thought that maybe they'd get something out of it, but did sincerely believe that the landlords didn't need it all and should share it. Which I think a bodhisattva would agree, that the person should share it, definitely. But the bodhisattva does not hate the landlords, does not hate the landlords, and is not trying to get anything for himself. So if you don't have these other two agendas, this precept is saying, don't take yet. That's what he's saying. If you don't understand what it means to love the landlords, if you don't love the landlords and you're trying to get something for yourself, then you disqualify yourself from going against the societal norms. Right, well, that's as I was understanding it, and I guess what worries me is that it seems to be profoundly conservative. from a social point of view, because it doesn't seem that that situation will ever really obtain, so that there's a large enough mass who are going to love the landlord at the same time.

[01:05]

I think some conservatives, some conservatives, some conservative, politically conservative people would like to hear that, what I just said. because it might keep some people from rebelling against land situations, right? But there's a liberal part of it too, which is also there. The liberal part is that you love the landlords. And that you work, your life is primarily dedicated to all beings, including the poor and the rich. That's not a conservative thing. Politically, that would fall under the liberal camp. Well, the point is you're not either one of those. But what about when there's a situation, a kind of situation, political situation unfolding? I'm just saying, if you go against the societal norms and get in trouble for it, but you're doing it for selfish motivation, I would say that that is not going to be helpful. Maybe you might say, I think it's relatively helpful. You might say, if you've got deluded people, let's use the deluded people to fight the system.

[02:10]

But from the point of view of that person, I would say, I would recommend that that person get in touch with another, you know, postpone going against these things and work on himself. It might be tough, though, getting the squalor most people live in. You know, it might be difficult to sort of spend a whole lot of time coming out of the hell realm to practice because you're not yet spiritually perfect enough to oppose the power that is staring down at you and oppressing you and destroying your family on a daily basis. Well, again, spiritually opposing something does not have to be always against the law. You see, you still have many ways of interacting with the situation which do not violate. Stealing things from people according to their idea of stealing is not the only way to express your lack of trust in the distribution.

[03:18]

You can work really hard against the system in a legal way with tremendous energy. You don't have to necessarily throw bombs at buildings and kill policemen and kill officials. That is not the only way that it has to go. You can do like Gandhi who didn't kill people. You can revolutionize society without killing people. It's possible. What I say is I propose that as the Buddhist way. The Buddhist way is not to kill people. That's the Buddhist way. Not to steal and not to sexually abuse people for your own gain. If there's ever a case where those things would be beneficial to people, maybe it should be done. But, you know, what is those cases? When is it beneficial to rape people? When does that help society to rape people? When does it help society to steal?

[04:18]

Huh? When they're hungry, yeah. So if you can steal something for somebody and give it to somebody else when they're hungry, that would be a case where... The hungry person might steal it with nothing but selfish motivation. Right. They're not trying to save society. They're not trying to do anything. They just want food. I say let them steal. You can say let them steal. That's fine. If the person asks me whether they should steal or not, I might not recommend that they steal. I wouldn't recommend it to myself necessarily, unless I thought it was beneficial to other people. I wouldn't recommend to myself that I kill others, even though you might tell me to do it. I don't recommend that I kill people. I don't recommend it. As a matter of fact, I'd rather die than kill somebody. That's my position. Would you rather die than steal food? If I thought that stealing food was really going to help people... Just you. Just so that you could eat because you were so hungry. No. If it wasn't going to help people for me to steal food for myself, I don't think I should do it.

[05:22]

I can die today, you know? I've had a life. And two years ago I had a life too. The question is, what am I here for? Am I here to give myself another meal? Is that what I'm here for? That's not what I'm here for. That's not my agenda. Am I here to get another you-know-what? No. That's not what I'm here for. I just feel like if somebody's got all the food and somebody else has none, I don't think there is stealing that. Pardon? If somebody's got a bunch of food, just toss it away. Yeah. And somebody else doesn't have enough to survive, I don't think there is stealing from them. If they toss it away. Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, this is the garbage command here. Well, then you know that they lock dumpsters. Maybe they do lock dumpsters, but I'll take it as garbage rather than off their plates myself. If they throw it out, then I'll go take it. Now, if they say that's stealing too, I might not do it. But, you know, to steal for the welfare of others, okay, I would do that.

[06:23]

And if that was against the societal rules, but I'm really doing it for others, then the societal rules aren't a problem for me. The societal rules are for us when we're not really acting out of love. If you're not acting out of love, then don't, in addition to that, cause disruption and more work for the police. If you're acting to help the police and help the world, then do that, whatever that is. The question is, is what you're doing intended primarily as a benefit to all beings? Is that what the intention is? If that's not the intention, don't do anything. That's what I'm saying. Martin? Martin? I'm just going to say the case of Oscar Romero, the Archbishop of San Salvador, who preached love while also evicting the redistribution of wealth. He was killed by the wealthy not because he was taking their wealth away, but because he was persuading more people to give their wealth away.

[07:29]

And he was more of a threat because of his love. He preached love for all beings. Yeah. And in fact he was killed because of that. That was more of a threat than the violence that the revolutionists were preaching. Right. And I would say that's not a problem except for the people that killed him. It's a problem for them but not a problem for him. No skin off his spiritual nose to get killed by people for preaching, you know, for telling people to do what they should do, to tell people to do what would be good for them and then have them hurt him back. That's no problem for him. It's a problem for them that they didn't hear him And perhaps, you know, the world I live in, the dream world I live in, is that after they kill him, and when he dies with love in his eyes, then they understand what he's talking about. Because they don't really believe he loves them too. They don't really believe he loves them as much as he loves the poor people until they kill him and he doesn't get angry at them. I mean, his effect on his death is actually greater than... Yeah, I think that sometimes that's the final price you have to pay to convert the rich, is to die.

[08:38]

And I'm sorry that it has to be that way, in a way, but that's what the person... I mean, the person who's doing it isn't sorry, necessarily. That's just the price. But the point is, are you dying to get famous? and to get your name up on the saint chart? Or are you dying? What's your motivation? Are you really thinking of what's going to help the whole world? If you are, then the rules don't apply anymore because then it's not stealing. It won't go down as stealing if you do it. It won't go down as killing. It will go down as kindness. These precepts are about how to be kind. Yes? I think you mentioned something about this before but what I think I've heard you saying is that it's not to act until we know that we're completely acting out of love. How do we know when we're completely acting?

[09:41]

What if we're still trying to work it out and we're not quite sure if that's our intention? Is that what you're saying also? Basically, I'm saying to all of us, don't do anything, don't do anything, ever, unless it's beneficial. Okay? Now, what does that mean? How are you going to get out of the room? You know? Well, why not just think about whether it would be beneficial to go out of the room? Maybe it would be. You've got to turn the lights off. I think it would be nice if you went to sleep tonight, actually. Leave this room, go to sleep. I think that would be swell. I think you could think about that and say, I think it would be good to leave the room. And leave the room after considering it was beneficial and go home with a beneficial intention to give yourself a nice rest. And I would sign on for that. for that action. And most of us would like him to give up good night's sleep, wouldn't we? Yeah, it's fine. So, you know, it's not that big a deal to think about, you know, something beneficial like getting a good night's rest and then get up in the morning at, you know, 4.30.

[10:44]

I think if we want to do that, that would also be good. I understand that's the only thing you can do tomorrow morning, but if you want to do that, that would be fine. Go to the zendo. I think that's all. But is the intention beneficial? No. And I say, then act that way. Why don't you tune into considering that? Why skip over that consideration? It's not that much trouble, actually, a little bit of trouble. And then, of course, if you add up each moment you do it, it adds up to be a big trouble. But little by little, it's not that bad. So it's okay to act even if we're not totally certain that it's beneficial action, but it seems like it could be. Right. That's your intention. And if you're not sure, you know, ask Deborah. Anyway, in this case, we already checked out that, you know, you checked ourselves about going to sleep tonight. That's fine. But if any other... That's what I'm saying about the precepts is you work it out, you discuss it with people. So if somebody wants to... thinks that it would be beneficial to steal something from some company and give it to the poor, they should talk to somebody about it who's also had their eye on what does it mean to practice not stealing.

[11:50]

Have a conversation. See if your friend would say... You know, yeah, I think that would be good, actually, if you did that. But this is not just some person who's like some violent gangster. This is somebody who also wants to practice not stealing. Okay? Talk with that person. Talk with a person whose job it is to practice not stealing. And then if you think, I think this wouldn't be stealing, even though I might look like stealing, I think basically it's in the spirit of intimacy and kindness to take this thing, even though those people don't agree. And that person might agree. Still you can't be sure, but get to your intention. You really can come from love and kindness. You can come from that place. Now whether you're perfectly wise or not, it's something you're working on all the time with people. Discussing, discussing, like we're doing right now. Discussing, discussing, discussing, discussing. That's part of it. Suzanne? I was just going to say, it seems like To act out of love or compassion and not be certain seems like it's probably more beneficial or the way to go than to be completely certain of something and act from that point, which, how can you be completely certain?

[13:03]

Yeah, right, I agree. That when you, if you're fairly confident that in your heart, you know, you're coming from love, you don't have to be on top of that certain. It's when we're insecure that we have to add certainty on top of it. And the other thing I was going to say, just from before, it just seems like, or it seemed like what you were saying, or this is what I got from it, is that you kind of, you know, in order to figure out when you're taking or when it's okay to, you know, steal or take from another, the situation, you know, with land is, you know, if you're coming from a place of anger, you still are holding on to, you know, anger and, you know, anger at the situation not being right, then that's not going to... You know, it sounds like you've got to let that go before you can really be of any benefit. Not necessarily. It's possible that anger would be coming through you, but also very clear, you're on a clear beam of...

[14:08]

There's anger here, but I do really... I actually am devoted completely to this person who I'm telling to blah, blah, you know. But you might feel... You can be angry at somebody who you're totally devoted to. In some cases, the anger is not harmful, but just as a form of getting their attention. But, you know, you're really... And you're not getting anything out of it for yourself. You really are concerned for their welfare. And your motivation, your basic motivation is peaceful, but temporarily you're expressing rage... for peace. And so which cases is rage in the spirit of peace? There are cases like that, where you manifest rage for the welfare of others. And this rage comes out of intimacy. And then the result of it is beneficence and benefit. People wake up as a result of it. If they don't, then you are wrong. then it was, you know, the anger wasn't quite right. I've had people be angry at me, and it's been very beneficial to me.

[15:09]

But those people who were angry at me, and when it was beneficial, you know, they weren't trying to get something out of it for themselves. They were serving me, they were helping me. So a lot of people helped me by being angry at me. because they're not getting anything out of it. Matter of fact, they're taking a little bit of a risk sometimes by doing that, because they might lose their relationship, they might rupture their relationship to express discomfort or irritation or disappointment or anger at what I'm doing. But when it's coming on unselfishly, I benefit. They're helping me. It's a beneficent act, even though there's some fierceness or some rage Or just, you know, irritation or being pissed off. There's a range of it. But you can love someone and have these feelings and not have these feelings knock you off the love beam.

[16:18]

And if these feelings do knock you off the love beam, then you've got to cool it. Now the hate's taken over, the love's totally out the room, you know, Got to get back in the love beam and see if the hate stays there, the anger stays there. Maybe I shouldn't say hate, but the rage, see if it stays there when you're also loving them. Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. Usually it doesn't. This rage thing is not that common accompaniment of love. But with some people in their teenage years, the people who love them feel a lot of rage. And they need the rage. They need it. And they need the rage from someone who loves them, not from people who hate them. So it's just like, okay, rage, we've got some rage here for you. And they look at the rage, you know, just rage, what's that? And it's coming from someone who's doing that because you are their life. And you can question, now is this rage connected to love?

[17:29]

And you can check it, you know. And then they can say, yeah, yeah, it is. The love's still here, you know. I'm your mother or whatever. The question is, are you on that beam? And are you intimate? And if you're not, these precepts are about get on that beam. Get on that beam. They're all about get on that beam. They're all about intimacy. They're all about getting that place and interact with the being. And then out of that right action comes. And again, you don't know it because it isn't one-sided. But you have a very clear sense this is good. That's all. I don't know if I'm right or wrong. That's what it seems like to me. Any outstanding comments? It seems to me like the people who do act out of love and compassion are the true revolutionaries.

[18:35]

They are the real subversives. They are the ones who are the most threatening. I don't know if it fits into a category of liberal or conservative, but a lot of our societies just have histories of liberal-conservative, liberal-conservative, just a back-and-forth action. And I don't know if... People truly acting on a level of compassion, those categories really hold. More to do with something that overturns the categories. Right. Viewed through political eyes, you could put them on one side or the other. But I think there's, anyway, I agree with you. And Buddha was, some people think Shakyamuni Buddha was revolutionary. Some people say that he was. For example, he let people of various castes practice together. He let people who weren't supposed to be intermingling, intermingle. Some of his students were untouchables. This is a revolutionary thing. He wasn't supposed to even relate to some of the people he was intimate with, spiritually. So that's a kind of revolutionary thing. But Shakyamuni Buddha was also intimate with kings.

[19:37]

So he didn't get his head cut off. So Buddha was pretty, you know, he was with the lowest and the highest in society. He loved them both, and he got along with both, so he didn't get his head cut off. Jesus was with the poor, but he didn't get along very well with the kings, so... So, I mean, I'm not saying Buddha is better than Jesus, but Buddha had a big range, you know. He got along with the top and the bottom of society, and so he lived a peaceful life. And the kings let him revolutionize the society. They let him make a new society inside the old society, which then continued to revolutionize society for 2,500 years. Should we point out that Buddha was a prince and Jesus was a peasant in an occupied state? Yeah, so considering Jesus' disadvantage, he did really well. And Buddha, you know, and Buddha did okay because although he had that advantage, he still was shaking, rattling the cage, you know.

[20:45]

He was still coming from... He was still... There are stories about... Jesus was a son of God. Anyway... There are cases of wealthy people who mingle with the poor... And then their former friends are very uncomfortable with that and punish them for it. There are cases like that. And again, spiritually speaking, it's not a problem for the person who gets punished. They know that they might have to pay that price. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're really kind of like, what do you call it, they got their hearts in the right place, but they're not very smart. So, you know, they think they're going to get by with it and they get punished and they say, oops, well, okay. I didn't know this was going to happen, but it did. So there are some naive saints and some smart, kind of sophisticated saints, but the point is, the point is, I think I made the point. The point is, are you coming from wisdom and compassion?

[21:48]

Do you see the way things are clearly? And are you trying to help all beings? Is that where it's coming from? And if it is, then these prohibitive things don't really count. They're just, you know, like equipment in your repertoire. Going with the society and going against society are equally useful in some cases. Can you listen? I just want to ask a question about anger. It seems to me that anger comes up when I'm attaching to an idea. For me, anger is when something's going the way I don't want it to go. If I get angry, I'm trying to think of... You're saying that anger can be non-selfish, right? Non-selfish anger. Yeah, I think so. For example, the times when people get angry at me is basically the anger is... I'm so fortunate, right?

[22:51]

The anger that I get is the person feels that their understanding of the precepts and what I'm doing, there's some difference. So what they're getting angry at is... they expect me to be in accord with the precepts. And they get angry at me if I'm not. Well, that's not necessarily selfish. It's not necessarily that they're not getting what they want. It's just that they hate to see me not living up to my potential as a bodhisattva. So they just really go, no, no, not that, you know. I don't want that for you. You don't want that for you. You're not doing what you want, you know. People know I want to be honest. So if I'm not being honest, some people really get upset with that. But that's not necessarily that they're not getting what they want. Of course, what Bodhisattva wants is they want people to be Buddhas. So when people aren't Buddhas, Bodhisattvas sometimes skillfully lose their patience.

[23:52]

Appropriately lose their patience. But again, it's not that they lose their patience. I'm just kidding, they don't. Erase that from the table. They don't lose their patience. They're perfectly happy with the person. They just manifest rage so that the person remembers what the person's commitment is. You can manifest rage without losing patience, I think. Where you really don't hate the person, but you just say, No! No! This is no good. This isn't what you want. This isn't what I want. No! No! It's possible, I think. And one of the characteristics of that, you know, kind of like a little test. A little test. Now, I'm just kidding. This isn't really a test. It's just sort of a test. It's not really a test. So forget I said this. But anyway, one of the tests is when you have this kind of rage, you go, and afterwards it's like, what time is it? Oh, time to stop. Good night. May my attention Someone suggested that it might be good to spend a little bit more time on what we were talking about last week, and that is right action.

[25:18]

Of course, it would be good to spend a little more time on that for the rest of our lives. As I mentioned last week, right action is defined in some scriptures negatively. First of all, as refraining from killing, refraining from stealing, and refraining from sexual misconduct. But just refraining from those three, which, for example, I think we're all doing right now, in a sense, is not the full meaning of the precept, because it also means, in addition to refraining from these harmful things, to act with the body in a beneficial way.

[26:49]

to interact with people in a beneficial way. To use your body, to use this human body as an expression of wisdom and compassion and ultimately the right action is to have the body express enlightenment. And so that seems pretty straightforward, right? Maybe not. But even if it is straightforward, to find the way for this body to express, for this human body to express wisdom and compassion is something that is very dynamic and ungraspable, I would say.

[28:17]

Realizable, I hope, but hard to specify. Hard for one person to specify. Hard for two people to specify. This right speech we talked about before, right action, embodies straightforwardly, it embodies three of our Bodhisattva precepts, which are actually that way of not killing, not stealing, and no sexual misconduct. And so, if a person wants to be a Zen student and receives these precepts and makes a commitment to practice them, that's... that's... That way of receiving the precepts and allowing to practice them is a ceremony and a form of practice that's available to all of us.

[29:26]

But then once we commit ourselves to these precepts, which right action is about, traditionally in Zen, the classical way that we realize the precept is by working with a teacher. So it isn't that we just receive the precepts and then we sort of just go to town on them according to our own understanding. Even though we want to practice them, we don't determine what not killing, not stealing, and no sexual misconduct is all by ourselves. Now, it isn't just with a teacher that you... whatever, grope for the meaning of these precepts. But that's, you know, again, the classical relationship is a relationship that is primarily about the precepts.

[30:28]

With someone who's, their main job with you is to work with you in a way to figure out what the precepts mean. And it isn't so much that that person knows what the precepts mean and they're going to tell you rather that you bring your understanding of the precepts to this person and you discuss it. It doesn't mean you do what that person says. It doesn't mean that that person does what you say. But it means that you bring actual your actual understanding of the precept and actually how it applies to particular actions to this relationship, and you work together to find what these precepts mean. The person you do this with does not necessarily have to be someone who is, what do you call it, senior to you in practice, or someone that you specifically consider to be your teacher.

[31:39]

You can have a friend and you can say, I'd like to share with you my study of these precepts and I'd like to bring my understanding to you and interact with you around it and talk to you about what I'm doing with my body in terms of these precepts. And that would be, I would say, another opportunity to understand this. And if that person, if their primary relationship with you was just to talk about the precepts, then this would be, you know, not an ordinary friend, but a fairly pure, in some sense, your main relationship would be around Dharma and these precepts. So the difference between that person and a teacher, I don't know exactly, you don't need to spend too much time talking about what's the big difference between that and so-called relationship with a teacher. But anyway, with that kind of person who you don't necessarily consider yourself a student, or with the person you do consider yourself a student, that's the situation in which to work out what these precepts mean.

[32:55]

Not the only situation, but you shouldn't skip that situation. So in Zen we say to determine, to understand these precepts is something that you arrive at in relationship with the teacher. You arrive at understanding these precepts interactively, not one-sidedly, not unilaterally. We don't set up standards on our own, in other words. Okay, that's what I say. That's my understanding of how in Zen we understand the precepts. So our precepts are pretty much the same as other schools of Buddhism, but we put the emphasis on it. I think they do too. I think other schools do too. But anyway, Zen, we emphasize that the precepts don't mean X. The meaning of the precepts has arrived through the relationship. And there's a word preceptor, right?

[33:58]

Just a regular English word, preceptor, isn't there? And doesn't that mean somebody you study the precepts with? It could be precepts of gardening, precepts of cooking, precepts of saline, medicine, whatever. Preceptors. So this is a preceptor about these kinds of precepts. So, to take one more step... is that I'm suggesting that in the Zen transmission of the precepts, the precepts are transmitted, the words are transmitted, the words are received, the words are committed to, and your conception of what those means you commit yourself to, but there's also, I think you have to consider that you commit yourself to a process where you're going to get help understanding what they mean. that it wouldn't be, actually, I don't think it would work to receive the precepts and assume that you're going to figure out unilaterally what the meaning of them is.

[34:59]

So actually, what these precepts are about is actually intimacy with other beings. So, to develop an intimate relationship is the way you determine what this means. And using the precepts is a good way to develop an intimate relationship. Actually, in our wedding ceremony here at Zen Center, people get together and they take the precepts together. And in some sense, the way I understood my wedding was those precepts would be the things that we would study together. They would be the things which we would commit ourselves to in our marriage. And then both parties get to say what they think that means for themselves and for the other. They may say, you know, that's wrong speech, or that's, you know, whatever. But something like that might be said.

[36:06]

Like a very common one might be, you're praising yourself at my expense. In other words, you're talking to me in a disrespectful way. The husband might say to the wife, or the wife might say to the husband. You're speaking to me in a demeaning way. You don't have to mention that. That goes against one of the precepts. Right? it would be appropriate to bring it up since you made a commitment together to practice them. So right action and intimacy with all beings, same thing. So I have a few more things to say, but I could stop now too. If you want to stop and have a discussion, you want me to say a little more. Want me to stop? Huh? What? Yes? Okay. Yes. I don't want you to stop because I have a question about right action.

[37:08]

I was a little bit unclear about the sexual misconduct aspect of this precept, because it seemed like when you were talking about it last time you said that I didn't hear you say much more than that, than it having to do with the morals of society around sexuality. But every time you said it, for this time it might have been different than now. Is that all that that's related to? No. That's the, what do you call it, that's the negative side, right? The negative side is sexual misconduct would be to go against the... the standards of society, that would very likely cause disruption and division in the community. So, for example, when a man and woman get married, that's a union, and then if you get sexually involved with one of them, that might cause division.

[38:21]

So, society does not want to disrupt the marriage bond. Generally speaking, most societies are in favor of that, because, you know, it's nice to have parents together and all that. So, to get sexually involved with somebody else's husband or wife, that's very likely to cause some division in the relationship. Therefore, anything that would harm their relationship or cause division in their relationship, would be going against the normal rules of society. So you should abstain from going against the normal rules of the society because the normal rules of society are what people are kind of at peace with, generally. People are not storming up down the street saying, you know, it's wrong for people to be loyal to their spouse. This is not a big, you know, issue of tremendous ferment in our society. People are not that upset about loyalty between husbands and wives, or even between, you know, in homosexual relationships, people are not really down on that too much.

[39:30]

They go against it, but... So anyway, that's an example. Or, like, if most societies say that when a person's under protection... like a young girl or a young boy, under the protection of parents or guardians from sexual relationships. And we usually protect, most societies are protected to a certain age, right? And the age might vary from person to person. So anybody that's under, that anybody that's under protection by their family, the usual societal rule is, leave them alone. If you go against that protection, there can be tremendous violence, not to mention the harm that might happen from getting involved with someone who's being protected. But what will happen as a result of violating that is that people might start getting even more violent. You might be killed, or you might kill someone in defending yourself from somebody trying to kill you for violating that protection. I mean, there's a movie out recently about a girl, a young girl who was under protection of her parents who was raped and her father killed the rapist and, you know, went to court and he was acquitted.

[40:45]

There was no debate about him killing them. He did kill them. They acquitted him because they think, you know, So a tremendous violence can happen from going against the rules of a particular society around sex. And so you should abstain from that. But that's not all about what this precept's about. Even if you're in a marriage relationship, right sexual conduct would only be possible when you're intimate with your partner. Even if you're married and you're not intimate with your partner, to have sex violates the real meaning of this precept. Right. Before you go on to the positive aspects, can we talk about the negative aspects a little bit more? Sure. Because I'm having difficulty talking about the social standards when it comes to sexuality, especially. Well, actually, when it comes to anything. I understand that violence comes out of breaking social standards. It can.

[41:49]

Yeah, it can. People are going to get upset. There's so many times when breaking their social standards in an attempt to change them or, you know, being a conscientious objector of some sort is so much more positive that to put all this emphasis on following social standards, it's really hard for me. You're saying conscientious objector to war. To monogamy or whatever. Conscientious objection. To heterosexuality as the only way of being or monogamy the only way of being or whatever, you know. Our society's in a transition and it's kind of foggy with the social standards are, but... just following social standards because you don't want to cause waves, that doesn't seem to be in the line with the process. Well, I'm not talking about trying to change society's rules by talking to people and writing books and having discussion groups and stuff like that. I'm talking about, this is talking about your actual sexual behavior. Right, well what's that talking about? So, for you to have sexual relationship with someone, okay,

[42:52]

are you doing that primarily to revolutionize society? Is that what you're doing? That could be one aspect. Is that the primary thing? Well, it could be, yeah. Okay, so if that's the primary thing, and does it matter whether the person you want to be involved with wants to participate in that at all? Does that matter? Oh, yeah. Well, that's a societal value there. What do you mean? Usually it's considered, in some societies it's considered that the partner should be consensual. Well, I think so, yeah. In other societies they don't always think that, but I think so. And you asked me. So, yes, I think so. Right. But let's... Let me say that when it comes to an actual sexual action that you would be involved in, okay, if your primary motivation in it was to be helpful, if that's really what you were about, and it wasn't that you were actually, and that you had no personal interest or no personal greed about it at all, and you were completely intimate with the person who you're involved with, and it went against some societal rule, okay, I don't think there would be much problem.

[44:11]

And if there was, you might be willing to take the chance of the disturbance that it might cause in society, but if people could see that your primary motivation, your primary motivation was for the welfare of the other person and for all other beings, and it was insignificant to you, whatever pleasure you might get out of the interaction, if they could see that, and the other person would testify to that, that they felt that that's really where you're at, I haven't heard of that being such a big problem, but it could be. It could be. For example, I think in, what is it, where the Olympics was, they have a law against certain kinds of sexual practices in Georgia. So it is possible that you would be involved in one of these sexual acts, and the reason you'd be involved in it, Okay?

[45:12]

Your primary motivation of doing the sexual act would be for the welfare of all the people of Georgia. I really don't think people care what your intention is. Well, I'm just saying, let's say that was your intention. Okay? That was your motivation. And somehow... somehow somebody in Georgia found out about this that you were going against one of the Georgia laws about sexuality but your motivation was really for the welfare of the people in Georgia and the person you're involved with appreciated that and was happy to cooperate with you in this act and let's say these people found out and they punished you for that from my point of view that would not be harmful that's what you did All right, so you're making an exception to the statement that you made before about following social standards in this case. Yeah, well, the social standards, yeah, but basically does it cause violence, really, you know?

[46:18]

There are some laws which you can go against without there being violence. In this case, there might not really be violence. They might punish you in some way, but you, because of your motivation, would probably work with it very well. You probably would know that it was a small price to pay for the kind of altruistic intention you have in that case. And although they have that rule and they announce it at the Olympics, you know, to warn people about this, They did. I heard it on the radio. They said, if you go to Atlanta, be careful. There just happens to be this law and you have to be careful. What's the law? Sodomy. No, oral sexuality between husband and wife is against the law. In Georgia. Now, I don't remember the, what do you call it, the radio show so clearly, but I can almost hear the announcer saying that there have been no cases where husband and wife have been, like, in charge, indicted for braving this in the last, you know, 50 years or whatever.

[47:36]

But there is this law on, there is this statute put into law because some religious codes say that the only kind of sex that's appropriate is, you know, a certain style. And then all variations are not, are not, you know, religiously improper. It's actually a religious rule that they got into, they actually got into law in Georgia. But, you know, they're not cracking down on people that much as far as, you know, I know. But they said, you know, don't flaunt it, you know, like... And you can imagine, some people, a lot of people, millions of people, I guess, went to, maybe a million, did a million people go to Atlanta? Maybe a million people went there from all over the country on vacation, right? So some of them are going there to have fun, right?

[48:40]

And so besides watching the games, they do other stuff, right? So, you know, don't do certain things in your cars where people would see you because, you know, they could bust you for this thing, which, you know, in other states you might not get busted for. But even in other states you're not supposed to do certain things in cars. But again, this is not like tourists. We're not talking about tourists now, right? We're talking about bodhisattvas who only have sex. Their vow is to only have sex when it is beneficial to others. Sex is something you do as a kindness, as an expression of wisdom and compassion. You don't do it like, well, I hope you like this, but basically it's for me. Why are you saying others though? Why is the distinction between self and other? It's not really a distinction. The whole situation is outright. The Bodhisattva vow is a vow in order to overcome the distinction.

[49:44]

The whole point of the Bodhisattva vow is to act like others are basically you, but a slightly better version of you. The bodhisattva path is an antidote to selfishness. That's why they're concentrating not on what's good for them. Because if you're concentrating on what's good for them, you say, well, correct sexual behavior would be what's good for me. And the fact that you don't particularly want it, it's not irrelevant, but the basic thing is whether I get what I want. This is the normal human approach, which is which is confronted with laws which say, don't put yourself ahead of other people unless that really works for them. But in actual fact, I am saying that this precept is pointing to a way of relating to people sexually which is

[50:49]

an expression of your love of them, not of trying to get something for yourself. That's the main point. Negatively, if you want to know about negatively, there's these sides, but when you come at the precept from its ultimate point of view, there's no negativity. The negative side of the precepts are for people who don't yet know what it's like to be intimate with someone. So if you're not intimate with someone, then you should follow these rules. If you're intimate with someone, the rules don't apply anymore, because you will never, for example, steal from somebody you're intimate with. You will never kill them, and you will never have inappropriate sexual relationships with them if you're intimate with But if you want to talk about the negative side, the negative side is for people who still think in terms of self and other. Bodhisattva's eventually, by being devoted to others, overcome the idea that they're separate and act from that oneness.

[51:52]

And when they act from that oneness, their sexual conduct does revolutionize society and teaches people a way to get to the core of what all these rules are for, namely to not harm people and to benefit people. So I'm not, I'm just saying that the Buddha did present. So one time Manjushri asked Buddha, how come you teach, you know, all these precepts negatively? And he said, I do that. Oh no, he said, Manjushri said, how come you teach all these precepts negatively? Because isn't it the fact that everything in the universe is these precepts? Isn't what's really happening not killing, not stealing, not lying? Isn't that really what's going on? And the Buddha said, yes, the entire universe is the Bodhisattva precepts. That's really what's happening. But when people don't realize that and understand that, then I teach them as prohibitions. And so, don't go against these prohibitions, but that's not enough. You have to eventually understand where the precept of right conduct comes from.

[52:55]

It comes from intimacy with being. And intimacy is, when you're intimate, you no longer can distinguish yourself from others. I mean, you still have the ability to perceive another person's face, but you act as though they were you. You care as much about others as you do yourself. I guess my main sticking point is just that you were talking about social standards in regard to the sex precept, but you didn't mention the social standards with regard to other precepts, and so I was wondering why... Oh, no, I... I... So important. I mean, you didn't hear me, but it's the same in all those cases. It's not your idea of what's stealing, it's the normal societal idea, but it's also... And part of the normal societal idea of stealing is... that the person who is, by societal standards, considered to be the property owner, they have to give you permission before you can have the property. That's most societies, western societies, and I guess most societies like that.

[53:56]

Whatever the society uses to determine who's the property owner, then the property owner gets to decide what's done with the property. And if you take that property without the person saying okay, then... That's called feeling. So if you don't understand what it means to be intimate with somebody, then don't go against that societal understanding because that'll cause... Before anything happens, already you're going against some kind of intimacy. And then after you go against it, then there might be more trouble. But, you know, there's a famous story in, what's it called, Les Miserables, of this guy who steals from a priest. And then the police catch him and bring him back and say, we caught this guy with your golden plates or your golden... I forgot what he stole first, the plates or the candles. But he stole these silver plates, let's say. The police brought him back with the silver plates and said, we caught this guy with your plates. And the priest said, I gave them to him.

[54:58]

And the police left and the thief said... What did you tell him I gave him to him for? I stole him. He said, no, you didn't steal him, I gave him to you. And now here you can have these candles, these silver candlesticks too. So a bodhisattva can not only end stealing for herself, but she can also end stealing for others with their own property by giving it to them so they can't steal it. That's the precepts of not stealing. It's not just you not stealing, but it's saving everybody from stealing by intimacy. Yeah. Well, in my look at society, I feel like I live in a pretty violent society. So when you start talking about normal societal norms, it seems as though a good amount of violence comes with that. And when you start talking about laws, laws of the state, not natural law or Buddhist precepts, but laws of the state, they're ultimately enforced by violence in the form of law enforcement, which can incarcerate you or in this country actually take your life.

[56:03]

And when I start thinking about property in this country, I'm thinking, for instance, even where we are right now, in my life, this stolen property, this was somebody's grandpathy committing, you know, sweeping up operations of genocide to make this land available to a different race. And so I have a hard time trying to sort out who owns what. And I have a hard time trying to sort out when I'm supposed to follow a law that might say, for instance, that a paper entity dedicated only to profit is the owner and sole manager and sole decider of what to do with, say, for instance, millions of acres of land that are being, in my mind, raped and destroyed. The idea of property doesn't hold a lot of meaning to me there. The idea of, like, stealing or you know and the idea of societal norms all seem to go out the window in the face of the violence that's being committed at that time and so I might to me like Martin Luther King in a sense caused a lot of violence but he was faced with such a violent situation that he caused violence in one place to end a greater amount of violence and

[57:23]

Well, one thing I heard you say, which I'd like to focus on, is that you have trouble figuring out this business about property. And so in terms of prohibition, what this precept is saying is try to figure out about property. Don't not try to figure out about property. Try to figure it out. So you're having trouble figuring out this property situation, okay? So what it's saying is, if you're not yet intimate with people, if you don't feel intimate with some situation, then try to figure out what the property ownership situation is. Well, I guess I said that, but I guess I kind of do have a feeling now that's sort of come up for me the last couple of years, which is that people don't own land. Right. So if that's what you feel, that's your sense, okay, then what this precept would say is that you need to talk to those people who think they do own it about how you think they don't.

[58:28]

Just did. Huh? You just did. Yeah. You just did. And so did that lead you to take anything yet? Well, in the past, I have, in a sense, taken in the sense that I've gone on to land that was... I was not legally allowed to be on. But I'm, again, talking about taking something, all right? Not trespassing. Okay. But if you want to say trespassing is like you're taking the space of something, I guess you could say that. But basically, I'm saying that if you feel that somebody else's understanding is that they own something, and you don't agree with that they own it, and then you take it before you tell them that you don't. I think that telling somebody that you don't think they own something is different than you taking it. Okay, so we might go to various places in the world and say, you know, I don't think you people really own this, therefore I'm going to take it. But if we go and say, I don't think we're going to own it, and I want it as part of my integrity, just to make the point clearly, I'm not going to take this stuff for myself.

[59:32]

Matter of fact, what I'd like to see you do is give it to somebody else. And somebody else that I have no interest in. That's what I'd like to see you do. But I'm not going to take... I'm not saying that you don't own this as a way for me to get it. I'm saying... I'm telling you that I don't think you own this as a way to be intimate with you. To tell you that I'd like you to look at where you got this from. It seems like most of the stuff in the world is owned by not people, but it's owned by governments and corporations. and there's nobody that you can address one-on-one to say, you're the one that owns these 100,000 acres, or you're the one that owns this oil rig, or you're the one that owns this tank. Okay, well, let's say that in some situation you feel it's really important, and you don't feel you can talk to any person about owning it. Some big non-person thinks they own this. But actually, I think there's a bunch of people in the organization who think that the organization owns it. Right? Members of the organization, employees or lawyers or whatever, for the organization, think that the organization owns the thing, right?

[60:37]

So, if you feel like it's hopeless, And that you feel like if you talk to the lawyers, they think that their client, the organization, or the president of the organization and the lawyers, both these groups think that this organization really does own this. And you feel like if you talk to them, it's completely hopeless and a waste of time. And you feel like, okay, I think the only way I can get across to them my point is for me to steal. And if you're really stealing not at all for yourself, maybe that would be helpful. But still, you know, it's pretty risky because it looks, you know, unless you're stealing something which everyone can see you have absolutely no use for, and everyone can see obviously he's stealing it just to make the point. He does not want whatever it is. An oil rig. Huh? An oil rig. An oil rig, you know. Or maybe he does not want, you know, 4,000 pounds of dirt from, you know, from that place.

[61:44]

You know, you could still go steal a rock, you know, and maybe that would be enough to make the point that obviously people can see you're not doing it for yourself, you're just trying to get in trouble so that they'll pay attention to you and draw attention to the situation so that if enough people are focusing... on the situation, maybe the people who are there who do not understand the disagreement about ownership would start contemplating the true provenance of their material. I don't feel any problem with that. But that's just an elaboration of talking to them about the property ownership. This precept is not about that. This precept is about me taking something for me before someone is giving it to me. It's not talking about unselfishly discussing with people who have things who you think they've stolen. But I brought it up more in the context that this kind of, let's say, creates violence. What kind of theft?

[62:46]

I haven't heard you yet say that you think you should take something from someone for yourself that they don't want to give you. That's what this precept is about. But the government calls it theft, and it can create violence. I mean, like, for instance, if people... Well, again, compared to the other example, it doesn't really necessarily create that much violence. You know, they're not, even if they hurt you and this is your motivation, it's not that violent. Your intention can make it not that violent. It seems to me that in the times where government employees, where cops were hurting me, that as centered as I could be, it still was on their part an act of violence, which I felt was really bad for them. You can't always, you know, protect other people from their violence, but you can make it a less violent situation by your response.

[63:49]

And if your motivation is really for the welfare of everybody, including the police, including for the owners, the situation does not get as violent. It is possible, you know, to make it minimally violent, but you can't stop everybody's violence right now. Right, no, I realize, I'm just saying that these acts sometimes create violence, and that... to me should be a reason for stopping because the violence is going to go out, what don't act is just more hidden in our society. Again, you know, it's not exactly these violence create the violence, that these acts all by themselves create the violence, right? Violence can occur around these things, but again, if your motivation is peaceful, the violence is not so bad. it's, you know, some of these people are doing violence all day, that's their job, you know, and it's not really, you're not really, you're not necessarily, what do you call it, you're not accelerating their bad karma by your peaceful actions. But anyway, this, if we're talking about stealing, the point of stealing is that

[64:52]

The prohibition in this is that you don't take something for yourself. To take something for the welfare of others is not what this precept is talking about. This precept is about getting something which primarily you're getting for yourself, but which people do not agree that you should have. This precept eventually would say you shouldn't take anything even if people agree you should have it. You shouldn't take it. you should ask for it and they'll give it to you. So again, don't take what's not given. But Buddhist monks, that's the next one, Buddhist monks ask for support. And there's some little tricks there, but we can get that later. Because even asking for things, you can play some games. But basically, the idea is you ask for your support. You don't take

[65:54]

And then you have to look at whether you really asked honestly and openly and all that. But it is possible that you might take something for the welfare of those you're taking from. It's possible. And then you have to look and see, is that really my motivation? And if it is, and they get upset about it, then I guess you might be willing to pay that price. But I think you're knowing that what you're doing is you're pushing on something that they might react violently to because you feel like they need to, for their own welfare, they need to be confronted with the fact that they don't own this thing which they're acting like. So you're trying to make that point, and if they get upset about it, that's not your primary intention, but you're willing to pay that price. So Gandhi didn't resist the British in order to make the British shoot people. He resisted them because he wanted them... He basically wanted them to... He wanted to say, you don't own this country. But the fact that they did get violent is not good for them, and he didn't like that, I don't think.

[67:01]

He didn't want them to hurt Indian people. He didn't want them to get in trouble for hurting Indian people. But he had to sort of hold his truth up there and say, I don't think you own this country. And then they hurt him for saying that. But it was, I think, you know... Not as violent as if the Indian people had risen up and fought the English. There would have been much, much more violence. They probably still would have won, maybe. But maybe they wouldn't have. Maybe the British would have got the Americans to help. I don't know. But they did get their land back by saying over and over, we don't think you own this. And they got hurt for just saying that. But... That was as non-violent as they could do it in that case because they were upsetting people who were really attached to their... to some stuff they thought that belonged to them. They really got, you know, confused about that. John, did you? Oh, I just wanted to pursue this in another way because I was thinking about the whole issue of land with... Yeah.

[68:06]

...athletes... Because rarely, if ever, agreed to by the people who lose property, even though one could sincerely think that it was to those people's ultimate benefit to lose land. Right, you could think that. Right, you could think that. Matter of fact, you could be a king and think that. You could be a king or you could be a poor peasant. Yeah, but the person who loses his property... in many cases did not think it was a good idea and landform things. In the, possibly, vast majority. Pardon? The vast majority of cases. Yeah, probably the vast majority of cases, I would agree. And sometimes that's happening, though, without violence. Without physical violence, yes. Sometimes a person who's senior to these people tells them to give the stuff back. And they don't fight because somebody who has more power than them tells them to turn it over.

[69:10]

And they don't like this person for that. But sometimes this person doesn't care or, you know, is going to die soon anyway or whatever. But there have been cases where they have, against their will, given things away that they felt that they used to own and shared when they didn't want to do it. Huh? Is it a threat of violence that usually made that happen? I guess the... Threat of violence or perhaps a threat of some other kinds of things not coming to them. I guess the thing that I'm thinking about, that I'm concerned about, is a situation where a person, a landless person, for example, joins a movement from another form. Yes. And... No, they might not. I mean, in fact, their motivations are very likely mixed. Their motivations are very likely what? Mixed. Yes. So that partially they feel a lot of resentment at feelings of injustice or their own difficulties in life, and also feel very possibly some hatred for people who they consider to be their oppressors.

[70:24]

Yes. And... even though it's against the conventions of the society, are... Which part is against the conventions? The part that they're asking, demanding, demonstrating, moving in some way for redistribution. Yes. To dismantle the current notions of ownership and replacing with some other notions. Yes. And... It sounds to me that in the first formulation of the negative side of the precepts, it sounds like that's regarded as counter to the precepts. It could be, yeah.

[71:22]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_84.58