrendous conditions... And a human being, you know, who's going to Nordstrom's to buy, you know, special soap. What's the relationship there between, you know? Yeah, but then we should also have the people who are using the stuff that live in the rat thing too. Because that's where the test was done. We should torture them and then have them wash their face. See what I mean? The conditions are not the conditions of a normal rat. Why? Because it's more expensive to have nice conditions and so on. They don't treat these animals cruelly necessarily because they hate the rats.

[41:33]

They do it for economic and laziness reasons. And they don't care about the animals. Otherwise, when you care about something, you take good care of it. You don't take minimal care of it and let it suffer and then use it for what you want to. That's slavery. So I haven't heard about these things, but maybe now that they've been busted and sued and so on. They're being nicer to the animals. But then if you start being nicer to the animals, then everything else starts changing. Then you start thinking, geez, we're being really nice. How come we're being so nice to these animals and then we're killing them? Everything starts to... We could spend the whole time on this, but the thing is that if there's going to be any usury or whatever, any exploitation of any living creature... and you think it's justified, then how about why don't you treat him as well as possible prior to that? But then if you do that, the whole system starts to break down because as you start being nicer to things, then it becomes more and more untenable to sort of then stop being nice to them. So it's easier just to sort of treat him like crap all the way along and then finally off him.

[42:38]

That's more consistent, actually. But then you can say, okay, they don't say, well, actually, we have to mutilate them and mistreat them all the way to the end. They say, no, that's not necessary. It's just this last experiment that we have to do. So then you gradually get them to take better and better care, and then the nonsense of the situation gradually dawns on them. So as a kind of getting a wedge into the situation, that's one way to do it. So like, what is it with veal? Okay? So veal have been grown in these tiny little, they take these little baby bulls, right? And they put them in these little tiny boxes where they can't get any exercise. And the reason for that is so that they'll be the same size, so the meat cuts will be the same size, and also so that they won't, so the meat will be tender. And they also don't feed them certain things so that their meat will be very light colored, so that they're anemic.

[43:43]

But since they don't get any exercise, of course, they're not healthy little guys, so then they have to give them lots of amphetamines and antibiotics. So for the sake of some people's idea of what the restaurateurs expect of a certain color and a certain size of cut, they torture these little animals and also make the meat poisonous. This is not good for the animals. This is not good for us. And do we really need veal to be a certain color? And does it really need to be is it really going to be that bad for the people who want to eat veal if the little guys could run around a little bit? Is it really that bad? I mean, do people really, if they knew, would they really, like, stop buying veal? If they knew that the animals were getting a little exercise and the meat was a little darker? Maybe. Maybe not. But also, if you give them more space, you have less... start making concessions about being kinder and kinder then you see get kinder and [...] then pretty soon uh so that that's the rationale of these people who are trying to get people to be kind to the laboratory animals and kind to this is not just to be kind to them but to be kinder and [...] kinder until like we're really kind

[45:06]

and then figure out some other way to supposedly work for the welfare of society or something, or develop medicine or whatever, or cures, find some other way than cruelty. There are other ways that can be found. They require more ingenuity, perhaps, and they're more or less convenient, but we can find them. But somehow... We won't do that unless somebody sometimes encourages us. Sometimes we don't think of it on our own unless someone says, gee, you know, is it really necessary to do this and do that? And we say, well, yes, it is. So this debate starts. You know, one interesting thing is that they torture emotionally baby animals. Uh-huh. Right. Yeah. Harry Harlow, I used to, when I was I was studying psychology when I was in school, and Harry Harlow used to do these... He was a famous psychologist who studied monkeys.

[46:44]

And the experiments he was doing when I was in college back in 1961, they weren't so bad. But I don't know what happened to Harry Harlow, but I think... Well, I don't know what happened to him, but anyway, he evolved. His experiments became more and more bizarre... And what he did finally was he drove the mother monkeys crazy too. Not just did experiments. He was the one who did a famous experiment on a terry cloth, the terry cloth surrogate mom, you know. Yeah, the wires in the terry cloth, you know, that they would prefer a terry cloth mother who gives them shocks than a wire mother who didn't give them shocks. So he did experiments like that. That's the ones he was doing when I was in school. But he evolved and he started by taking the mothers and driving the mothers crazy by various techniques and then putting the mothers back with their babies and then watch what the mothers did to their babies.

[47:46]

I think part of the way he drove the mothers crazy is he tortured the mothers the way you're talking about and then he took these tortured, insane mothers and then put them with the babies and then the mothers did some things to their babies. did horrible things to their babies. And then Harry Harlow spoke in the most disgusting, he was totally disgusted and horrified at what these mother monkeys did to their babies. He thought they were just terrible. After he drove them crazy and then gave them their babies to kill and mutilate and slaughter, then he hated them. After he made them that way. This is, you know, this is how it goes. You be cruel to things, they act badly, and then you feel justified. Rather than be kind to them, have them become Buddhas and feel justified in worshipping them and being kind to them.

[48:53]

Kindness brings out, you know, the qualities and things which make you appreciate them, except for teenagers. So, They got this other thing, you know. Okay, so... The last past teenage, I'm sorry. Pardon? The last past teenage. You mean it goes into the 20s? Yes, I'm sorry. No, it's actually, it's wonderful, actually. It makes Buddhas out of the parents. Yes? Uh-huh. Right. Well, that takes Okay.

[50:08]

Right intention. Okay? Right intention is right thinking, right? What's right intention? Renunciation, loving kindness, and harmlessness. That's the type of thought it is. Okay? Right intention is the basis of right action. So, if you don't have right intention, If you have, you know, sensual desire, intention based on sensual desire, ill will and harmfulness, that goes into your actions. So behind these kinds of actions are thoughts like that too. Hateful thoughts towards your own thoughts, wanting to punish yourself or punish your own thoughts, an attachment to, you know, trying to have objects satisfy what they can't satisfy. Okay? So wrong intention is behind wrong action. Killing, physically killing, behind that is the thought to kill.

[51:10]

And the thought to kill, that's the way you treat your own thoughts, too. You hate certain thoughts. You like other thoughts. You're attached to these thoughts. You want to destroy these thoughts. Then that gets acted out with your body and your voice. Okay? Let's not spend all our time on killing. By the way, there are two more. There's sexual conduct and, you know, taking or not taking, stealing, taking what's not given. Those two are involved here. Maybe there's nothing to talk about there. Which is fine. Okay? Is that it? I do have one. Do you do? What? What's your question? When you're speaking about other bodily things to do with hunger or sleeping, and how one's sexual energy is a little more complicated than that perhaps.

[52:16]

Yeah, sexual energy is much more complicated than eating, sleeping, and defecating. Much more complicated, for humans anyway. For some animals, it's about the same maybe. But for us, nothing is more complicated than sex. Matter of fact, the main thing that makes a difference in humans and other animals is what happened to us around sex. So sex is an extremely complicated situation. Do you have a question? How would one tell if there's a lust involved or a sensual desire, a sensual urge, for instance? How would one tell if there is sensual desire? That's part of the thing about two steps backwards to right intention. Right intention is where you learn what it's like to act based on the intention to satisfy sensual desire.

[53:24]

You learn about that. So how can you tell? How can you tell the difference between between eating when you're hungry and eating when you're not hungry. How do you tell? Well, you just look. You're practicing right view, you look at your karma. You see an impulse, you say, is this wholesome or unwholesome? Is it wholesome to eat more? Is it helpful, is it beneficial to eat more than I need? Is it helpful, is it wholesome to, you know, do more of this than I need? Is it helpful to do less of this than I need? So you study that and you watch. And the rule is if you do these, if you do wrong intention, if you act on wrong intention based on ill will, harmfulness, and sensual desire, you notice that you get suffering for it. That's part of the feedback system that helps you check to see if it was. If you eat the right amount, the feedback you get is you're happy. If you eat the wrong amount, the feedback you get is you're miserable.

[54:28]

If you act in a loving way, the feedback you get is you're happy. If you act in an ill-will way, based on ill-will, you notice it makes you miserable. If you act kindly and gently, it makes you feel happy. If you act cruelly, you feel terrible. So you learn, you watch these intentions, you learn. You learn for your speech, you learn for your action. When it comes to sexual activity, you notice, is this like, sort of like, appropriate? Is everybody sort of on board here for this? Is this kind of like an expression of intimacy and relationship? Is this going to have the quality of loving kindness? Does it have the quality of harmlessness and gentleness? Does it have the quality of, it seems like a good thing to do, but I'm not expecting it to solve all my life problems and make me into a good person, you know? Well, it looks like that's the case.

[55:31]

It's satisfying all of us. Now I'll try it. Do you try it? Can it just make you happy? Do you feel guilty afterwards? Is there any deceit involved? No, no, no, no, no. Yes, yes, yes. Then there probably wasn't sensual desire there. It was just something you wanted. That's it. It seemed like a good thing. Like it is good sometimes to eat. It really is. If you're practicing. Who does eat? but they eat just the right amount. And the way they can tell is by paying attention before, during, and after they eat. Before you eat, you check to see how you feel. Feeling hungry? Yeah. Blood sugar low? Uh-huh. Salivating? Yeah. Is this food given to you? Yeah. Did you check? Yeah. Did they say yes? Yeah. You want it? Yeah. Eat it. Now when you're eating it, taste it. Taste it.

[56:31]

Pay attention to why you're eating it, too. Does it taste good? Does it seem good? Yeah. Well, keep chewing. Still taste good? Yeah. Well, did you chew it a lot? Yeah. Is it ready to swallow? Okay, swallow. Now after you're done eating, how do you feel? Great. Then a little while later, how do you feel? Still good. How do you feel now? Still good. Well, it sounds like you did the right thing. How about sex? Are you salivating? Yeah. Is, you know, does everything seem right, you know? Did you ask if the other person is interested? Yes? What did they say? They said yes? Really? And you're not like, you know, their boss or something? Is it an adult? Do they know what they're getting into? Is this a committed relationship? Is this a one-time thing?

[57:33]

Even though they say yes, do they know that after they get involved, if you're not around for afterwards, that that might hurt somebody's feelings? Have you checked this out? Have you talked about it? Have you seen a marriage counselor or a sex therapist or a Zen master? Have you talked to your teacher about this? No? Well, why don't you talk to your teacher about this? Well, because I'm embarrassed. Well, how come you're embarrassed? Is this not practice? Is this not going to be helpful to everybody? So you'd be kind of happy to tell your teacher about something that's going to be helpful to everybody and that's something you don't want to do and that the other person is interested in and you both think it would be beneficial. Why not? So I usually tell my people who are training with me, I say, if you're interested in getting sexually involved with someone, talk to me first. Let's hear about how it's a good idea. Let's hear about how it's going to promote your meditation practice. Let's hear about how it develops enlightenment. And you know, It can. But if you can't talk to your teacher about it, your meditation teacher about it, it's a sign that maybe it's not going to be helpful.

[58:38]

Some people just don't know very much about sex. Some people do, but when the time for sex comes up, they forget what they know about it. So as a general rule, if you happen to have a relationship with somebody who is kind of real interested in right action which includes appropriate sexual relationships that would be a good person to talk to you about whether this is a case like that because sexual relationships are extremely important they're like understanding sexuality is very very helpful to uh on enlightenment you kind of can't be enlightened if you don't understand your sexuality So if you're still dualistic about it, if you still think the other person is not you, be very careful and get counseling because it can be very, very harmful.

[59:47]

If you overeat, it can be pretty bad. If you steal, it can be pretty bad. But stealing doesn't hurt other people as much as a sexual relationship. It doesn't hurt people too much to steal from them usually, unless you're stuck stealing their last, you know, piece of food from them. That doesn't very often happen in this world, actually. But sex is something that can immediately kill people or ruin them for life, psychologically and spiritually. And, of course, you, even worse. On the other hand, a sexual relationship that's done dualistically, very carefully, can be very helpful. And it can even bring you and help you understand what non-dualistic sexual relationship is. So, again, our eating thing and our physical, what do you call it, acquisitiveness is not that more sophisticated than most other animals.

[60:50]

So what about wine tasting and stuff? Okay, okay. But, you know, I don't really think so, actually. Because dogs know more about smelling than any wine taster ever will know. And snakes and hummingbirds and, you know, bees have a much better sense of smell than we do. So I don't really know if we're all that have that much advantage on them in terms of eating and advantages on them in terms of complexity, in terms of eating and getting things. But, okay, you know, especially when you resist the getting. I think the things we make are much more complicated and so on in some ways, maybe. But sex is different. They were really, really, really, really complicated. And understanding that means to understand what the human being is. So it's very important to give a lot of attention to it in a dualistic realm. Now, in the non-dualistic realm, we can move to that if you're ready. Just so it seems interesting to me that in lots of different spiritual or religious traditions, monks, you know, are celibate in the communities, you know.

[62:06]

Lots of different traditions they have celibacy. Right. the leader, the awakening leader of the group has chosen to lead. That part of renunciation is often equated with some kind of purity that has to do with celibacy. Yeah, but also in some spiritual traditions, including Buddhism, the leader, the spiritual leader, is not celibate. The point is not so much celibacy or not celibacy. The point is, the point is, the point is, I really believe this. The point is that you understand sexuality. That's the point. and what will really promote understanding of it. If you understand it, that's key to liberation. If just running around and having sex without paying attention to it isn't that educational, it's pretty much the same. When you don't pay attention to what you're doing, it's pretty much the same over and over. But if you pay attention, your understanding deepens. So the question is, is this really going to be beneficial to your understanding of the process?

[63:09]

And if so, then I think it could be what we call wholesome sexuality. And some people understand and study sexuality under the situation that we call celibacy. They still have to study sexuality. If you have a person who's celibate and isn't studying their sexuality, they're not going to wake up because sexuality is there. And if you don't understand it, you don't understand yourself. And so even though you may not have genital sexual relationships with someone, you do have sexual relationships with people on some level which you do not understand. And some people who are celibate are studying sexuality all day long. And they really understand it. Other people who are celibate are just basically catatonic in that realm.

[64:15]

They're practically psychotic, I would say. As a matter of fact, some psychotics, they put in monasteries. And some people who are psychotic about sexuality, they put in monasteries. Either psychotic in terms of acting out or in terms of suppressing it to such an extent that it actually kills their life spirit. But some celibates are totally juicy. Some are very dried up. But their dried upness is not due to ignorance and denial of sexuality. It is not due to that at all. It's just their nature. But a dried-up person or a juicy person can both learn about what sexuality is. Same way in a relationship where a person has sexual relationships, where they're married and working on the relationship, they too can study sexuality and I think in some cases be as enlightened about sexuality as the celibate person. Or to say it the other way around, some celibate people are as enlightened about sexuality as people who have sexual relationships.

[65:23]

But the Buddha understood sexuality, I believe. He had sexuality prior to his celibate period. And in his celibate period, I think he continued to study sexuality. So... It's there. It's there. It's there. You have to understand it. What I hear you say you have to understand is that this leads you to the realization of not-self and other. It leads you to the understanding of not-self. It leads you to the understanding of non-duality. And as long as you're involved in duality, what you should do is be very careful about your dualistic sexual relationships. If you're celibate, you still have sexual relationships with people, you still have feelings, and they still have feelings about you. Celibate people are very attractive, sexually attractive to a lot of other people.

[66:29]

People bring you lots of sexual energy if you're celibate. Celibate monks and nuns, people get very excited about them sexually when they see them. A celibate monk sometimes is oozing with sexuality. which they may or may not understand. Sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they try to crush it and they're very sad because of that. And some have it right and balanced and they're still very attractive, but they handle that attraction, they handle that process really well and they understand. And some people who aren't celibate also have really deep understanding of their sexuality, and both situations are possible to realize, you know, the true nature of the self. But same way with how you, around killing and around possessions, those are also areas where you can learn, but they're, in some ways, they're not as complex.

[67:41]

Because Our brain, you know, is highly, highly evolved around sexuality. A lot of our highly complex behaviors are around mating and courting and all that stuff. Not around eating. You know, the subtleties of eating are not evolutionary. There's not a big evolutionary pressure on them. But sexuality is an extremely powerful evolutionary pressure on it. So who can do this or that in such a way as to convey such and such to potential mate? That's the stuff we do. That's what our face is about. That's what our language is about. I just heard that somebody speculated, how come Homo sapiens didn't mate with Neanderthals

[68:44]

I think the theory that makes no sense to me is Neanderthals didn't speak, didn't have language. Homo sapiens just felt weird about, you know, mating with somebody who couldn't talk because they could talk. It's funny, I mean, Neanderthals had a lot going for them, but, you know, that was their drawback. We're not really sure they didn't, though. We're not sure we didn't? They were laughing at us. Maybe between the Neanderthals and the Homo sapiens. We're not sure there wasn't? Well, just because you haven't found something doesn't mean it wasn't, right? So if we find some evidence that there is, then that will be the end of that. And maybe if we can look at the genes of the Neanderthals that made it with the Homo sapiens, we might find out that they were talking Neanderthals. You might see the talking gene in there. I don't know.

[69:49]

Anyway, sexuality is to be studied. But I guess the story that I just wanted to end with, which is maybe too long to tell, Maybe I can say it... What? In some ways, the fundamental thing here about right intention and right speech and right action, in some ways, the key point in right action is renunciation. Because impulses... Impulses of lust or desire, impulses of aggressiveness and so on, they do come up. And also even in the intention these things come up.

[70:56]

So renunciation is a key point throughout learning what renunciation means. Renunciation doesn't mean to reject anything. It doesn't mean to throw away and also doesn't mean to grasp. This is balance between rejection and attachment. And when there's renunciation, then the way you interact with animals, the way you interact with material things, and the way you interact with other humans, it develops this harmony which realizes non-duality. When you find this balanced presence, then your speech and your bodily actions are appropriate.

[72:01]

Then your bodily actions aren't... you don't steal anymore, you don't kill, and you don't misuse sexuality. you're generous you're generous you're kind and gentle and your sexual relationships are enlightening the difficult thing is to be in that balanced upright the state of renunciation in the midst of all this going on all the time all this sexual energy flying around all your biological needs flying around all the social interactions flying around and to stay present in that and find this balanced place and to drop the impulses to grasp and control or reject and right view of course is part of that that you're watching all the time to see what karmic impulses are arising and keeping track of whether they seem to be veering off towards grasping or rejecting, or whether they seem to be like relating, but gently and respectfully, lovingly, watching all this all the time.

[73:23]

So the story is that this man, some of you have heard this already, this man, he's just a white man in the late, I guess the late 40s and early 50s, used to spend time with the, I believe it was Navajo Indians in the southwest. And one of the things he, and this man loved animals very much, and one of the things he loved most about these people was their ability to ride ponies bareback. They were extremely good at riding without bridle or maybe they had a halter, I don't know. I think they just held hair or the neck and no saddle. And he was friends with the chief of the group, who was also one of the best riders, and he asked the chief through an interpreter, how these people could ride so beautifully, these ponies, without saddles and so on.

[74:36]

And the chief sat and didn't answer him for a very, very long time. I forgot how long it was, but a really long time, like a long time. But not several days, but a good part of a day he didn't answer them. And they just sat there and watched the writers. And finally he said, that's a good question. And then sometime later, maybe a year or two later, the chief on his own brought up Bart up and said, you asked a couple years ago about how these, through an interpreter, you asked about how they ride. He said, well, the way you ride, the way you learn to ride like that is you grow up with the horses. You, from the childhood, you eat with them, you sleep with them, you clean them, you play with them.

[75:43]

you love them, you take care of them, and you ride them, and you ride them, and you ride them. So you have to be an Indian to ride like that, or anyway, to grow up with them that way. So you'll never know. But anyway, I can show you a little bit about how it goes. And then there was a long silence again and the chief went, how did he go? He went like this. I might say renunciation. Not rejection. It didn't go like this and not like this. He let go. In the middle of all that's going on, with horses, with men, with women, with whatever, you know, with material things, with food.

[76:49]

You let go. You renounce. And you're there. So anyway, I'm saying that. That's what that symbolizes for me when the chief went like this. Then he went like this. So for this means to me, first you let go, then you meet. In this case, you meet the horse. But you could also meet a man or a woman or a laboratory rat or a diamond ring. But anyway, it's particularly important, of course, with a living creature that without some holding on to something and without some aggressiveness, you let go and you meet.

[77:56]

And then he went like this, intertwined his fingers and brought them down together like that. And then the two index fingers came up together like that. And then they made a circle. He said, that's how they learn how to ride ponies. And I'd say that's right action. You meet every situation like that. And from that kind of intimacy, right action will rise up out of that kind of intimacy and express itself very beautifully. And it will be right, and both sides will do it together, and both sides will agree, and both sides will be happy, and everyone will see the beauty, the marvel of when things come together in harmony like that and act together.

[79:07]

That's right action that isn't even meritorious. It's just the Buddha way. It's non-dual, pure right action. You and the horse are the same thing. Without removing your difference, you're one event called right action. The horse and the person, the right action comes. You and your lover are right action. You and your food, you and the other being that you work with, whatever animals or plants or other human beings you work with, it's out of that kind of harmony. And it protects beings, it loves beings, and it doesn't attach to beings. There's no central desire, but there's love.

[80:09]

There's no attachment or gain, but there's affection and kindness. There's no ill will, but things can be quite... know active almost you know very very energetic to riding a horse so okay

[80:42]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_86.5