Buddhist Ontology and Practice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I've read the article although I don't think I understood it entirely. I think ontology is important because it justifies the practice. Why should one meditate the way a Buddhist does? What benefit does one obtain from doing this? Why is it effective?

There are many people who practice some form of meditation or mindfulness of the now, including Christians, Hindus, and a range of people who have no specific religious affiliation but could be called "spiritual", "intuitives", "mystics", or "psychics" among other things. They may each have a different ontology justifying their practices. Buddhists aren't the only ones who meditate.

Here are some questions:

1) Does Buddhism have a form of yoga, or physical discipline, associated with it? Meditation with the spine straight might be a kind of asana, but I suspect this physical practice is something peculiar to Hinduism. As the article says (page 264):

---

Yes, there is a Buddhist form of yoga. I used to have a copy of a book translated by Thomas Cleary (it was actually a larger book that had several texts in it); here's a link to that.
http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=8cAGAAAAYAAJ

Why should one practice Vipassana meditation? From my experience, meditation is like turning a light on, in a way. It's like, a form of emotional and, if you will spiritual growth that doesn't have any other equivalent. If I don't meditation, I won't get the benefits of it any other way.

Which brings us to your second question, what are its benefits? Its benefits are not easy to measure, but they are not small. Meditation as a practice of quieting the mind, of bringing the mind to a quiet state, and holding it there for some time, has many benefits to health, peace of mind, contentment and happiness levels.

Thinking is great, it's wonderful; it allows us to do so many things- reflect on the past, predict outcomes in the future and choose our direction- but if we never stop thinking . . . then we never stop thinking. The mind just continually goes from one thought to the next, to the next, ad infinitum. Meditation is the process of not thinking - not forever, thinking will always resume, but it's the practice of resting in awareness not focused on any thought, but only the breathing.

Meditation for me improves thinking, it really improves everything. Its health benefits are scientifically proven as well. The brains of advanced meditators are different. . I'm afraid I don't have links to the sources for this, but research was done on this.

In the article "How to Meditate," by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, the author states at the beginning,

"The practice of mindfulness/awareness meditation is common to all Buddhist traditions. Beyond that, it is common to, inherent in, all human beings."

It makes sense to me to think of meditation as a very natural practice, common to all human beings, much in the same way that walking is common to all human beings -- barring some exceptions.

Why it is effective I am not sure I can answer.

(A link to download that article can be found on this site - http://tommyangelo.com/meditation-101/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

The same format is seen in the Vedaanta system. To wit, it postulated the empirical self (aatman) bound up in the changing world, but when its purity is uncovered by virtue of yogic discipline. the self can rise above the impurities to become the greater self (AAtman) and thereby identify itself within the total nature of things (Brahman). This approach certainly was a great spiritual insight; it captured the imagination of the Indians and has enabled the dominant Hindu philosophy to thrive so powerfully up to the present day.

---

Yes, other cultures meditate. I think Taoists meditate, I know Hindus do as there are many counts of great yogis meditating; Christians meditate as well. There is an excellent book by Henri Nouwen, "The Way of the Heart" which sheds a great deal of light on the subject. My mother's Presbyterian church in Kansas City has a Christian meditation once a week, a small group including the pastor and his wife, who sing a song, speak a little, light a candle and strike a small gong and meditate for thirty minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I suspect yoga is irrelevant in Buddhist practice because of the denial of "the empirical self".

---

Well, I've read parts of the Buddhist Yoga work, but it was some time ago and I don't remember much about it, I'm afraid. I think yoga's importance to Buddhists may vary widely.

Quote:

---

2) How does Buddhism view near-death experiences? This is from the linked text (page 265):

Even the Buddha denied life after death, the immortality of the soul, on the grounds that it would transgress and disregard the normal flow of existence. Thus, if immortality or permanence (eternality) is not to be experienced, then the concentration would have to be on the moment-to-moment existence. In this way, the great insight was not about permanent or eternal life, but on the microscopic behavior within momentary existence.

I've asked this in other threads, but reading Thich Nhat Hanh, he seems puzzled how one could love "nirvana", which he views as corresponding to the Christian "God" in Going Home. Those with a positive near-death experience tell of a sense of acceptance and love that does not seem to be part of the Buddhist tradition.

---

Near death experiences aren't given a central place in Buddhism, as in, they're not the most important thing. However, the question of love and acceptance is given consideration. In a dharma talk by Tara Brach I recently listened to, she talked about how the nature of things is "emptiness suffused with compassion," and this is fairly reasonably descriptive of it, as I have experienced it.

I think it can be downloaded here. . http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/175/talk/1951/

If it's the talk I remember, she talks about it very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

3) How does Buddhism view the origin of the universe? The article has the following quote from Buddhaghosa (page 273):

Becoming's wheel reveals no known beginning;
No maker, no experiencer there;
Void with a twelvefold voidness, and nowhere
It ever halts; for ever it is spinning.

Modern 21st century science has established that the universe originated out of nothing about 13.73 billion years ago. How does Buddhist ontology reconcile itself with this? I know one can say that this is not important and one should be concerned about removing suffering, but the ontology justifies the means used to remove the suffering.

---

Actually I believe there is now some new evidence and some doubt about whether the Big Bang theory is the best idea we have. I believe there is more and more weight being given to the idea that something else may be true, for example a universe that expands and contracts, but I am not 100% sure.

I could not answer without doing research, and I found this:

"Now there comes a time, Vasettha, when after a long period of time this world expands. When the world expands beings
for the most part fall from the realm of Radiance and come here; and they exist made of mind, feeding on joy, self-luminous, moving through the air, constantly beautiful; thus they remain for a long, long time. Now at that time, all had become one world of water dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vasettha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savors was spread out in the waters. Even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear. ~ Aganna Sutta"
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswer..._the_world.htm

"Even so, questions regarding the origins of the world and such were not considered important by the Buddha and not made out to be a big deal as in other religions. In a famous story, a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Buddha and demanded that the Buddha explain the origin of the universe before he would become a disciple of the Buddha. Then the Buddha said that he would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's immediate problem was his own suffering and his task was to liberate himself from the present state of affairs. To illustrate this, the Buddha related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he was told who shot the arrow, what he looks like, the kind of wood the arrow was made of and so on. The Buddha said that before the man could learn such information, he would be dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to be enlightened, not to speculate about the metaphysical. Thus, the Buddha's teachings centre around mankind and emphasises the methods by which he can liberate himself."

I've heard elsewhere in Dharma talks and so on, the latter idea. Wondering about whether the universe is one, etc. leads us into metaphysical discussions which are distractions from what really matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawpark

Agreed.

Would it be better to use "Buddhist Metaphysics" rather than "Buddhist Ontology", given the common association of "ontology" as a study of (independently existent) being?

---

You could very well be right. When I read that article before, the one called The Range of Buddhist Ontology, I was far more impressed with it than when I glanced over it now. However, is it important enough to petition the moderators to change it? I am not sure metaphysics is much better anyway, especially since Buddha rather warned about going off into metaphysical debates, considering it unhelpful. Earlier I thought the use Ontology was worse, but now I am thinking it's better - but who knows. Maybe a fair definition of Buddhist ontology is: "The nature of being is emptiness suffused with compassion," in which case, Ontology is a fair word to use, though Buddhist ontology means something very different from plain ontology.

I think I've used the word ontology too much. Maybe it will linger around too long. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Why should one practice Vipassana meditation? From my experience, meditation is like turning a light on, in a way. It's like, a form of emotional and, if you will spiritual growth that doesn't have any other equivalent. If I don't meditation, I won't get the benefits of it any other way.

Which brings us to your second question, what are its benefits? Its benefits are not easy to measure, but they are not small. Meditation as a practice of quieting the mind, of bringing the mind to a quiet state, and holding it there for some time, has many benefits to health, peace of mind, contentment and happiness levels.

Thinking is great, it's wonderful; it allows us to do so many things- reflect on the past, predict outcomes in the future and choose our direction- but if we never stop thinking . . . then we never stop thinking. The mind just continually goes from one thought to the next, to the next, ad infinitum. Meditation is the process of not thinking - not forever, thinking will always resume, but it's the practice of resting in awareness not focused on any thought, but only the breathing.

Meditation for me improves thinking, it really improves everything. Its health benefits are scientifically proven as well. The brains of advanced meditators are different. . I'm afraid I don't have links to the sources for this, but research was done on this.

---

To add to Nik's post, I found that meditation is very practical in that it can be used to "step back" from situation rather than become involved - usually in a negative way - immediately. I found this very useful as a teacher dealing with kids, and I found it useful today when i had to deal with an abrasive learner.

One of the purposes of meditation is to help a practitioner get to know their own mind. The fact that you can watch your thoughts arise suggests something about where your thoughts come from in relation to your perception of "you" - or rather your sense of I. It's a real eye-opener to discover that "you" don't necessarily cause your thoughts, but that they arise unprompted, and goes against common assumptions.

It also introduces the idea of personal mental power over oneself. It's a common idea that a person's self control makes them either tremendously respected - especially in adversity - or a little ridiculous when they demonstrate a lack of control and "lose it". We've all lost it, and we've all experienced the calm of someone with a better sense of self control - or is that just me? :biggrin5:

As Nik says, it improves thinking, and can be used to focus - especially with concentration added in - very clearly on analytical and placement meditations. Analytical is where you mentally explore an idea or emotion - such as anger, and develop the reasons why it is a bad thing because of all the negative effects it has. Placement medtation is where you make a resolution to try to be more patient - the antidote to anger - and generate that feeling in your heart - (where Buddhsits say the mind is located).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Near death experiences aren't given a central place in Buddhism, as in, they're not the most important thing. However, the question of love and acceptance is given consideration. In a dharma talk by Tara Brach I recently listened to, she talked about how the nature of things is "emptiness suffused with compassion," and this is fairly reasonably descriptive of it, as I have experienced it.

---

To follow on from what Nik says - I hope you don't mind me following you like this Nik - there isn't the focus upon something called a near death experience. Quite a bit of Buddhist meditation is a preparation for death though - either simply as a way of calming the mind during the death process or coping with the pain, or to use the death experience as part of the practitioner's practice.

In the Tibetan tradition I follow, there is a death meditation, whose purpose is to rehearse an experience of death. The thinking behind this is that familiarity and preparedness will enable the practitioner to recognise the process as it manifests. It is said that a state of mind called The Clear Light arises at death, but passes if it is not recognised by the practitioner. It presents a powerful opportunity to spiritually progress, and possibly achieve enlightenment. This is also a mind cultivated by practitioners of tantra.

The Tibetan tradition also describes an intermediate state called The Bardo in which a person has a Bardo body. There are instructions in the texts advising people of what to look for to check that they are dead, such as walking in sand and leaving no footprints. It seems to admit the possibility of the person being around their family, though they cannot be seen.

This state is said to be temporary, traditionally lasting 49 days. The time can vary though. It is a sobering thought if you contemplate the possibility of reincarnation that you can be thrown through the windscreen of your car and straight into your next life. (There's no guarrantee that you will experience the Bardo).

It is merely speculative, but not beyond the bounds of possibility, that near death experiences offer a vision of some passge into the Bardo, or the next life. We'll all find out eventually. :biggrin5:

Thanks for the responses, Paulclem and NikolaiI. The use of "intent" as a way to distinguish Buddhist meditation from other forms makes sense. The "motivation generated by taking refuge" can characterize Buddhist meditation. I was hoping to find some way to make a distinction through the "ontology" that the Buddhist practice implies.

It also looks like there is a Buddhist yoga, but perhaps with a different intent from what the Hindus have.

The reason I ask the questions about near-death experiences where a persistent self appears to resurrect and the beginning of the universe which implies some sort of originator are that these are my base points of reality. These are my starting assumptions. I don't have any others that I am aware of. I would like to know if Buddhism would claim that I am wrong or not with accepting these assumptions.

Edit: Paul, I just read your post which seems to address the near-death experience issue. I didn't include that in the above.

I see what you are saying, and it is a good question. The problem is that we are deluded whether we are alive or experiencing the bardo, and so will always be aware of an I whatever state we are reborn in. It is said that an insect has a sense of I too.

The teachings suggest that is why a teacher is so precious, as they can lead someone to an understanding of not-self. I don't think your theory will demonstrate an originator fro the Buddhist perspective. It is a good idea and it would be interesting to read the testimony of a Buddhist who experienced it.

I would think that anything that is conscious, alive or not, would experience a persistent "I" of some sort.

Thanks for the dialog. It is good to have the chance to formulate ideas and bounce them off of someone else. These things are not clear in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I would think that anything that is conscious, alive or not, would experience a persistent "I" of some sort.

Thanks for the dialog. It is good to have the chance to formulate ideas and bounce them off of someone else. These things are not clear in my mind.

---

Yes.

Realising non-self, or the absence of an I, is a key factor in escaping from samsara in that it is this which prompts the unskillful pursuit of happiness through the reliance upon the three poisons - ignorence, hatred and attachment - to achieve this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

To add to Nik's post, I found that meditation is very practical in that it can be used to "step back" from situation rather than become involved - usually in a negative way - immediately. I found this very useful as a teacher dealing with kids, and I found it useful today when i had to deal with an abrasive learner.

One of the purposes of meditation is to help a practitioner get to know their own mind. The fact that you can watch your thoughts arise suggests something about where your thoughts come from in relation to your perception of "you" - or rather your sense of I. It's a real eye-opener to discover that "you" don't necessarily cause your thoughts, but that they arise unprompted, and goes against common assumptions.

It also introduces the idea of personal mental power over oneself. It's a common idea that a person's self control makes them either tremendously respected - especially in adversity - or a little ridiculous when they demonstrate a lack of control and "lose it". We've all lost it, and we've all experienced the calm of someone with a better sense of self control - or is that just me? :biggrin5:

As Nik says, it improves thinking, and can be used to focus - especially with concentration added in - very clearly on analytical and placement meditations. Analytical is where you mentally explore an idea or emotion - such as anger, and develop the reasons why it is a bad thing because of all the negative effects it has. Placement medtation is where you make a resolution to try to be more patient - the antidote to anger - and generate that feeling in your heart - (where Buddhsits say the mind is located).

---

I recently came across a Dharma talk by Thay that is a few years earlier than the ones I have been listening to, which were quite recent. It was striking because he was younger, I can tell by the way he was speaking significantly more quickly. Anyway it was called "Being Peace," it was one of the best talks I've ever heard... so inspiring and so enlightening.

For me, in my practice, I am mostly following Zen, which places a very high value on purity, discipline, but also devotion and love - loving-kindness. I am far less likely to talk about how the "I" is this, or that, or how it is so hard to get rid of the "I" completely. For me, my goal is not to get rid of the "I" completely; my goal is just to live in the here and now; it is to learn to smile more, to increase my understanding. . .

For me practice is a very simple, easy, and beautiful process. I used to live in a mind-state where I was feeling bliss almost all the time, and my dreams were especially peaceful and blissful. Since that time many things have happened, and now my main goal is to reach it again, and I use it as a measuring stick. . I've always known dreams are clear indicator of all that's going on in my life, reflected in my psyche and subconscious mind.

But it isn't about getting rid of the "I," really I would say, it's just about being free of all suffering, and learning to experience joy and peace more deeply. An over-active self-partiality is a symptom and not a cause. Well, perhaps that is in reverse. Bankei teaches that self-partiality is the root of all my illusions, and without the self-partiality, just living in the here and now, illusions don't/can't arise.

But being free of self-partiality isn't at all about negating the self. And self-metta is actually extremely important. Buddha said - no one deserves your love more than you yourself! So this is a cornerstone of Buddhist practice. We can't love others if we don't love ourselves deeply. It's a common thread throughout all cultures' wisdom. But I meant to say, we are kind to ourselves, it is actually a part of practice. Thay said a wonderful thing; he talked about how we have a Buddha-baby inside of us, and we should remember.

We shouldn't practice asceticism just to practice austerity. And yet, there is a great deal of value in many practices which are meant to develop purity. It runs so incredibly counter-grain to Western culture. This fact alone may be discouraging; and yet I have found, though living a life devoted to living rightly is in some ways so opposite to the culture around me, which at times can be discouraging, whenever I begin to bend under this, there is usually something which by chance occurs at the exact right time to lift me back up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

But it isn't about getting rid of the "I," really I would say, it's just about being free of all suffering, and learning to experience joy and peace more deeply. An over-active self-partiality is a symptom and not a cause. Well, perhaps that is in reverse. Bankei teaches that self-partiality is the root of all my illusions, and without the self-partiality, just living in the here and now, illusions don't/can't arise.

But being free of self-partiality isn't at all about negating the self. And self-metta is actually extremely important. Buddha said - no one deserves your love more than you yourself! So this is a cornerstone of Buddhist practice. We can't love others if we don't love ourselves deeply. It's a common thread throughout all cultures' wisdom. But I meant to say, we are kind to ourselves, it is actually a part of practice. Thay said a wonderful thing; he talked about how we have a Buddha-baby inside of us, and we should remember.

We shouldn't practice asceticism just to practice austerity. And yet, there is a great deal of value in many practices which are meant to develop purity. It runs so incredibly counter-grain to Western culture. This fact alone may be discouraging; and yet I have found, though living a life devoted to living rightly is in some ways so opposite to the culture around me, which at times can be discouraging, whenever I begin to bend under this, there is usually something which by chance occurs at the exact right time to lift me back up.

---

Thay said a wonderful thing; he talked about how we have a Buddha-baby inside of us, and we should remember.

What do you interpret this to be? Is it just another way of saying that there is Buddha potential?

But it isn't about getting rid of the "I," really I would say,

The idea is that we cause our own suffering because we are attached to a self existant I which we defend, and nurture and try to make happy to the exclusion of others. This is not necessarily the gross forms of selfishness, but a subtle grasping.

This is a quote from the website linked below to support the post above which states it more strongly:

According to the Buddha, as long as we do not realise emptiness directly - especially of our idea of how our "I" or 'self' exists - we do not properly understand how the world functions and we will continue to create causes for our own misery.

"How much suffering and fear, and
How many harmful things are in existence?
If all arises from clinging to the "I",
What should I do with this great demon?"
Shantideva

http://viewonbuddhism.org/wisdom_emptiness.html

Yes; it's about language. The language Bankei uses is speaks more directly to my heart: the root of all your illusions is self-partiality. Thay speaks a very wonderful mantra.. he says, "breathe. . . smile . . . this moment . . . only moment." Also, Bankei teaches the way out; simply reside in your unborn Buddha-mind, without turning it into anything else. If we do so, then not only do we experience for that moment, but also for all moments, as illusion cannot arise if we simply dwell in the unborn Buddha-mind.

One of the beautiful concepts Thay gives from the talk I mentioned is, he asks, "Does it take any particular effort to enjoy a beautiful sky?" To me this, and his further statements about it, expresses beautifully how practice can become enjoyable and effortless, we can enjoy the present moment and engage more fully, just as it doesn't take an extra effort to enjoy a beautiful sky.

The nub of the matter is that our suffering comes from ourselves, and our regard and protection that we afford a non-existent self - the I.

This is a very difficult concept to accept, as it appears that suffering comes from all the harassing and difficult external conditions that arise in a life. Combined with karma, it presents us with the idea that the situation we are in has been generated by our negative actions in other lives. The regard for the I is what causes the clinging to this life - Samsara.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

The nub of the matter is that our suffering comes from ourselves, and our regard and protection that we afford a non-existent self - the I.

This is a very difficult concept to accept, as it appears that suffering comes from all the harassing and difficult external conditions that arise in a life. Combined with karma, it presents us with the idea that the situation we are in has been generated by our negative actions in other lives. The regard for the I is what causes the clinging to this life - Samsara.

---

I know, and I agree with you - we are saying the same thing. It just sounds so strange the way you say it, the I.

I understand what you are saying with your last sentence, "The regard for the I is what causes the clinging to this life - Samsara," and in a sense what you're saying is exactly true. The mind creates samsara, and when the mind is transformed, etc., the universe is transformed. . . this is what Geshe Dorje taught me.

However the way you say it seems to indicate that the solution is just to not have regard for "the I" and that is all. But two things; first, we have to develop loving-kindness for ourselves, Metta, and compassion. That is a very, very integral part of the practice. The Buddha said, "No one in the universe deserves your love more than you yourself."

Tara Brach gave the wonderful point in one of her talks - there are times when it's inappropriate to focus on the non-existence of the self. For instance, if you are in a relationship with someone, and there is anger arising in you because of an abusive situation, it is not appropriate to just try to understand that there's no anger, there's no self, there's no person who is abusing you - this, she says, will only create the conditions for more karma.

However, I don't want you to think I'm just disagreeing with you. I do agree with you that taking responsibility for basically all things in your life, being aware that you did indeed create your life, is one of the most important steps to make in growing. It is also incredibly liberating. The weight of blaming others for one's situation is incredibly heavy, and it can literally trap a person and weigh them down.

I would also point out one small detail, in your sentence, Combined with karma, it presents us with the idea that the situation we are in has been generated by our negative actions in other lives. The situation we are in has been generated by all the actions in our previous existence(s). You may think it's a small quibble, but to quote Sherlock Holmes. . . details matter. :)

I wanted to share some of Thay's words, in a Dharma talk, I thought I would type it out here to share it with you. The whole talk can be downloaded for free, here, http://diydharma.org/audio/by/artist/thich_nhat_hanh it is the one called "Being Peace." I'm going to type out the first 15 minutes or so. I hope you will read it if you want, and I hope I may encourage some of you to download his talk, because I think hearing him sends much more information than just type. I'm sharing it because to me he is one of the wisest and most skillful teachers of enlightenment living today.

I've never done this before but I will try to put line breaks in appropriate places. In some places I have slightly adjusted phrases to make it more correct English.

Without further ado -


"Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

"This morning is really a wonderful morning. We just spent one hour practicing walking meditation, and we did it in a way that each step would be a joy for us. And beginning this retreat I asked a question, as whether a particular effort should be made in order for us to enjoy a beautiful morning. And that was almost four days ago.

"I did not give the answer. But it seems that after four days of practice, my friends here found out that well, there's no particular effort that should be made for us to enjoy a beautiful morning. When you look at the blue sky, you see the beauty of the sky. And do you have to make a special effort in order to enjoy it? That is the hard question. And that is the question of the practice, also, because, is the practice hard? Do we have to make a lot of efforts in order to practice? To us who have gone through four days of practice, we think that practicing is a very pleasant thing. And each second of the practice, each minute of the practice, should be a second of joy, a minute of joy. Do you have to practice enjoying the blue sky? Hm, no, I guess not. You just enjoy it.

"This morning during some questions and answer period, I said something like this, "Life is full of suffering, but it is also full of wonderful things, like the blue sky, the sunshine. . . the eyes of a baby, and that to suffer is not enough." We should be in touch with the wonder of life. It is all around us. Anytime, and anywhere. We don't need to go to China to enjoy the blue sky. We don't have to travel into the future in order to enjoy the air we are breathing here. So please be in touch with the wonderful aspects of life, because it would be a pity if we are only in touch with the suffering.

"You know as well as I do that in Theravada Buddhism we stress more on the aspect of the pain, suffering, and in Mahayana we stress more on the aspect of the wonderness of life. Look at the arhats, and the Bodhisattvas. The Bodhisattvas are very beautifully dressed, smiling all the time. Today I have asked all the children to dress very beautifully in order to be Bodhisattvas. And the other day, during a Dharma talk, children were sitting in front of me, and there was a boy, whose name is Tim, smiling beautifully and I said, "Tim you have a very beautiful smile." And he said, "Thank you." And I said, "No, you don't have to thank me. I have to thank you, because of your smile you make life more beautiful. So instead of saying thank you, you should say, 'you're welcome.'" And then, in the last two days, children have been smiling a lot, and when I look at them, they say, "You're welcome."

"So, you know that a tree - if a tree is a tree, that is about all that a tree can do. If a tree is not a tree, and life is not life, you cannot profit from the tree. The fact that a tree is a tree is very important to us, for we profit a lot from the being of a tree. Therefore, one person should be a person. If one person is a real person, living happily like a tree, smiling, then all of us, all the world will profit from a person. A person doesn't have to do a lot in order to save the world. A person has to be a person, and then that is the basis of peace. If a child smiles, if an adult smiles, that is very important. Because if, in our daily life, we can smile, we can be peaceful, happy, not only we profit from that, but the members of the family will profit from it. Living peacefully, joyfully, smiling, is blooming like a flower. And everyone in the family will profit from it - the world around us will profit from us, and that is the basic kind of peace work.

"Therefore, when I see Tim smiling, I was so happy, and if he is aware of the fact that he is making other people happy, he can say, "You're welcome." Therefore, to be in touch with the wonderful things in the world, to be able to smile, to be able to enjoy the blue sky, the sunshine, the presence of each others, I think that is the first thing [we] have to practice. And that kind of practice does not need a particular kind of effort. . . Just to be aware of the presence of these wonderful things.

"We have been practicing smiling, not only during walking meditation, during the time in the kitchen, cutting carrots, but also while we sit. Sitting in Zendo and smiling, that would be a very revolutionary act.

"At first some of us find it very hard to smile, really hard to smile. And we have to think as to how, it's so difficult to smile. Smiling means that you are yourself, that you have sovereignty over yourself, that you are not drowned into forgetfulness, and that kind of smile can be seen on the face of the Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas. So, I would like to ask you all not to be observers here, or spectators, but to be actors; let us smile, and enjoy our breathing while we go on.

"There is a gata for us to breathe and to smile, I would like to share with you, because we have been practicing that for four days. "Breathing in, I calm my body and mind. Breathing out, I smile, and I actually smile. Dwelling in the present moment, I know it is the only moment." I would like to say something about these four lines. "Breathing in, I calm body and mind." And this I do, not just reciting the line - I practice. It's like when you drink a glass of ice water, you feel the cold, the freshness, permeates the body, your whole body. So when I breathe in, I feel the breathing calming my body, calming my mind, and I feel like a glass of orange juice just pressed from fresh orange, I put it on the table, and the small particles of the orange slowly go down to the bottom and settle. So when I breathe in, I see clearly that the breathing calms my mind and my body. And when I breathe out, I smile. You know the effect of the smile. The smile can relax hundreds of muscles on the face, and relax your nervous system. And make you master of yourself. That is why the Buddha, and Bodhisattvas, are always smiling. Smiling, if you smile you see the wonder of the smile.

"Dwelling in the present moment." Though I sit here, I don't think of elsewhere in the future or the past. I sit here, and I am aware that I am sitting here. This is very important. Because we tend to be alive in the future, not now. We say that, "Wait until I finish school, and get my PhD degree, then I will be really alive." And when you got it, and it's not easy to get, then you say to yourself, "I have to wait until I get a job to be really alive." And then after the job, a house. After the house, a car. And we are not capable of being alive in the present moment. And we tend to postpone being alive to the future, to a distant future, we don't know when. Now is not the moment to be alive. And we may not be alive at all in all our lives. Therefore the technique, if we have to speak of technique, is to be in the present moment, to be aware that I am here, and now, and the only moment for me to be alive is the present moment.

"So the time you are out with me, here now, is not to listen to a lecture, but to be in the present moment. Listening to a lecture is not the important thing, but to be here, now, to enjoy the present moment, is the most important thing. "Dwelling in the present moment, I know that this is the only moment." Well, the present moment, the only moment that is real is the present moment. And we should demonstrate to ourselves that we are capable of being alive in the present moment.

"I would like you to practice that gata now, with the bell, because there is no way for us to share with you our practice except practicing together one minute. I would like to like to repeat the gata. "Breathing in, I calm the body and mind." If you don't remember, you just remember one word, calming. "Breathing in, calming," calming body and mind. "Breathing out, smiling, smiling." Real smile, you smile to yourself, not to anyone else. "Dwelling in the present moment," You have to dwell really in the present moment, be here and now; be your own true self. Don't jump into the future. Don't jump into the past. It's wonderful, this morning, it is wonderful that we sit here, able to breathe and to smile. And if you cannot enjoy the moment, if you cannot be happy now - when? When shall we be happy?

"Dwelling in the present moment, I know that this is the only moment." So, we should become - alert. Should I repeat? "Calming, smiling, present moment, only moment."


- -

So that is 17 minutes into it, and the whole talk is 73 minutes. I hope I've inspired anyone to try giving Thay a listen, as I have found doing so, and immensely beneficial. I had no idea how many words it would be. One note, I am not sure when I typed "gata," if that is the correct word, as I'm not familiar with it, but that is what it sounds like. I think of it as a mantra.