There's really not two Karens, it's one's Aaron and one's Karen. There's really not two Karens, it's one's Aaron and one's Karen. There's really not two Karens, it's one's Aaron and one's Karen.

[01:29]

I brought up the expression deep faith in cause and effect. Sometimes, in ancient times, the Buddhist practitioners were called Karmavadins, which could be translated, those who follow karma or those who follow the teachings about the relationship between action and consequence, those who study the relationship between action

[02:53]

and consequence. I wanted to start out tonight by saying that what I feel is important is that if you do have faith in the teaching of the Buddha, that you learn to take care of that faith without dwelling in it. And in particular, if you have faith, if you believe in the teachings of cause and effect, if you're devoted to these teachings, that you practice this devotion without dwelling in the teachings or dwelling in the devotion.

[03:56]

One scholar described the Buddha's position on karmic causation as a weak or modified version of cause and effect. And the basic idea is that the human condition, our human existence, is not totally, completely determined by our actions. That the human condition is not completely determined by the actions of a human agent. And I have heard some people quote authorities in the so-called Buddhist tradition who say everything is due to karma.

[05:12]

But I think actually that even if you say that, it would be good not to take that statement too seriously. But I wouldn't actually say that in the first place. I would say something different. But whatever I would say, I would also recommend not dwelling in what I say. And I'd like to also just say right now that the Buddha, in describing right view, the most important part of right view, I say, is the part that says action has consequence, karma has effect. But tonight I'd like to mention to you that the Buddha also taught that although karma has effect, although action has consequence, not all action has consequence.

[06:39]

The Buddha taught action has consequence, but he also taught not all actions have consequence. The Buddha also taught rebirth. He said there is rebirth, but I don't think Buddha taught that there's always rebirth. Teaching that there's rebirth, teaching that karma has consequence, and then not abiding in that teaching, I think that is the Buddha way. So, in the early teachings, the Buddha taught this teaching, gave this teaching on causation,

[07:51]

but also modified it by pointing out that there is not a necessary strict determinism, one-to-one, between act and fruit. And also, the Buddha gave a teaching, which is called dependent co-arising, which is depending on this, that arises. Depending on the ceasing of this, that ceases. This basic formula of dependent co-arising he taught. The teaching of dependent co-arising is not a teaching which denies strict determinism.

[08:54]

It doesn't deny strict determinism. Matter of fact, when you say it, if you just say it and when you finish saying it, you could understand that it's deterministic. Depending on this, that arises. Depending on the ceasing of that, of this, that ceases. You could have a deterministic understanding of that, if there's a one-to-one correspondence between depending on this, that. You could also say depending on this, that arises, and depending on that, this arises. You could make it circular. But even then, you could still see it as deterministic. So the Buddha actually made some effort to deny or reject strict determinism. The historical

[10:00]

Buddha did. And I would like to mention tonight three aspects of this denial. One aspect is the acceptance of the fact that certain elements of reality are, I like this word, casual. Casual, causal, they're closely related. Just move those words around a little bit and you go from causal to casual and back. Casual means kind of relaxed, informal, non-regular. The Buddha taught that there isn't anything that exists that doesn't exist depending on

[11:02]

causes. And paying attention to karmic causation is central to the Buddhist practice. But there are certain things that happen, that come into existence by a more casual causation, a more irregular and non-relaxed way. That's one element of the denial of determinism between cause and effect, and in particular between action and fruit. And I'll give examples of that. So the first thing is that certain things which are dependent co-arisings, dependently co-arise in a casual way, non-regular.

[12:05]

Next is that the fact that a given act will not always have the same effect. The effect will depend on circumstances. And the third point is the affirmation of the efficacy of human effort. Now you could, so remember those three? Certain elements of reality, of existence, arise casually. Second is that a given act will not always necessarily have the same result. It could, but not necessarily. And the third is the affirmation of the efficacy of human effort. These are things that deny determinism.

[13:12]

Looking at the first one, the casual one, there is a kind of non-reliance between the ... a little scripture is called Sivaka, and that's because the Buddha is talking to a monk named Sivaka. I think the monk comes and says, what do you say about people who say that everything we experience is the fruit of past action? And the Buddha says, you know, I'll make this scripture short, the Buddha says that someone who says that does not say so on the basis of direct experience, and they do not say so according to what the world understands. In the world we do not think, actually, people do not think that everything

[14:19]

is due to past karma. Some Buddhists do, some people of some other religions maybe think that everything is due to past karma. If that were the case, I'll just say now, then that would be deterministic, that would be a strong deterministic understanding of act and consequence, that everything we experience is the result of past karma. Some people think that, but generally speaking in the world people don't think that. And the Buddha says, people who say that do not know this by direct experience and they do not know this by worldly customs, therefore they're wrong if they think that. The Buddha says, now how do our experiences arise? They arise depending on, he didn't say this but I'll just tell you beforehand, seven different categories of conditions. One is bile, another

[15:25]

is phlegm, another is wind, and another is the humors. Experiences rely on these three or four types of conditions or causes, which could be put in correspondence with modern science probably. But then the Buddha goes on to say also our present experience can arise from untoward circumstances. Untoward means kind of inappropriate, unexpected conditions. People often use the example of an innocent baby being born into a terrible situation. They think that that's untoward, that that would happen. And that actually may be an example. The way the baby gets in that position may be actually due to untoward conditions.

[16:30]

Not necessarily though, it might be because of bile. Another, so that's the fifth one, untoward conditions. Sixth is accident. And seventh, no, sixth is accident, I think I missed one. And seventh is maturation of previous karma. One of the seven or eight conditions for our present experience is maturation of previous karma. So although the Buddha is telling us, I'm saying, that these other conditions for our experience showing that the teaching of karmic cause and effect is not deterministic, still the Buddha teaches, practice good karma, avoid evil karma. He still teaches, pay attention

[17:33]

to the karma. But if the karma was deterministic, it wouldn't make any sense to pay attention to it because what we do or don't do would have nothing to do with what happened because what we're doing right now would be determined by past karma. So why make an effort? But because everything we experience is not due to past karma, it makes sense to pay attention to your present karma. So that's the casual side, the casual rejection of karma. And the other one is not a direct one-to-one correspondence. And there's two main facets of that. One is, and this is a scripture which I read several times, a long time ago I read

[18:48]

it several times and I could not see the difference between the two different ways of saying it. But I hope I can say it tonight in such a way that you get it. Well, maybe I'll just read it and you can hear it the way it is in the original. And then I'll say it over in a way that's easier to understand. If someone were to speak thus, monks, exactly as a person performs deeds, thus does he experience

[19:57]

its fruit. That would be determinism. If someone were to speak thus, exactly as a person performs deeds, thus does he experience fruit. If this were so, monks, one could not live the saintly life. No opportunity would appear to put a proper end to sorrow. But if one would speak thus, monks, exactly as a person performs a deed that is to have a consequence, thus the person experiences the fruit of its maturation. Did you get the difference? Lois did. What was the difference, Lois? I can repeat it. If you depend on a cause, the last part, if you have the opportunity

[21:09]

not to be locked into a deterministic, a bind, you have a chance to act freely and you have a chance to act in a saintly way. That's true, but that's not the difference between these two statements. The difference is, which I can imagine you didn't catch, I had trouble myself several times, was exactly as a person performs a deed that is to have a consequence, thus does she experience the fruit. The previous one was exactly as you perform a deed, thus do you experience the fruit. One adds in a deed that is to have a consequence. So in other words, the Buddha is saying, didn't they all have consequences, whether they were effective or not?

[22:16]

Some do not have consequences for the actor, in terms of the actor's experience of life, and others do. And the ones that do, there will be this close association, which we mentioned before, namely certain kinds of acts have beneficial results, others have unbeneficial results. Some actions are effectual, others are not. I'll come back to this if you like, Lois, but let me just say the next one. Again, the first thing is casual, the second thing is not a one-to-one correspondence.

[23:21]

The first aspect of not one-to-one correspondence is, some actions have consequence, others don't, and those that will have consequence, then there is exact correspondence between the action and the experience. It's from the Samyutta Nikaya, it's from Anguttara Nikaya 1.249-253, and this next one is from, I believe, Samyutta Nikaya, and it's the famous one about the salt, the grain of salt. If you take a grain of salt and you put it in a cup of water, it would be very difficult to drink the water. They had big grains of salt back

[24:25]

in those days. But maybe if you've ever done a salt water enema and had to drink it, it's very hard to drink really, really salty water. But if you take a grain of salt and put it in the river or in a lake, it won't be too salty. So similarly, if you do a small misdeed, like you're a little bit rude to somebody, a little bit disrespectful, if you are not committed to the practice of being respectful, if you don't wholeheartedly want to be respectful to people and then you're somewhat not respectful, that small misdeed will have a huge effect. And it won't mature very fast, it will take

[25:28]

a long time to mature. A small misdeed in the context of not being committed and practicing good deeds, misdeeds don't tend to mature fast. For example, if I'm committed to being kind to people and I make that known to people and I practice that a lot and people see me practicing it, then if I'm not kind to someone, if I'm not respectful, I will get feedback on that disrespect quickly. But if I don't practice respect and I don't tell people that I want to practice respect and people don't see me practicing respect and then I'm disrespectful, they'll just basically say, well, there he is, that's him, and we know what's going to happen to him, so don't say anything. But if you have a deep commitment to be kind and you're unkind, you'll get feedback quite quickly. People will say, that was unkind, pretty much right away. Does that make sense, Laurie? So if the Buddha was a little bit unkind to

[26:44]

somebody, the disciples would say, you're a little bit unkind to them, right away they'll say that. How come you're unkind to him today? And that'll be the result. The result will be, that was a kind of unkind, what you did. That's how bad things get for people that are really practicing. When they do small things, they get small negative results when the result is going to come. But if you're the same act in a different environment or in a different practice situation, it doesn't come quickly, it comes much later and it comes much larger. In other words, the action doesn't have a deterministic relationship, and this is for one that does mature back to the place. But some don't even come back. They don't have a fruit for the person. They have some consequences though, but not for the person. Some do not. This is a teaching, and another part of the teaching is, how do you practice with the

[27:52]

situation, and that's the third point. The third point is that the Buddha affirms that human action can be fruitful, and then recommends practicing good and avoiding unwholesome actions. Then, in addition, I'm suggesting to you that part of practicing good, this is the third point now, this is in the vein of rejecting determinism, part of practicing good is not to attach to practicing good. If you have faith in practicing good, part of the way to practice it in this school would be to not attach to practicing good. And part of the reason why it would be good not to attach to practicing good is because, as we told you before, we told you before, when you look at the definition of good, you're really looking

[28:57]

at selflessness, because you can't find any good in good. So if you're really committed to practicing good, it would make sense not to dwell in practicing good because there's no actual good in the good to dwell in. And if you dwell in the good of good, you're making a self out of the good that isn't there, and this teaching is now being somewhat blocked. Whereas if you commit to practicing good, like really commit to it, like, I want to practice good, I want to keep thinking practice good, practice good, think it all the time, and every time you think it, think it gently. And if you get happy from thinking about good, which might happen, don't dwell in the happiness of thinking of good. And if you think of good without dwelling in good and get even happier, don't dwell in that

[29:58]

unhappiness. And if you get unhappy, don't dwell in the unhappiness either, even though you really should, because you're a bad practitioner. No, the practice is not dwelling in anything, but it is also to be committed to certain things wholeheartedly, and in the wholehearted commitment there will not be dwelling, and that will have consequence, and the consequence will be great compassion, great fearlessness, and great wisdom. So the middle way, the middle way between control and no control, the middle way between

[31:10]

a deterministic cause and effect and no cause and effect, or totally random or by chance cause and effect. So I think I've said a number of times that this teaching of dependent co-arising, again, is a teaching which the Buddha says, the disciples have a well-centered attention to dependent co-arising. They're always paying attention to dependent co-arising. In every action they pay attention to that. But I'm now adding, well-centered means they don't dwell in this thing that they're paying attention to, and that means they're open to things being not deterministic in the causal situation which they're actually paying a lot of attention to. So dependent co-arising, that's the central teaching of the Buddha, and he says without

[32:21]

understanding this you cannot understand life. But then he says other things which don't sound like this dependent co-arising. And those other things are things which are allowed because dependent co-arising is not dwelled in. But that's the thing you're supposed to pay attention to and not dwell in. You're not supposed to pay attention to some other teaching that's not about causation or that refutes causation. You're supposed to pay attention to causation in a gentle and kind way. Treat causation the way you treat everything and treat everything the way you treat causation. Okay, wasn't that great? Are you a little surprised, some of you? Is everybody surprised? Anybody not surprised?

[33:28]

Nobody moving a muscle? Nobody's saying they're not surprised and nobody's saying they are surprised. I'm a little surprised that that happened. That's really okay. Buddhists are into relief. We are into relief. We are into the possibility of being saved from suffering. But determinism eliminates the possibility of salvation. And also the opposite of determinism is really determinism too. The middle way is to deeply attend to the dependent co-arising and also be aware of the teachings which say dependent co-arising isn't deterministic and the different ways that it's explained of how it isn't, plus

[34:36]

be open to other ways that it isn't. And I said this before again that this dependent co-arising, there's no cause of dependent co-arising, there's no external thing causing dependent co-arising. The Buddha isn't the cause of dependent co-arising. The Buddha is choosing dependent co-arising as the thing to pay attention to. But the Buddha didn't make dependent co-arising and there's no prime cause of dependent co-arising. However, because we don't dwell on dependent co-arising, there can be openness to interventions in the causal process. Occasionally, not always and not never. Always and never are deterministic, but occasionally there can be intervention in our own process of paying attention to cause and effect. If we're paying attention to cause and effect and we're a little bit

[35:42]

rough about it, a little bit unkind about it, a little bit attached to it and dwelling in it, there can be interventions in this. But the intervention is not, for example, a god, a divine being that's in charge of the whole program, because if that were the case again, salvation would not be possible. If somebody was in charge of salvation, it wouldn't be possible. But beings can intervene with our process on a kind of occasional basis, that's possible. And we can invite them to intervene. And one of the ways they intervene is they tell us not to abide in what we're devoted to. And don't abide in not being devoted to what you're not devoted to. If there's anything you're not devoted to, that's fine

[36:44]

that you're not devoted to it, as long as you don't abide in not being devoted to it. And these wonderful things, for example, this teaching on dependent co-arising and the teachings which protect you from believing too intensely in dependent co-arising, not dwelling in those is also good. But in one case you're not dwelling in the good so that the good can thrive. In the other case you're not dwelling in the evil so that the evil won't thrive. I was in Vancouver this weekend and I was talking to them about something or other and I said, I really feel your deep devotion, your deep faith in the Bodhisattva path and

[37:44]

I invite you and request you not to dwell in your deep faith in the Bodhisattva path so that it can flourish. So I would like us all to be deeply centered and devotedly attentive to every action with the understanding that to pay attention to the teachings and the experience of karmic cause and effect is necessary in order to understand and to understand the cause and effect. And understanding cause and effect is necessary in order to have the best kind of life. And then don't dwell in what I just said. Be devoted without dwelling and do that with everybody you care about and everything you care about. Be completely

[38:44]

devoted without dwelling. Care a lot about everything without dwelling, without attaching. That's really what kindness is. That's kindness taken to the fullness where there's no possibility of attachment. Attachment is a central problem. How do we get over attachment? Be more devoted to what you're attached to until the devotion becomes so full that there's no dwelling. Yes, John? Are you equating care with awareness here because I'm just wondering about the trap of becoming

[39:47]

prey to attachment to caring? I think, did you say prey? Do you say prey to what? Becoming prey to the trap of attaching to caring. Yeah, I think prey to the, to become prey to attachment to X. Caring, fine. That would be something that would be a problem to get attached to. But I think usually caring for things comes with attention to it. So if you're attending to a person or to an experience or to a teaching, that's one important part of caring. Then I would add to the centered, the really centered caring or attention is one where it's so full and centered and so calm and so gentle and so non-overbearing on this wonderful thing that you're devoted

[40:52]

to. You're not overbearing about your devotion and you're patient with the situation and you're generous. All that together makes us be with this thing, makes this devotion not stick. So attending to these teachings and being devoted to them, kind of synonyms. But taking these teachings in a soft, flexible, kind of weak way, kind of an uncertain way is the middle way. The middle way is certainly the best way and the middle way is to not be certain. So lately I've been saying, I've been sort of catching myself when I'm about to say good and saying maybe good or good maybe. People say, and that's a good thing, and

[41:54]

I say maybe so. And I was thinking about my grandson, I often feel like good, maybe changing that to great instead of good. Great, you know, bigger than good. The good doesn't make it here. This is just great, as Tony the Tiger used to say. Yes, Steph? When you use the word intervention, at first I thought that sounded like dependent co-arising, and then I wondered, did you mean that intervention could, something could intervene with dependent co-arising? Yes, intervene with it in the sense of, you know, make a contribution that doesn't seem

[42:58]

to be coming from my karma. So my karma is having consequences sometimes, and also sometimes not having consequences, and the consequences having is that it's maturing in terms of my experience. So when karma matures, it matures as experience. That's the way it matures. So I'm having some, and my experiences are sometimes the maturation of karma, but my experiences according to the Buddha are not always the maturation of karma. But aren't my actions, dependent co-arising is sponsoring my karma, isn't it? Dependent co-arising is the teaching about how your karma does and does not have consequence. It's a teaching about that. And if you're devoted to that teaching in some way, that's

[44:02]

that can be a karmic act, that you're devoting your attention to this teaching. But you might be devoting your attention to this teaching in a way that's kind of like too strong, maybe. So it's possible, you know, if you look at your history, even if somebody who has really tremendous vision about all this looks at your history, they might not see anything in your history to free you from being too strong about your history, other than the fact that they're watching you and about to tell you that you could lighten up. And then they do, and it's like an intervention. But they don't always intervene. You know, the Buddhas are not always intervening, and yet they sometimes do. But still, they don't intervene and take control of us and just save us. And yet sometimes they make a contribution,

[45:03]

and sometimes we invite the contribution and they don't make a contribution, and sometimes we don't even know about a contribution and they make one. They somehow feel like we're requesting it even though we don't think so. And that's what you're talking about right now, it's not dependent co-arising? It is dependent co-arising, but it's not deterministic. And it's possible that in your whole life it would never happen. So this word intervention can be thought of as a synonym for dependent co-arising? I wouldn't say it's a synonym for dependent co-arising. I would say the word intervention, what's saying that interventions could occasionally occur is saying that dependent co-arising, like Nagarjuna says, dependent co-arising, whatever is dependent co-arising, I say that's emptiness. So dependent co-arising is selflessness, is no self. Because dependent co-arising doesn't have a self, any idea we have of how it usually works is empty of that idea.

[46:11]

Even though maybe, and I told you ways that it often works, and the Buddha does say ways it often works, but it doesn't say it always works that way. And that process of working, being emptiness, means that there's no self in the process either. There's no basis of it, there's nobody running it, and it doesn't have a self. Therefore it can be pretty much anything and it also can be pretty much regular. So there can be regularity without control and there can be control sometimes without regularity. It can be casual. There can be regularity with and without control. There can be control with and without regularity. All these things are possible, but still we're being encouraged to look at this situation

[47:14]

that's not under control and also it's not without any control. It's regular but not too regular. So we need some continuity in our life in order to have salvation, but if we have too much continuity, we're done for. There's no possibility of freedom if it's too continuous, if it's too regular. So we're trying to find the middle way between continuity and change. If no change, there's no salvation. If too much change, there's no salvation. If too much control, no control, the middle way. Where is it? It's hard to find because it's selflessness. And while we're making our efforts to pay attention to cause and effect in this way, still we may get some help, but we also may not get the help. And the help

[48:27]

can come from a person, from a teacher, or certain kinds of effects can wake us up and help us find the correct way of practice. Yes? I think I'm pretty confused, but in some sense it doesn't seem like I have a problem in a way. I like hearing it's not deterministic. That's like a preference that arises, that things aren't deterministic. But on the other hand, if I was to hear that it was deterministic, it doesn't seem like it would really matter because if things are dependently co-arisen, that means everything causally causes everything. There's no way to know what's causally happening. So it's like I have incomplete knowledge. So the situation is kind of, even if it was

[49:28]

closed deterministically, I wouldn't have knowledge. You know what, you're saying a little bit too much. You said several things that each one could be worked with. So by saying that much, I'd like to break it up into little parts now. The first part you said was something like, even if I heard, the first thing you said was, I kind of have a preference for it not being deterministic, you said. And I would say, before we go further, don't dwell on your preference. So he didn't. So then he moved on and said, even if it was. See, he wasn't dwelling on his preference. So he said, even if it was deterministic, it wouldn't be a big problem. Just a second there. It wouldn't be a big problem if you didn't dwell on it. And also it wouldn't be a big problem if you don't dwell on it not being a problem. However, even if you don't dwell on it, you can still hear me say, if it is deterministic, you cannot be free. That's why the Buddha went to the trouble of refuting determinism. However,

[50:33]

once he refutes it, and now we're back to John's preference, we shouldn't dwell on John's preference. But again, if John says, that's my preference but I'm not dwelling on it, so actually I'm open to the possibility of being deterministic. I think that's good that you're open to it. But to say it's not a problem, again, that's taking another step. First of all, I'm not going to dwell on determinism, but now I'm also going to say it's not a problem. Fine. Don't dwell on that either. Now that you're not dwelling on determinism or even saying that determinism is not a problem, then please listen to the teaching that if it was deterministic, it wouldn't exactly be a problem, it would just be suffering and that would be it. We'd be trapped in suffering, there would be no end to samsara. Well, I guess that's the problem, that's where I don't make the connection, because in some sense, I guess I do think that my ability to perceive all causes and to see causality, I can't do that.

[51:36]

You can't do that, but we can understand cause and effect. But it's not something you're going to do by yourself. Okay, we can. We can. We can, and the way we do it is by practicing together. When we practice together, for example, studying these teachings and other teachings, and we practice in this way of not dwelling in the teachings or anything else, non-teachings or things which we can't even understand are teachings, if we do this together, that group practice is the understanding of cause and effect. It is the omniscient understanding of cause and effect. There's no other omniscient understanding of cause and effect, and that is an omniscient understanding of cause and effect, vis-a-vis liberating beings from the cause and effect of suffering. But it's not something you're going to understand because, or I'm going to understand

[52:38]

because our human mind is not suited for this, but our human mind is suited for practices which are the realization of this teaching, of the reality of cause and effect. The practice is the realization, not me thinking about the situation or me thinking about the teaching. The practice of the teaching is the understanding. Like when you actually practice taking care of things, being totally devoted to things without dwelling in them, that's the practice. And when you realize you're doing that together with other people who are doing that practice, and you realize it by doing it together with others who are doing the practice, that is the realization, that is the understanding. The understanding is not something I think, it's not something even the Buddha thinks. But it is the way the Buddha

[53:50]

is practicing together with everyone, that is the understanding, that is the knowledge. But it's not a consciousness. But the consciousness of those who are practicing that way gets illuminated by this practice, which makes them really happy and fearless and generous and able to do all kinds of acts of non-attachment. It makes it so they don't dwell in their life. Yes? Pardon? By any of them did you say? I couldn't quite hear you. You're talking about the third refutation of determinism

[55:06]

being the affirmation of the efficacy of human action? Right. That doesn't imply that there's human agency. It doesn't, no. Then where is it? So why is it that one causes human action after another? Why is it what? Why isn't it? So let's say I'm a human with action. I'm not a human with agency. I'm not determining my action. Yes? Where is the indeterminacy? Where is the indeterminacy? In my action. Where is the indeterminacy? So how can my action not be deterministic if there's no agent? Why is there no agent? You're saying why is it not deterministic if there's no agent?

[56:11]

Yes. So how is it an effective refutation of determinism to say that human action has that agency? Where there's no agent. Right. So what's the substance of the refutation? It's just a contraposition. Human action has efficacy. Yeah. It's an affirmation that in a situation where the human action is not just determined by causes and conditions, in that situation, the human action has the efficacy of freeing the person from the causal process. What? It's a denial. It's a statement. It's an affirmation.

[57:12]

Right. That's right. It's an affirmation that human action can free the human from the process. So you're saying the whole process of dependent co-arising is not just causes and effects bearing on the person. It's not just that. Good question. Well, you know, it's 9 o'clock. But that was a good one. I don't know if you followed that, but that was a good point. I hope you can write those other two down and bring them up next time or in between and I'll bring them up. Yeah. So I was happy to come to class tonight and talk a little bit differently to you than ever before. Thank you for tolerating things changing. Did you see things changed here tonight? Thank you very much.

[58:14]

Thank you.

[58:34]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ