Nirvana is right here, right now. So stop now! – Ven Aluthgamgoda Gnanaweera Thero | Nihanda Arana

Nirvana is right here, right now. So stop now! – Ven Aluthgamgoda Gnanaweera Thero | Nihanda Arana

We've been discussing the Maha Sunyata Sutta.

This sutta takes place when the Buddha arrives and the monastic community, after the Vassa period and having finished making Kathina robes, is gathered in large numbers. At that time, while many monks are gathered and talking, the Buddha tells Ananda, "Ananda, it is not fitting (sobhathi) for this monastic community to gather in such large numbers in one place and behave like this. It is not beautiful to just talk and waste time. There is no pleasantness whatsoever in seeing that. And then, once one has entered this monastic life, there is no way to experience the happiness of renunciation (nekamma sukha), the happiness gained from letting go. Similarly, there is no way to experience the happiness of solitude (paviveka sukha), the happiness gained through the solitude of leisure. Furthermore, there is no way to attain the happiness of tranquility (upasamaya sukha), the happiness gained from the gradual calming of defilements day by day. And finally, there is no way to easily attain the happiness of enlightenment (sambodha sukha), the peace obtained through understanding. Therefore, I do not appreciate this tendency to gather in large groups (sanghanikārāmaya)."

The Buddha also mentions this in the Aniruddha Sutta, where it says, "This Dhamma, this teaching, is not for those who are fond of crowds." It is for someone who is attached to inner solitude, to leisure, to rest, not for someone who desires to associate with groups. It's not for someone who is attached to groups, who wants to live with groups.

So, I think the Buddha is saying here that this "sanghanikārāmaya" is about how our minds are oriented. We talk about the city, the material, and sense pleasures. To a mind attached to sense pleasures, there is a great fear of losing it, a sense of insecurity. Such a person is very afraid to be alone; an inner fear arises when alone. They constantly seek someone for their protection, driven by that fear. They also want to somehow come to the forefront. If there isn't someone else, they can't do it. "I want to show that I'm alive, that I'm someone." We desire to stand out through our clothes, our words, our abilities, or some other means.

This desire to stand out is why we seek "sanghanikārāmaya." However, to desire "sanghanikārāmaya" itself is suffering. Think about it, to live with others, to have to maintain others, is a tough ordeal. Having a second person is a complete misfortune (mal karumayak). That person has no freedom of mind. They always have to think about the other person. That person has no freedom, no peace. They wonder what happened to the other person. That's why they say the freedom of monastic life, the happiness of renunciation, is this: there's nothing else. We've given up everything; we don't have anyone to maintain.

In other words, it is the ignorance (avidyā) concerning suffering that makes people endure such profound suffering due to that lack of knowledge. This is the ignorance regarding suffering. The world never teaches that having a second person or being in a crowd is suffering. It always portrays it as happiness. So, people are completely craving for suffering. This craving for suffering arises from delusion (paṭṭhamōda). The idea that having a second person, living with a second person, is a misfortune, a curse, is not taught to us. It hasn't entered our minds anywhere that having a second person is a curse, a misfortune. There is suffering; there is experiencing suffering. And this is the ultimate suffering: when you have to leave everything at the last moment, you lose everything. At the moment you have to leave, your chest burns. Imagine, suddenly, when the person you love leaves you, people burn with fire, crying endlessly. At that time, they don't understand that living with a second person is a misfortune, sorrow, suffering, a burning fire. They only see it as happiness. They believe there's a life there.

So, just think, even after coming to a place like this, do we still seek a second person? When we realize this, we feel sorry. We feel it's a misfortune. Accursed lives, karmic lives. That means we say it's karmic. Even after coming to a place like this, when we talk about liberation like this, and yet a person seeks that, it's okay because it's human nature. But when they seek it in that way, when there is no shame, no fear whatsoever, if there is no shame whatsoever arising within oneself, then the mind of that person who feels shame has been drawn towards solitude, towards leisure, towards renunciation, and not towards old habits, to which they give no internal value whatsoever.

So, I understand that the Buddha is telling us, "Monks, you have come to this monastic life. But seeing this, there is no beauty. This continued seeking to maintain things, this continued preference for 'sanghanikārāmaya,' this continued desire to be with a second person, this continued desire to exist, means that you are still afraid of cessation. You are still afraid of cessation; you don't have the strength for cessation." This means there is no inner strength for cessation. It's still completely that servile mentality (vahal mānasikathvaya), that servile nature. That's why it's said that this Dhamma will never be understood by such a mind. That's how I see it. I don't know, I used to think it was just like that. That is, at that time, if someone came, they would try to ordain them by saying, "Be ordained, be ordained, be ordained!" They would somehow try to pull them into monastic life. Now, I very rarely say the word "be ordained." I realize more and more each day that those who come to this path must have accumulated merits over previous existences. They must have accumulated merit (uppechaka puññatāvaya), otherwise, no matter how much you tell them or ordain them, they will only have the robes. It's like putting an unnecessary person into this.

I used to think that it was possible to just ordain someone, and after a little while, everything would be fine. But after a year or two, they go back to their old ways, to the same old track. That's when I realize it's not a suitable situation. It's not something that can be brought about by force or with suffering. You start to feel that it's not possible. Those who have experienced that fragrance must be born into this existence. What is this being said? This story is not about something like this. This story is entirely about solitude. Valuing solitude, or questioning it. Why do we start asking about death? Why do we start asking what the meaning of this is? When they do that, it's clear that they were ordained without that fragrance.

An initiate, meaning someone whose previous lives, or rather, whose perfections (pāramitā) in this life or previous lives are not good. Pāramitā refers to meeting Buddhas. So, as I understand it, they can be good people. There are plenty of good people in the world. But the fragrance of this story, this path to liberation, is not about being a good person. That is, when one cultivates the path to liberation, the experience is something different. We clearly see that light. There are good people outside. Sometimes, there are even better people outside than those who cultivate this path to liberation.

They are good. But they are afraid. They are afraid to be courageous. Afraid to break that attachment. They are good, but afraid. However, there is a very unique quality in this. As I understand it, the story of the Dhamma, the story of monastic life, is somewhat different. But there is a joy in it, a happiness. But for someone who has felt that fragrance, this solitude, day by day, there is nothing else in this. If a person, having gone into that profound solitude, is still smiling, it's like this: someone who is with a second person can smile. That's not what I mean. If he is joyful in that solitude, then it is understood that he is someone who has accumulated perfections. That is, he has met previous Buddhas. He has been touched by this fragrance. Therefore, he experiences immense joy in solitude. He doesn't ask, "What happened to me?"

There is a sense of that, that what has been received in a wonderful way, this increasing solitude, becomes a celebration, a great joy. That's why, perhaps, Jesus said, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God." He is saying that if you put your hand to the plow and ask if you can come after saying goodbye, then don't come. Because he is not suitable for the kingdom of God. Because there is a problem within him. That is, he might be a good person who can go out and do good deeds and lead a virtuous life. But the nature of this path is too much of a burden for that person. That's why I said I feel more and more that only someone with accumulated merits from previous lives should come to this. There must be upekkha puññatāvaya for this.

I'm not talking about things like meditation. Anyone can do that if they are taught about mindfulness. But there is a part of this, a segment. The part about letting go of "sanghanikārāmaya," the part about forgetting attachment, that's what I understand. Even if one is ordained, a certain part comes, but they don't reach a certain point. They stop at that point. They remain in that "ghana sanghanikārāmaya" part. That's why, perhaps, the Buddha is saying here, "This is not it. This monastic life has no beauty in this." That is, seeing it like this, there is no beauty there. They are not experiencing the joy of solitude, the happiness of renunciation, or the happiness of understanding. They are experiencing something else. Therefore, it is not the happiness of monastic life. So, in this way, in this sutta, the Buddha explains that even if kings and wealthy people come looking for the Tathagata, the Tathagata is never without emptiness (śūnyatā). The sutta says that the Buddha emphasizes dwelling in a state of emptiness. Therefore, it is about dwelling in the attainment of emptiness (śūnyatā samāpatti) by not reflecting on any signs.

"Noble Ananda, monks, nuns, male and female lay followers, kings, royal ministers, and followers of other religions come to the Tathagata who dwells in this attainment of emptiness. But Noble Ananda, even among that crowd, the Tathagata dwells with a mind inclined towards solitude, focused on solitude, immersed in solitude, endowed with inner solitude, attached to renunciation, free from all defilements that give rise to attachments, and inclined towards Nibbana." So, the Tathagata speaks only of such liberating (nairyāṇika) talks connected to Nibbana.

"Ananda, therefore, if a monk desires to dwell in the attainment of inner emptiness, that monk, Noble Ananda, should establish his mind within himself, settle it, unify it, and concentrate it." Okay, so I'm just reminding you of these things that we have discussed. I think we have elaborated on this sutta quite a bit.

Then the Buddha says, even if ministers or anyone else comes, the Buddha is inclined towards his solitude. He is inclined towards leisure. That doesn't break. One day, when I was reading the life story of Gnanaloka Thero, Nehru somehow wanted to practice meditation. The reason is that Nehru was a very spiritual leader in India, even more so than Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was famous for his spirituality, but it was Nehru who recognized the Samadhi Buddha statue in Sri Lanka. When he saw it, he said it brought an amazing sense of calm, and from that day onwards, the Samadhi statue in Anuradhapura gained such importance; otherwise, Sri Lanka wouldn't have accepted it as a Samadhi statue. Nehru came and said that. So, Nehru, and then Mahatma Gandhi, these people in India, even though they governed, they had a spiritual side. They had a spiritual side. That is, they carried out their governance by giving importance to their spirituality. That same quality is found in the current Prime Minister, Modi. Modi also has it. He has said that after he came to power, he would govern by giving equal importance to Hinduism and Buddhism. That's why they say that after he became king, he secretly came to Sri Lanka and worshipped at Sita Eliya.

This means that the older leaders had a certain great spiritual nature. Those who governed had a spiritual side. Modi also has it to some extent. He too starts his day with yoga and meditation; he finishes that and then goes to other work. He starts his other work after doing his morning meditation and yoga.

So, in the same way, in Sri Lanka, during that time, along with Nehru and others of that era, there was also a desire to do this. Then, when they inquired, they were told that Gnanaloka Thero was there. They said that if one wanted to learn meditation well, Gnanaloka Thero was the one in those times. Then Nehru tried to come and meet Gnanaloka Thero. He said he wanted to learn how to practice Anapanasati meditation properly. Then the Venerable Thero said that there was no need to come, he would write it down for him, he would write a book from the beginning and explain how to do it. So, somehow, time passed, and Nehru also became a Buddha, and the Venerable Thero also became a Buddha. Why didn't he give it quickly? I want to tell that story. Look, even the old monks had this. They knew that if the president came, if the state got too close in an unnecessary way, they wouldn't be able to talk about this solitude. Their agenda would change.

However, they couldn't refuse either. When someone says they want to learn meditation, you can't refuse. See, those venerable monks said, "I will write a book and send it." Then, it is said that Dhammaruwan asked, "What happens if he comes?" "No, I said I would write a book and send it to somehow cut off his coming, otherwise it won't end." It's not about degrading them. But it's about not unnecessarily inviting what we call the journey of solitude. Why is it unnecessary? But they need to be given the Dhamma. So, in that way, the Buddha is teaching here, but the Buddha did not go to that level. The Buddha says they come looking for him, but he never deviates from his emptiness. His inner attachment to solitude does not diminish. His attachment to leisure does not diminish. He remains in emptiness. He remains in emptiness. No matter who comes, he does not give them advice about those things, about the state, but about leisure and becoming solitary.

Therefore, it is said that if any monk also desires this emptiness, desires solitude, desires leisure, then that monk should create their own inner emptiness in this way. They should create inner emptiness and dwell in it.

Beyond that, we have been discussing the sutta. Then the Buddha describes how to create this inner emptiness, how to create emptiness within. That is, if a monk desires this emptiness and leisure, they should create this inner emptiness even when surrounded by people. Then, in this sutta, we discussed that the Buddha actually starts from a different angle.

The beginning of this sutta, as it progresses, I understand that the Buddha has emphasized samatha (calmness). That is, there is an inner tranquility. In a relative sense, he has not spoken of absolute emptiness at this point. Look, the beginning here is simple. The Buddha does not describe a level like udayavyaya gnana (knowledge of arising and passing away).

Look, it starts simply here. Beyond that, if someone needs to create inner emptiness, the Buddha has asked them to cultivate the first, second, third, and fourth jhanas (meditative absorptions). Look, when you read that sutta, you will understand. The Buddha, since we have described these, I won't go into too much detail. How does a monk establish, settle, unify, and concentrate his mind within himself? Here, a monk, detached from sensual pleasures, detached from unwholesome states, dwells in the first jhana, which is accompanied by initial application, sustained application, rapture, and happiness. You see, then we see that the Buddha here has talked about calming the mind through samatha. Therefore, we cannot reject this samatha.

We cannot reject the establishment of the mind. In this sutta, the Buddha clearly describes the four jhanas. So, when we discussed the four jhanas in the past few days of this sutta, the point we recalled was that the four jhanas accomplish what? They suppress the five hindrances (nīvaraṇa dhamma) and bring forth the five jhanic factors (jhananga). They suppress lust, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt within us, and bring forth initial application, sustained application, rapture, happiness, and one-pointedness. When these five factors arise, we begin to experience a dispassionate tranquility (nirāmisa sanasilla). We need to feel that. We need to feel those five. That is, without that, the inner emptiness will not be tasted. There is no spiritual journey in this way. We are on a journey inclined towards leisure and solitude. So, when the hindrances diminish, if one cannot be happy with that, then they will abandon that meditation. We recalled there that lust (kāmacchanda) means the tendency to seek various objects within. That is, lust is a characteristic of our mind to repeat, repeat, repeat, to seek objects repeatedly. That is, to seek various objects. This means, as we say, what we ate in the morning, we don't want to eat for lunch; it changes. When we repeatedly experience any object, there is a characteristic that it becomes tiresome. That initial quality is not there.

The initial beauty is not there. Look carefully, just now, while on the way, we listened to some sermon. Now, listening to it this time, it makes no sense. The first time I watched this, I became emotional. When I heard the story, I felt emotional. Now, the second time, on the way to Colombo, when I tried to make someone listen, there was a sense of boredom within. Then I understood why this is happening. That is the nature of sensual pleasure. Even if you enjoy it, when you go to the second, third, and fourth time, it changes. We understand that. Whether it's listening to a song, eating, or whatever, that initial feeling is gone. We think, "Oh, that feeling will come again when I'm with them." No matter what you do, you can't get that feeling back with that person, or that food, or that music, or that novel, or that movie. Look, we just watched PK the other day. Let's try watching it again tomorrow. If someone watches it for two or three days, they will say, "Don't put this on again." Because we hadn't seen it for a while, there was a feeling. But when you keep watching it again and again, it's like a cooked chicken that you see every day, it becomes white. A kind of whiteness comes. The pleasure within us disappears. So, because of that, the consciousness is forced to constantly seek new, new, new, new objects. So, this is it. That's why I said, what is it? Craving for suffering. Why? Because as soon as you choose that, it becomes tiresome after a few days. You think, "What kind of karma am I suffering?" Then that same mind goes again and creates some other story. So, that is the nature of sensual pleasure. If there is no sensual pleasure, then the problem is that there is no joy as long as there is sensual pleasure. As soon as sensual pleasure disappears, the eyes close, and a deep sleep begins to come. So, we talked about things like this. I'm just briefly reminding you that there is a nature in the mind that constantly seeks variety. Because when there is only one thing, it becomes monotonous. As soon as it becomes monotonous, it becomes tiresome. It starts to get boring. It starts to become enough. It starts to become enough. It starts to become tiresome. That's what they say, "Don't try to create any method to be happy on this spiritual path." If you create a method, it becomes a sensual pleasure. As soon as it becomes a sensual pleasure, it becomes tiresome. That's why we don't seek happiness through any method on the spiritual journey. We don't use any method for happiness. Because we know, if I say, "Oh, this place is amazing," or "This teacher is amazing," or "This meditation object is amazing," or "This food is mind-blowing," then surely, after a few days, that teacher will fall to the level of other teachers. And then those words, "Oh, it's the same old thing every day." It falls to that same level. Because we went to experience it.

When the mind seeks to experience (vin̪dinn̪a) something, it will inevitably become tired of it. No matter what it is, if you try to experience it, my child, you will surely grow weary of it after a while. The mind that seeks to experience things is called the mind of the sense-sphere (kāmāvacara hita). It always tries to take on some burden and experience it.

The problem is, we haven't understood this. We've always done the same thing: changed objects but always gone after experience. And everything we've tried to experience ends in suffering. Once you realize that, you'll feel, "Oh, so I've always been craving suffering!" Because of this ignorance, as I said at the beginning of the sermon, the main point was that there is a pure craving for suffering. This is because of ignorance. It's not understood when it comes. If it were understood, we wouldn't pursue it, would we? It's not understood. Because of a lack of understanding, we keep thinking that if it's not here, it must be there. That object, at least, will bring satisfaction.

So, now, after listening to this sermon, after hearing the discourse, we know that no matter what we cling to, in the end, after all the jumping around, we'll say, "Oh, there's nothing in this either." This is how it is. I've always changed teachers, changed places, changed boyfriends. That's what I've done. I've always changed people. So, this is what happens in a discourse: it points this out.

A discourse tells you to bring a little light to this, to cultivate mindfulness and clear comprehension (sati sampajaññaya). You will understand that whatever you choose, you yourself will eventually grow tired of it.

Then, you'll feel lazy. Look carefully, after a boy and a girl become friends, they don't realize how time flies when they flirt until dawn. But little by little, in the end, they might say, "Oh, I'm a bit busy now," or "Today, my body is tired from working." This is how, little by little, the phone is turned on and then you fall asleep. You're asleep with the phone on. Little by little, that's what happens to us; that's the nature of sensual pleasure.

So, when you understand this, you realize that sensual pleasure is just like that for everything. Pride is just like that. Meditation is just like that. I don't think there's anything special about it. Is it monastic life? Is it meditation? Is it love? Is it food? I don't think there's anything strangely special about it. There's a common characteristic to all of them. There's a common nature to it. But we know this. Because of this, I know that no matter how much I jump up and down and praise it, it will inevitably become tiresome. That's why the Buddha said not to praise things excessively. He knows that the very act of praising is what makes it worthless the next day. The very nature of praise is what makes it tiresome another day.

That's why they say, "The very world that seats you on the altar will be the one to say you are worthless the next day." The one who praised you is the one who will speak ill of you. That's why the life story of Gnanaloka Thero is like that. Gnanaloka Thero said, "It's unbelievable how people praise other individuals so much when there is such a Buddha-nature?" When there are such qualities of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, why do we praise an individual? There cannot be qualities as long as there is an individual. If there are qualities, an individual cannot exist. What a lie it is to attribute a quality to an individual! When you attribute a quality to an individual, it means that individual is present, and where there is an individual, there are no qualities whatsoever. In individuality, there is selfishness. In a place where there is such good individuality, all those so-called qualities are not qualities at all. They are subtle qualities, illusory qualities, cunning qualities, qualities that try to gain attention, qualities that seek attention. If there truly is a quality, then it's not an individual. Then you can talk about that quality itself. You can't attribute it to an individual. Then you should pay homage to that quality itself. The quality of the Buddha, the quality of the Sangha. Then there is no one person. There is no "Sangha" in the sense of a person. "Buddha" is not a person. That's why he said in that discourse that the Tathagata does not experience giving. You only encounter the Tathagata as a person because you still perceive him through form. Then you understand that the Tathagata experiences giving. Because you still perceive yourself as a person through form, you understand that you endured it patiently.

In a state where the nature of Uppalavanna is empty, where is the endurance? What is there to endure? Not knowing that is the endurance itself. If it is without individuality, then the endurance and patience occur only for someone who perceives "I" in a form, for someone who has endured it. It is endured with equanimity, happiness, or rejection from a place where "I" is taken as the body. So, how can someone who has overcome that ignorance be said to have endured it? His non-endurance is his patience. The Tathagata does not experience giving. We see all of this from our very limited perspective, from where we are. We, as individuals, think that qualities arise through an individual. Individuality itself is the problem. Within individuality there is comparison and competition. There is no Dhamma within individuality. If Dhamma arises, it cannot be attributed to an individual.

You can't go there for individual praise. Then you have to praise the Dhamma (Dharma), the principles of Dhamma (dhamma nyāya), the qualities of the Sangha (sangha guṇaya). When praising the qualities of the Dhamma, it is not praising the Sangha as individuals. That's why Gnanaloka Thero asked, "It's unbelievable, how can people praise individuals like this?" How can it be done? When there is such an immeasurable quality, then it is seen. As soon as a boundless collection of qualities is attributed to an individual, how much ugliness is done to the quality? How much is the quality made ugly? We erase the beauty that is in that quality. We don't understand that. As soon as we exalt a quality or praise an individual, we blend our defilements and qualities, and because of our individual ignorance, we still encounter it in this individual form.

So, we have this: it's not that a child doesn't have sensual desire; it's not like that. It's because the child doesn't yet encounter individuality there. A woman, a man. So, it's not that a child as an individual doesn't have sensual desire. It's not an individual quality. A child doesn't have sensual desire because there is no individuality in which sensual desire can arise. It's not a quality of Uppalavanna. It's the absence of endurance.

So, we are always used to seeing this from the perspective of our own defilements. Holding on to that, we judge everyone, analyze everyone, praise everyone, and degrade everyone. All of it. So, now, as we understand this, let me return to our main topic. The point that comes up in the Sunitha Sutta is that when we start meditating, the Buddha says that we have this sensual mind (kāmāvacara hita). That sensual mind needs many objects in this way. Therefore, it always seeks objects to overcome boredom, to overcome laziness, to overcome monotony. For a sense organ, the ultimate thing is the phone. Once you pick up the phone, everything is over. You can change songs. You can change pictures of people. You keep changing things. You keep changing things and remain enslaved by that mind itself. Then, for someone with such a mind, if they put the phone aside, now, in the time of the Buddha, there was no need to say that, there were no phones then. Those devices didn't exist. So, in those days, they abandoned their homes. Now, whether you abandon your homes or not, if you have a phone, it's as if you have everything. You can talk for hours from here. You can even make video calls from here. So, you can't talk about a great kind of Nirvana then. Let's say, in these times, we put away the phone. We put the phone aside, and then we become solitary within.

We have no phone, and we have no one to talk to. But then we experience a little solitude. And with that solitude, the Buddha says to cultivate the first jhana. To cultivate the first jhana, we have this mind that seeks sensual objects. Now, in meditation, let's take Anapanasati. In the object of Anapanasati, it's not easy to stay with it at first. After watching two or three breaths, the mind wanders off, gets lost, no one knows where. But let's say we don't give up. We don't give up. We don't say, "I can't meditate, my mind keeps wandering." Instead of giving up, let's say we keep doing it continuously. As we keep doing it, sometimes after a week or two, it clicks. Then, after a little while, you begin to understand the feeling of being with it. Maybe five minutes, not a long time sometimes. Then, for two, four, five minutes, a little joy begins to come.

A sense of confidence arises within us that this is something that can be done. Otherwise, we are mentally defeated. After abandoning everything, abandoning homes, taking leave, or abandoning relationships, we feel, "I can't even stay for a minute. I can't stay for this long." We feel a sense of despair.

When that despair is there, if it works out one day, as soon as it works out, you realize what it is. It's like you've connected with the experience I'm talking about now.

Then, relative to that, this joy increasingly comes to me. When you keep doing it, little by little, you realize that the mind has a tendency to stay on one object. A state of one-pointedness. Relative to that one-pointedness, the surroundings begin to become irrelevant to me. It becomes dispassionate. Due to that nature of one-pointedness, little by little, the tendency of my consciousness to run after various objects within me has somewhat decreased. Now it has become one-pointed on one meditation object. Then, as the mind meditates like this, becoming one-pointed, it suddenly breaks due to sounds. When people shout, then you get angry. "It was going so well, and they shouted! They stirred up the mud!" You feel a bit angry.

You get angry, "Oh, they don't let me do it nicely. Something always messes it up." You get angry with your own thoughts. With sounds, "Oh, look, my back is hurting right away." When you see your back, you get angry. Even if your back hurts, you still think, "It's okay, even with these obstacles, with these thoughts, can't I watch my breath?" Now, you hear sounds outside. Vehicles are going, trishaws are going. Even when you hear that, can't I stay with the basic meditation object? Let's say we stay with the basic meditation object like that. When you watch that basic meditation object, a joy comes through it, a happiness.

Because of that joy, the Buddha explains that the anger begins to diminish. Now, there's no one else; I'm with myself, with a primary joy. Now, as I watch my breath, an internal joy begins to arise within me. Now, it doesn't matter if trishaws go or if someone shouts. I'm slowly becoming addicted (soosthiya) and absorbed. That is, I am becoming absorbed in the "stuff." Now the "stuff" is slowly entering my body, and I'm getting high.

When you're getting high, it doesn't matter if someone calls you a drug addict or whatever. Now it's hitting you. When the "stuff" starts hitting you like that, when it hits and you get high, it doesn't matter what the surroundings say, whether they insult you or demean you. It doesn't matter; you just keep watching. You are high; you are fully absorbed. That is, meditation has hit you.

After meditation has hit you, after you've been with that object and happiness starts to come from it, you realize, "Wow, this is a profound experience! This is what happened when I did drugs! This is what happened when I smoked ganja! Damn, this is in meditation too! I didn't know!" Then he realizes, "Damn, I don't need to suffer so much!" After meditation sets in, both go to the same place for him. Inside, it's a bit different; that is, you get that feeling. After meditation sets in, a high vibe begins to come.

Then the body's weight begins to disappear, and the body slowly, slowly, slowly vibrates. It's like, "What is this?" "I feel like I'm stopped here." Along with that stopped feeling, chemicals begin to be produced from within, from inside, without any external drug, without any external thing, without putting any external chemical into the body. Earlier, we used to put chemical drugs into this. We injected, inserted. We used them. We did various things to change the internal chemical composition of our body to get this happiness. Stiff parts of the body relax, and tight muscles all relax, and then little by little, it starts to wear off. Now you realize, "Damn, when I meditate without any cause, my muscles relax, those tight feelings disappear, vibrations come, and something else begins to happen." You begin to understand that this is the addiction in meditation. This too, this too, is like doing drugs. This too is like a drug. This too is like ganja.

Then, as it hits you more and more, the surroundings become irrelevant to me. I'm in a solitary joy with myself. As I'm in joy, then a little feeling comes, and then I realize that when I was at home, I didn't feel settled at home. I was looking for this kind of joy. That's why we were acting crazy outside, doing strange things. But in the end, we realize, "Damn, this is what I was looking for! This is the stuff I was looking for!" Why didn't I know this? I was addicted to other things outside, doing all sorts of things and looking for it. Then you yourself feel, "Damn, this is what I was looking for!" as meditation sets in more and more. When that joy comes through the object, with the object well-established, you yourself feel, "Okay, I don't need drugs for this. I don't need ice for this. I don't need anything for this." But until you get there, at first, your body hurts. It only comes from continuous meditation. After the balance comes and the object is well-established, that joy comes. That happiness begins to come from within.

Then you feel, "Oh, I don't need anything. DMT arises from within me. DMT begins to be produced from within me. Without needing anything, I don't feel my body." The pressure that was in the mind, it relaxes. If there was any stiffness mentally, that stiffness relaxes and goes away. If there was any dryness in the body, all of it relaxes and goes away. Now, I don't feel that an hour and a half has passed. Sometimes, two or three hours pass.

You don't even know if you're there or not. You have mindfulness. But it's like you're drunk, but you're mindful. There's no discomfort at all. There's no discomfort at all. And there's no pain in the body the next day like from taking chemicals. There's nothing like that. There's no addiction at all. The thing about addiction is that after you take it, you feel it, but the next day, you feel drained, without any energy. But this is not like that. The next day, you are joyful. But as you go along in this way, the next point shows that you are fighting with that joy. Ill-will (vyāpāda). Ill-will disappears, and as joy comes more and more, there is no anger now. You feel like hugging anyone. It doesn't matter what anyone does. Whatever happens, I can eat anything, even garbage. As for people who were very picky, they would eat whatever they could. You don't feel anything as garbage. You don't see any dirtiness in anything. You don't see any faults in anyone. Everything has a strange quality. The vibe that comes as you meditate, that nature, is very beautiful. So, when that experience comes, then the next thing shown is that you are fighting with sloth and torpor (thīnamiddha) using initial application (vitakka). Sloth and torpor are the problems that arise when sensual desire and ill-will are gone and we meditate. There is no sensual desire. Now, listening to this sermon and practicing monastic life, the problem is this. As soon as sensual desire and ill-will disappear, an extreme sleepiness comes. That's why, when you're outside, you can stay awake, but as soon as you come into the hall, sleepiness comes, a pleasant sleepiness. It just melts away. That's what sloth and torpor are called. Sloth and torpor means that as this progresses, after defilements disappear, this mind finds it difficult. This is a mind that has been defiled for a long time. A mind that has eaten filth for a long time. Now, when it's in a pure place, there are no problems. You are given food, drink, and a place to stay. There are no problems whatsoever. That's the problem afterwards. It feels like a huge problem. You start yawning. So, then they say, "If you can understand this and continue meditating, with the cessation of sensual desire and ill-will, this kind of sleepiness comes. You feel sleepy, you shrink. You feel like getting up and leaving." Look, it's not like outside; now that we've come into this hall, it's like we're trying to get intoxicated internally. We wonder if it's a problem with this hall, or a problem with the time? We don't know. Or maybe it's because of the heat, we don't know. It's like something inside is trying to make our eyes close. Trying to close them. So, in this way, we fight with sloth and torpor using the factor of initial application (vitakka chetasika). Vitakka means, if we can, to reflect on our meditation object again and again, to return to the object. Then, just before sleep comes, I've forgotten the meditation object. As sleep descends, look, even with this discourse, the sound slowly diminishes. Look, just look, when you're sleepy, you realize the discourse is heard from a distance. Little by little, it seems to get further and further away. Then a few words pass, and nothing enters my mind. Look carefully and you'll understand. You hear it. But inside, it's stopped. It's cut off inside like this. Now, the discourse slowly moves away. Words don't really enter inside. Words are just cut off. You know you hear them, but you don't get any meaning from them, no inquiry, no initial application to the discourse. Initial application means the nature of inquiring, the quality of being with that word. That's not there. The nature of the object also not having initial application.

You just hear it. That's all. Apart from hearing it, there's no immersing in it. The mind doesn't fully light up with it. The mind has a tendency to cut it off. That's why they say it's inclined towards unwholesome states. That means the mind is disinclined towards wholesome objects. That is, that aversion, that sloth and torpor, definitely comes because the mind has already rejected wholesome states.

Wholesome states, this is an unwholesome state, is aversion to the unwholesome state. It's rejecting it. There's a subtle aversion to this discourse. But that aversion doesn't mean attacking it. The mind shrinks. The mind just freezes, becomes stone, becomes butter, curdles, becomes stone. Middha (torpor) means a congealing quality. The mind shrinks, a congealing quality. Even a wholesome object, a meditation object, or listening to a wholesome discourse at that time, doing a walking meditation, even that has this strange shrinking quality. That is, these are actually two mental factors. Just like the thought of sensual desire and the thought of ill-will, there is another thought, meaning two mental factors. Actually, the five hindrances are just a few thoughts. Nothing else. In those thoughts of sensual desire, we have that, and in ill-will, there's a very clashing quality. In the thought called sloth and torpor, there's a shrinking quality, a quick shrinking quality. We have to recognize these mental factors by their qualities. Now, this is about sloth and torpor. Now, with ill-will, these things are agitated and stirred up; there's a quality there, the mental factor of ill-will. When the mental factor of sensual desire is present, it's similar.

Similarly, there is a quality in the mental factor of sloth and torpor. That quality is what I mentioned: the eyes begin to close. Then you need to know. You need to know with mindfulness. That's what mindfulness is about: it becomes mindful of this. This thought is working in me now. This thought called "thīnamiddha." So, understand that the five hindrances are actually thoughts. Those thoughts are explained as being divided into five. Thoughts are analyzed as sensual desire, ill-will, restlessness and remorse, and doubt. Actually, these are attachments to a thought. That's all. So, you get attached to thoughts. Attachment to thoughts is called attachment to the five hindrances. If you remove the five hindrances, in another way, it's the mind's craving for the five mental factors. To have five mental factors. Even if you take it that way, it's still correct. Then you will understand what this attachment to a thought really is. The thought is analyzed in five ways. With its personal nature and personal characteristics, there are personal characteristics in the mental formations. There is a personal characteristic. There is a common characteristic. Lust now has a characteristic similar to faith. But they are two mental factors. Similarly, these mental factors have personal characteristics. The common characteristic is the three characteristics: impermanence, suffering, and non-self. The common characteristic. The nature that applies to them personally. So, in that way, if we can awaken to that wholesome object again and again, either to the discourse or to the meditation object, then now, even if it was broken, we see that it has become re-established. As soon as it becomes re-established, it goes to the discourse. It has become vitakka again, right? You see, it has become vitakka, it has taken the discourse as the object. As soon as it becomes the object, the sleepiness goes away. You see how that mental factor went away. That mental factor is not aware. It went away. Now, it's like we are fresh again. If we awakened to that moment, that's it. If we awakened to that thought, it has no power. Otherwise, throughout the entire discourse, that hindrance will prevail. We don't give space to that initial application, do we?

As soon as initial application comes, as soon as initial application comes, the hindrance loses its existence. That's why it is said that it is the initial application from the mental factors of initial application, sustained application, rapture, happiness, and one-pointedness that fights and subdues the mental factor called sloth and torpor at this moment. You see, the discourse became initial application. As soon as attention was given to the discourse, that went away.

That sluggishness in the body also breaks away. That frozen feeling also goes away. It turns to dust.

Then, the next hindrance that is shown, which we have been discussing, is restlessness and remorse (uddhacca kukkucca). That means as you meditate, as the mind gets elevated, something comes and creates a problem inside. It causes restlessness. It causes restlessness. Something comes and messes up the meditation. It causes trouble. Something, something, something reminds you of something. Something reminds you of a past event, or something that is going to happen in the future, or fear comes. Or you start thinking, "Oh, I didn't finish this." "I still have these things. Suddenly, I'm calming down so well." It suddenly comes into that empty mind. Something new is being done. "I didn't finish this. I should have done that first." You realize that. But it fights with that. But as you meditate, once meditation is properly established, there's a happiness in the body, right? After that happiness is established, we feel like we are looking after the ship. We feel like we want to stay with that happiness. Whether you go for walking meditation or sitting meditation, when meditation is well-established, a strange happiness comes. After that happiness comes, you think, "Oh, I don't need to hurry." Now the mind wants to do something. We understand that nothing will happen if I don't do that.

Now, there are some tasks, and what I understand is, let's say I came to meditate. Now, someone is here. So, I meditated for my time and left. Some might be able to leave. They might also stay. Nothing happened to me whether the people who came left or didn't leave. Actually, we get agitated. We think, "If I'm not here, if I struggle like this and I'm gone, it's over." But look, we should take that time we have, do our practice, and let whatever needs to happen, happen. That's why I'm not agitated, and nothing strange will happen. Nothing has happened to us, neither by us not being there, nor by the two of us not going. Somehow, those people will balance themselves out. So, look, no child died just because you came here, did they? They'll quickly balance themselves. People don't die just because we're not there or because we came.

They adjust according to the situation. What I'm saying is, once that's understood, we realize. We used to think that without us, those people would cry, but no one is sad today. No one is starving. We understand that nothing happened because we weren't there. Those people have balanced themselves according to their karma. Similarly, when you meditate, you realize, "I don't need to struggle and jump around for this." "Okay, I'll just keep doing this. I understand this is enjoyable." But let's see, when you get up, you face whatever happens at that time. From here, the mind says, "That's enough now, get up, look at this, my mother doesn't even know." It even tells you to make a call and check. In this sitting posture, the mind doesn't let you sit still. It makes the inner self restless in that way.

Even when it comes to our mind, that's how I used to think when I meditated before. What I think is correct. If I have a certain trip to go on, then I just have to go on that trip. I tell my mind, "No matter how much you remind me, I will pack my backpack on that day." It goes. Until then, my mind doesn't bother me. Thinking is its desire, isn't it? "No matter what you plan, I will pack my backpack on that day," the mind thinks again. There are some places where you need to tell the mind to "hold on a bit." Otherwise, from the moment it sits down, it will start doing this. "Should I bring that? Should I take this backpack? Where's a proper backpack?" and it will remember irrelevant things and get agitated. So, I realize you need to send a small message to the mind. However, once the sukha (happiness) of meditation comes, no matter how much it comes, we don't pay attention. Whatever memories arise, whatever comes, we stay with that bliss and happiness. Then, uddhacca kukkucca (restlessness and remorse) has no existence. What happens next?

The next point is, otherwise, for no reason at all, you start to doubt this cultivation. "Is this right? Is there any Nirvana by doing this?" Then comes the next hindrance: vicikicchā (doubt). Once that comes, it's really messed up. Why does doubt start to arise in everything you're doing? Let me give an example. Usually, I think, it's like this: there was a woman, and she would always scold her husband, saying there were women's hairs on his clothes. She suspected he was seeing some woman because there were women's hairs, and she would scold him and scold him. After a few days, there were no hairs. Then the woman looked and thought, "Now he's with a bald woman, isn't he? A woman without hair, right?" Once doubt comes, even if there were hairs, she doubted. Even if there are no hairs, she creates doubt about something. "Now he's in love with a bald woman," she thinks. That's how it is with doubt. Once doubt comes, that's all you see. Whatever he does, we see him as playing some kind of sneaky game. He's playing some game; it's just that I haven't been able to catch him these days. He's doing something. But I can't quite catch him; I feel like the person has become subtle these days. Once that comes, you only see it through those eyes. So, that's how it is. That's what vicikicchā is called. The world starts to appear that way. It gets completely messed up when people use certain types of drugs. After they use those drugs and that mental layer works, when they're just sitting, they feel doubt. After our normal, natural mind is damaged, after our usual chemical system is overstimulated with chemicals and drugs and damaged, then those people doubt their friends nearby. After a while, even if they don't take drugs, doubt starts to arise. Excessive doubt starts to arise for no reason. Everyone starts to feel doubt, and then it's not easy to handle. No matter what medicine is given. Once that comes, it means it's completely damaged. That's why they say "don't use." As soon as you do it, doubt reaches that level. That's a hindrance. But it's not a personal trait; it's a quality of the mind. An unwholesome quality. An unwholesome dhamma.

The nature of that dhamma is that no matter when you meditate or what you do, there's doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt. "Is this right? Is this right?" If one understands these things, then one's inner dryness gradually decreases, and that's all.

So, for example, as far as I know and understand, no matter what monk comes and says what, we go according to what we feel. We have a path that we feel. We cultivate it further and further. No matter what anyone says or how, there is something that resonates with us. It is relative to what resonates with us that we proceed. No matter how we go, in the end, we've talked about it, and we understand that I can't just copy anyone and cultivate the path. No one can copy anyone else. It develops within each of us in a unique way. That's why I don't understand it. No matter who you ask in this world, no matter who you call, no one can copy another person. Everyone's inner self develops in a way unique to them. Now, when I preach, sometimes what you perceive is not what I'm saying, but rather some other defilements of yours that are hidden. Through this, a different part of you is worn away. So, because of that, you go in a way that is relevant to you. So, that's how I understand and feel it. That's why I feel that we cannot copy anyone.

If you try to copy, then that person fails right there. Because they can't be themselves. Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ. He became enlightened in his own unique way. The Buddha became enlightened in his own unique way. We cannot say that two Jesus Christs will appear. That means there are no two Shakyamuni Gautama Buddhas. There is no one for Buddhahood, is there? However, those individuals come and attain Buddhahood, and that path is relative to each individual. They cannot copy someone else and go. They cannot go according to someone else's method. Therefore, I understand that no matter how much you listen to these things, for you to grow, you go in a way that is unique to you; you are a unique Buddha. And in reality, that's what the universe wants. That means you, well, there's no need for two Jesus Christs. You have been born to attain Buddhahood in your own unique way, to become sovereign in your own unique way. And use these things as aids; there's no problem with that. Use these things as aids for your spiritual journey, the journey of seeing yourself. But you don't need to be a copy of someone else. You don't need to be a model of someone else.

If that happens, you'll start talking like them, walking like them. As soon as that happens, it's like a farce. We'd say it's like seeing a caricature, or a bunch of photocopies, like putting everything into the same mold. It won't happen. That's why I understand that one must understand the path that develops within oneself. As that path develops, one understands more and more, "As I observe this, my defilements are being cut away. Suffering is being extinguished." So, what do I care if someone says I'm wrong? What do I care if someone says something? Oh, let them talk nonsense; I have no problem. I'm in joy. The path of joy is developing for me. Just because you said something, I'm not going to get stressed and think, "Oh dear, I have to read all of this." There's nothing like that. If someone tells me to read certain things, and I understand it, then I should have confidence in it. Otherwise, I'll be like, "Oh dear, I'm wrong," and hang my head. Even if I'm wrong, I'll be joyful; that's all. Who judges right and wrong? Who has omnipotent power? Who has the power to judge anyone's path or way? You can't say that. I don't understand how one judges.

How does one do that, how does one say it? Now, if someone says, "I'm cultivating samatha," and another person says, "That samatha isn't correct, you need to come to vipassana." You can tell them to go to hell; I got liberated through samatha, I got liberated. No problem. Through samatha or vipassana, we have seen that even the Buddhas attained liberation through samatha. We don't know that. Then why did the Buddha preach these things? Now, how can you talk about the first jhana, the second jhana, and so on? Is it through samatha? We don't know. Is it through vipassana? We don't know. Is it through sati (mindfulness)? We don't know. Is it through pañña (wisdom)? We don't know. If my problems are being solved from somewhere, that's all that matters, isn't it? "Oh, no, that's not right. You have to go through wisdom; that's not right. You have to go through mindfulness and untangle it. Are you crazy? Can you go through jhanas?" They say, "Oh, just go on about your business." For me, what I'm going through is certain, I have no problem. My suffering is diminishing. I have no attachment. So, what do I care? What does it matter by what means?

The Dhamma tells us it doesn't matter even if it's with dirt, if the cat catches the mouse, that's all. It doesn't concern us how the cat catches the mouse. It doesn't matter if it's with dirt. It doesn't matter if it's with samatha, or vipassana, or saddha (faith), or pañña. If your problem is solved, that's all. I don't need to be a copy of him. My problems are being solved this way. My difficulty is being untangled this way.

It's just going. That's all. So then, there's no way for us to doubt. Is that the right path, or is this the right path? Should I go the right way by listening to what this monk says? That's irrelevant. If you understand that the problems within you are being resolved, that the problems are healing, then I think so. Because otherwise, there's no path to liberation anywhere. No one can show such a path to liberation from A to Z. First, start with mindfulness, then to concentration, then to wisdom, or start with wisdom, then come to mindfulness, then concentration. No one can draw those rules. If someone draws those rules, they are a fool. They don't even have the idea of "spiritual." They think it's like this, going like this, and then it ends. That it starts from here and goes to this end. No one can say that. That's why I said that we can't say, "He practiced for x years," because who knows? Tomorrow, when someone hears a word, perhaps that one word has untangled those years of problems for them. How can we say no? So, there are scriptural references in the Tripitaka. If you want proof, look at how each person has attained Nirvana in different ways. One person didn't go that way; the other went a different way.

Therefore, we cannot just say, "This is the only way. This is how we all go. This is how we should attain liberation. This is the only way, the only method." You cannot say that anywhere. We do not know how many people have developed their faculties in what way. This means, at birth, we do not know the development of their faculties: saddha, virya (energy), sati, samadhi (concentration), pañña. Therefore, we cannot make such a complete judgment. We cannot come to a complete conclusion. And we cannot create a model, a spiritual model. Wherever such a model is created, there is no spirituality. That means those people are being confined, imprisoned there. That means they are making the coming disciples into slaves, as if you have to go through this, become like this. Like university students being made foolish.

We say they're fools; universities set programs and show methods like "this after this, this after this, this after this." That's why I said that's not necessary. You don't need to doubt yourself. If you understand that something good is happening within you, no matter how it happens, and if you are living more joyfully, then live with love towards those around you. It doesn't matter what you meditate on. If you are loving with those around you, if you are like a brother to those around you, then in no way... if you just exist, what is it then? Then I say, ultimately, everything leads to that place of humanity, to that loving-kindness, to that place where you can dedicate your life for another human being. If you are there, if you arrive there, it doesn't matter how you got there. It doesn't matter if you came through samatha, or vipassana, or pañña, or sati. Just come to humanity. If you increasingly understand that you are in a place with everyone, without any conflict, like water, having the ability to adapt to any place. If I don't feel any dryness anywhere. If no practice feels like an effort to me. Then I understand that I can now listen to any sermon. I can do any walking meditation, any sitting meditation. I can be with anyone; I am not confined now. Whatever sermon he listens to, whatever discussion he has, whatever he does, I understand that it is there. Whether it came from samatha or not, I don't know. Whether it came from vipassana or not, I don't know. Whether it came from facing life experiences or not, I don't know. Whether it came through sati or not, I don't know. Whether it came through pañña or not, I don't know. Through samadhi. So, how do we know? If his problems are solved in the end, the way he solved them is irrelevant to us, isn't it? He somehow solved his problems; he has arrived at the answer. Did you understand what I said? If he has arrived at the answer to that mathematical problem, the way he got the answer might not be the same way I solved my problems. I solved that problem in my own way. He might have come in a different way and untangled that same problem. There's no problem, is there? If the answer has come, how it was solved is irrelevant. He solved it in his own unique way.

He has solved his problems in his own unique way. Then, we understand that. Then, if we create a form and say, "This is Theravada," we are fools. If we confine ourselves to the form of Mahayana, we are fools. If we confine ourselves to the form of Zen, we are fools. If we confine ourselves to the form of Tantra, all are fools. It doesn't matter where it comes from. It doesn't matter if it's from Jesus. It doesn't matter if it's Tantra. If your problems are solved and the answer has come, then those things are irrelevant to you. Those things are not even relevant. We are clinging to things we don't even know. We think "ours is the best," and this is the pride of looking down on others. Pride is about superiority, about being grand. If your problem is solved, then it's okay. Read Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha. In the end, he gains liberation from a ferryman. Through a ferryman, he ultimately attains Nirvana. In Hermann Hesse's book Siddhartha, he goes to the very end. The Buddha also goes. The Buddha abandons things. He goes to courtesans, and he abandons courtesans too. After doing everything, he finally comes to the place where he ferries. Then, it's a mind. As I understand it, that doubt arises because we think, "This is how it should go, this is what it is." "This should probably go according to the Theravada method, or it should start with Theravada and go to Mahayana, and then Zen from Mahayana, and end with Tantra." We get stuck in our heads with some format. Stuck, confined. So where is the joy? So where is the laughter? So where is the dance that is inherent in all of our humanity? There's nothing. We're confused; it's not even ours that has gone astray. Otherwise, we have to somehow go according to our system. He says, "Does pañña fit sati?" Then we say, "Our sati isn't right. We have to go to pañña." Whatever it is, it doesn't matter. Then you don't understand; the simple thing is, the problems need to be solved. If we create a form, if we create a structure, saying, "You have to go through this, or you have to go through that," then we are confining humanity. It still doesn't know what spiritual means. If we are stuck in the delusion that "Buddhism" is "Sinhala Buddhism" and we take it as Theravada, and our problems are not solved, then it's okay to abandon what you've adopted. If your problems are not being solved, and you abandon what you've clung to and solve them, that's all.

After you solve them, then it's like mathematics. When the problems are solved, then you understand which method you used to untangle it. We understand the equation. The equation is also understood in this way: "It seems to have untangled this way." Only after it untangles can you find it. But it might not suit someone else. So, if I untangled it, you can try to untangle it in your own way. Try everything. After you untangle it from somewhere, the way you untangled it might be helpful to someone else. But he too will have to untangle it in his own way. No matter what he does, even if he copies the other person, he will need a separate ñana (knowledge) to untangle his problem.

He will need the answer to that problem. That's why it is said that there are a thousand different paths to sotāpatti (stream-entry). There are a thousand theories. But they all lead to the same sotāpatti. If someone says there's only one theory that is true, then he's trying to instill some kind of program in someone's head. He's trying to push someone's will. And then he gets stuck. Then those people have to suffer, don't they? How do they know what's right for whom? So then, he can't listen to anything else. He can't read other books. He can't do anything. He gets stuck like he swallowed rice flour. He gets stuck, and he loses his freedom. He loses his mind. He faces more problems than he had before. He came to solve the problem. He came to solve the problem, and he has more problems than he had before. That's why you need to understand well: remove all that meditation and other stuff from your head and understand that if the problem is being solved, then you live happily with those people who are dealing with that problem. He is a human being who has walked on this great earth, laughed, and can share water. No matter where he goes, he has to come to that point. As far as I understand, I don't understand what else it could be.

Otherwise, if you can't do that, what's the point of gaining anything else, even Nirvana? What's the point if life is not filled with human love, if there is no love? What's the point if you gain that? It's useless even if you gain that. Therefore, I see that if that kind of doubt arises, you have to look at yourself. Somehow, that time passed with me saying a little bit about this.

So, in short, now, after these hindrances (nivarana) have subsided in that way, the point we need to understand is that after the five hindrances subside, the Buddha states there that to subdue the five hindrances, you need to go to the fourth jhana. That means after the five hindrances subside, and then slowly, slowly, the object calms down, and you come to the fourth jhana. When you come to the fourth jhana, there is no object. There is no object, no sign. There is no sign, no object in the fourth jhana. Here, the Buddha preaches, "Read these suttas, the mind likes this." Here, there is no sign, which means there is no suffering. So, then, "Undertake this." Otherwise, if you ask the monk, "What should we do now? What is this when we keep doing this?" Then, you fool, if you don't appreciate dispassion (viraga), then as I said before, you don't have the merit. What can be done about it? As his suffering disappears more and more, as dispassion arises in him, as pureness arises, then the monk asks, "I have a small problem, this and this and this."

So, if you don't undertake it, then undertake it. That's why I said that I now feel that you need prior merit for that, having been with past Buddhas. Why is this taught to a mind? Because a mind filled with defilements doesn't appreciate this. For that mind, this is a problem. There's nothing here. So, look, there's no problem for him. Let him be there, let it be there. Some arguments will arise to change it, to avoid it, because you can't have a sign here. The mind cannot create any signs in the signless state. There are no forms. It becomes more and more signless. Now, the Buddha here says, "I, a great being, dwell in a state of concentration without any signs." We are approaching animitta ceto vimutti (signless liberation of mind), aren't we? We are getting closer and closer to the signless. So, if you can't appreciate the signless, then how can you do it? "Oh, Venerable Sir, I have small desires, or I need something else, or what is this?" If he asks, it means he has some attachment towards it. This solitude, this loneliness, this signless state. So, then, what needs to be said is, "There, how do you look at that signless state? The way you look at it is how you create the sign." That's why the Buddha says some people go here and solve a lot of problems. They don't appreciate this. The mind doesn't like this. "These suttas, look at them. I'm just saying my words." I'm saying this from the Pali text. The Buddha's mind doesn't like this. The mind questions this. It asks, "What is this?" It moves away here. A feeling of laziness comes. Because the mind doesn't undertake this. Nirvana. It thinks of Nirvana as something like sensual pleasure, like some cashews or something. It thinks of it as something that might arise. This, this Nirvana, is precisely not making any signs.

Not making signs means suffering has ceased here. So, now, think about it as an example. Now, let's understand there. Take a mother. When I look at a mother, I see her the way I look. A father sees his wife as a wife. That's his angle. Similarly, an aunt sees her niece as a daughter. That's her angle. If I ask, "Is there truly a mother there? Is there truly a mother there, or a daughter, or a wife?" You can't say that. There's nothing like that. It's animitta (signless). Each person sees it according to their own perspective. So, when you meditate and go to the signless, you make the signless into a sign according to your perspective. Don't make a sign out of the signless. Pāramitta (perfection) means shunyata (emptiness). Even if it's voidness, if you look at it, you see something there. Why does it always create a place? "Oh, I'm in this voidness." Otherwise, "Oh, I'm tired of this here, this is really boring." So, it creates a sign. As soon as it creates a sign, existence arises with aversion towards it. Or existence arises with craving. Or existence arises with moha (delusion). Out of those three delusions, it makes the signless into a sign. When the signless is made into a sign, it is encountered according to the way it was made into a sign. Now, what I'm saying is, don't assume that there's actually anyone there. It was there with the mother according to each person's perspective. From another angle, there was a wife there. From another angle, if you ask what is truly there, absolutely, you can't say that. Absolutely, it's empty of making such signs. When you say shunyata, it's another way of looking at shunyata as a sign. Others. So, as you continue to meditate, you fall into the signless. The signless appears to you according to the way you make a sign. If you make a sign that "Oh, that's boring, no attachments here, no attachments here," then everything will appear to you that way. Or else, "Oh, this is amazing! I'm in anicca (impermanent) Nirvana!" If you look from that perspective, you'll see it from there. And mana (pride) will also be caught in it, and it will cling to it. Why? Because it makes a sign with tanha (craving), or with dosa (aversion). Or, as soon as it makes a sign that "This is an empty space, an empty space," it becomes something, and then it falls into moha again. You don't need anything. Let it be signless. Voidness. Then, here, we are afraid of not making signs. In every sign, there is avijjā (ignorance), tanha, ditthi (wrong view), mana (pride). That's why, if monastic life means something else, if Nirvana means a different story like this.

It's more and more signless. If we don't have respect for the signless nature, if we are looking for a method, if we are looking for a place beyond this, if we are asking to be given a method to go beyond that, then we are asking for another sign. "Give me something to do with this signless mind, Venerable Sir, what should I do here?" So, to whom should I say this? This is to shunyata. Then you need to understand that we are not on a journey of finding some sign. This is a path to shunyata. When the mind becomes signless, what should you do next? "Is it okay to stay like this?" All of this is to find a sign to rely on. That means trying to bring this shunyata into a sign, trying to make it non-empty. So see that. See that itself.

Understand that the world appears according to how you look at it. Even shunyata, if you look at it from a certain angle, that dead shunyata will be experienced as something. If you want to experience it that way, then "this is peaceful, this is sublime, this emptiness is sublime." Even if you want to look at it like that, it's not even necessary to look at it that way. And then, if it's absolutely necessary to make a sign of it, look at it a bit favorably. If it's absolutely necessary, then something, some phenomenon, is needed for this. This is just "Okay, now I'm in a strange place, I'm crazy, it's okay." No matter how you look at it, it's madness. No matter from which angle you look at shunyata, all there is to say is madness. You tried to make a sign where a sign cannot be made.

Madness. So, that's the kind of story that's in this; that's the kind of nature that's in this. I think it needs prior merit to endure that. You need some prior merit to continue on with a dhamma of shunyata like this, where you don't encounter anything to make a sign of. More and more, what you encounter is the madness that you see according to how you look at it. Day by day, day by day, you try to make a sign of shunyata somehow. You try to experience shunyata. To go to experience means you are going. Every time you go to look, it's a ditthi (view). Every time you try to comprehend, it's a ditthi. Let us conclude then, may all beings be well.

Original Source (Video): 

Not available 

Disclaimer

The translations shared on this blog are based on Dhamma sermons originally delivered in Sinhalese. They have been translated into English with the help of AI (ChatGPT & Gemini AI), with the intention of making these teachings more accessible to a broader audience.

Please note that while care has been taken to preserve the meaning and spirit of the original sermons, there may be errors or inaccuracies in translation. These translations are offered in good faith, but they may not fully capture the depth or nuance of the original teachings.

This blog does not seek to promote or endorse any specific personal views that may be expressed by the original speaker. The content is shared solely for the purpose of encouraging reflection and deeper understanding of the Dhamma.