Okay, good evening.
Welcome to our study of the Dhammapada.
Tonight we're continuing on with verse 213, which reads as follows.
Pema to jayati soko.
Pema to jayati bayang.
Which means from affection is born sadness, sorrow.
From affection is born danger, fear.
For one who is free from affection, there is no sadness.
Whence or from where could there be danger?
So this verse was taught, supposedly taught in regards to Visakha,
the chief female lay disciple of the Buddha.
She was sort of the number one supporter, female supporter of the Buddha.
There were two of them.
One was Anathapindaka.
He was male.
Visakha was female.
So these two together were the two top supporters of the Buddha.
She did much to support the Buddha.
And one of the things is...
When monks would come to Savatthi, they would come to her monastery first.
Not hers, the monastery she built for them.
It's called Pubarama.
So they would come there from Rajgiri or wherever they came from.
And so she would constantly go to this monastery and receive the monks coming in and also receive the monks leaving Savatthi to go elsewhere.
And when she was unavailable to do it, she would have her children and her grandchildren do it.
So Visakha became a Sotapanna when she was seven years old.
She went to the monastery to hear the Buddha teach with her father.
And at seven years old, listening to the Dhamma, she became a Sotapanna, which means she
entered into cessation of suffering.
And then she grew up and got married and there's a story about her trials and tribulations.
But eventually she had apparently 20 children and all of her children had children and so she had many grandchildren.
And wherever she would go, they would go together like a flock of a very close-knit family where they were all very affectionate towards each other.
But one of them in particular, Datta, one of Visakha's grandchildren, when Visakha was unavailable to take care of the monks, she would have Datta act in her stead.
And the story goes, it's not a long story, the story simply goes that Datta passed away.
Not sure how, not sure why.
But Visakha was crushed.
Thinking to herself, Datta was exceptional.
She was a very special and great, wonderful person.
Compassionate, caring, thoughtful, kind, probably many.
Seems that she had many wholesome qualities.
And so crying, she went to see the Buddha.
And the Buddha asked her what was wrong and Visakha told her the story.
And the Buddha's reply was, well, Visakha, how many people are there in Savatthi?
And Visakha said, oh, I've heard it said that there are 70 million people
I don't know if there were actually 70 million people in Savatthi.
It doesn't seem big enough, but a lot of people.
And the Buddha said, asked her, so tell me, Visakha, would you like all of the people of Savatthi to be as, would you like to have the same amount of affection towards them as you had toward Datta?
And immediately she said, oh yes, amabhante.
And he said, if that were the case, he said, asocanakalo nati, there would be no time when you weren't crying.
He said, he asked, how many people die every day?
How many people die every day in Samadhi?
There must be many, thousands.
And he said, then there would be asocinakalondati.
There would be no time when you weren't sad.
if you were affectionate towards all these people and one of them were to die, how would you possibly stay from being sad?
And she said, said, it must be so venerable, sir.
It is understood by me.
Nyatamaya means I get it.
I get what you're saying.
And then the Buddha taught this verse.
So this verse is and the story together are an especially clear example of a very difficult subject
contentious subject, a subject that Buddhists and Buddhist teachers are forced to deal with, are forced to grapple with.
And that's the affection towards other beings because it is different from the affection or the
desire one might have towards an inanimate object, towards an idea, an ambition or a goal that we might set, or just towards general sensual pleasures, sex, food, music.
We can be attached to all those things.
But attachment to affection is different.
And so much so that it's quite common for people to hear this and think, that's not true.
There was a story that someone was saying, the reason the Buddha once said, someone was saying, leads to happiness.
And the Buddha said, no it doesn't.
So many people would say, no, no, affection leads to happiness.
I think this is a reason why the Buddha is not so easily quotable, is because his teachings are not immediately obvious.
That's the point of this verse, is that
It's not obvious.
What's implicit in what the Buddha is saying here is not just, this isn't just something you could say, yeah, I agree with.
It's something that actually challenges our belief.
It's revolutionary or it's quite radical.
It is very unlike how we understand things like affection, which is common of the Buddha's teaching.
It's in general very unlike how we understand the world.
Non-self, right?
Just that teaching on non-self.
Nobody hears that for the first time and says, oh yeah, that sounds like how I understand reality.
It shakes you up and it's very unfamiliar.
The idea that affection leads to sorrow, it may not be that profound, but there is profundity there.
And it is very hotly contested by ordinary people.
By ordinary, it just means people who really never thought about practicing spiritual teachings or meditation or so on.
And this is for two reasons Because it is true That in two ways Affection leads to happiness The first way Is that Like any other addiction We like the people we are affectionate towards And when you get the things you like You feel happy You feel pleasure Pleasure is happiness That's what it seems like There's no reason to contest that
But the other reason is more, more difficult, more challenging.
And that is that affection leads to goodness.
It seems to.
When you're affectionate towards someone, what do you do?
Do you act kind towards them?
Do you act generously towards them?
Are you understanding and thoughtful and friendly towards them?
Yes, all of these things.
And what about those who you're affectionate towards?
What about how they relate to you?
Are they that way?
Yes, generally they are kind.
And so there's an atmosphere of goodness, it seems, associated with affection.
And there's great happiness that comes from goodness.
The Buddha said himself, happiness is the accumulation of goodness.
So on the face of it, it seems affection leads to so much happiness.
It's very wrong to think that it would lead to sadness.
That's how many people would approach this.
So the first type of happiness of course is easily challenged by Buddhism For those who are spiritually minded, high-minded, thoughtful It becomes apparent that our attachment to people and the liking of our experiences to them and with them
is fraught with great suffering.
Not just when they die, but when they do anything we don't like.
Do anything we don't like, something happens to them that we don't like, because they are ours, because we take them as ours, then we hurt, we suffer because they suffer.
We suffer because they cause us suffering, because they act in ways that we wish they didn't.
And so we wish that everyone could be so affectionate towards each other.
We wish we could have an affectionate family.
But we don't realize that the liking aspect, the attachment aspect, is directly responsible for all of the fighting that goes on.
How many families are not affectionate?
Affectionate and then at each other's throats.
Now if you look, it's very acute in relation to romance, because of course the attachment is much greater in romance.
It's a very carnal, sensual attachment.
And so if you look at over time how people become bitter because of their attachments, and will fight and quarrel and hurt each other,
We always hurt the ones we love.
This is where that comes from Because we have attachments to them being in a certain way But you have to acknowledge the goodness and so the first line of defense would for people to say
You're wrong.
Affection leads to happiness.
And then you point out this, what the Buddha pointed out to them.
Well, indeed, not just, even if you don't fight with each other, even if you get along famously, perfectly, like Risaka and her granddaughter probably got along quite well, they're still going to die.
They're still going to get hurt, sick.
Bad things are going to happen to them and your affection, your attachment to them, even if they leave when they go away and so on.
There's sadness there.
And so people would say, ah, okay, granted, granted.
And granted when it's worst when a child dies and the parent is left to mourn them.
It should never happen, they say.
But you can, you can, you can gamble on it.
And it's a pretty good gamble because most of the time it doesn't happen.
Most of the time you die before your children do.
And your children are left to grieve.
But you would say,
Granted, there is some suffering involved with affection, but the good of it still stands.
And we admit that there is goodness in our relationships with those we are affectionate towards.
And so someone would say, it's worth it.
And it does appear worth it.
If you look at it that way, you'd say, okay, well, yes, on the balance, affectionate relationships are good.
And there may be some fighting, but if we strive to be affectionate, then we do good for each other.
And that's good, because goodness is good, right?
And this is wrong.
This is wrong because goodness and affection are not
Goodness is not supported by affection.
It is limited by it.
The person who is affectionate, who has a circle of ones they consider affectionate, is going to be limited in their goodness by their affection because they will be partial to those individuals, one.
And two, because their reason for being good becomes more and more dependent on their affection.
becomes more and more dependent because of course it's an addiction.
There is the experience of pleasure at the result of one's actions, at the results of other people's actions.
So when you are kind to others,
And you feel good about that.
You feel happy about that.
Because of your affection, that supports, it actually makes worse your attachment to them.
The more kind parents are, the more loving parents are to their children, the more then they suffer and worry when their children are in trouble or cause trouble.
So the reason for doing good becomes very much tied up with one's own craving for happiness, one's own craving for the pleasure of seeing their children succeed, seeing our loved ones do well.
And you can see this especially in the Buddha's example.
I was thinking if the Buddha had said instead, would you like to relate to all the people in Savatthi?
Let's say all the people in the world.
Would you like to relate to them as you did towards your grandchild?
and have them relate to you as though you were their grandmother, then I think the answer could be very well, yes.
But it would lead to a very different situation because affection is not the same as kindness, goodness.
If a person was in this sort of
Well, if a person was in this sort of affectionate relationship with all people, there would be no time for goodness.
They would be, of course, insane with sadness.
But if on the other hand, a person was in a relationship of goodness related, you know, in the same way that we are kind and thoughtful and helpful towards our circle of people.
If we were like that to all beings, there would be no room for affection.
There would be no reason or inclination towards it.
One would be
One would have to be simply open to relating kindly to the person in front of them.
There would be no differentiation.
There would have to be this very Buddhist state of non-differentiation, which means if I experience this, I treat it this way.
But if I experience that, I treat it the very same way.
And when you relate to people that way, it comes from the capacity, the ability to relate to reality that way.
Same way we relate to pain, the same way we relate to pleasure, we relate to calm.
loud noise, quiet, when you're able to relate to them without differentiating.
This is the only way you could possibly be truly and perfectly caring and kind and good.
And so you see actually affection limits goodness and is therefore quite selfish.
We think the affection that we have towards others, look at me being kind to my children.
We think it's very magnanimous of us, very good of us.
It actually is limiting and the more affectionate we are.
And so you see this families around the world, some cultures, family is so important and you're so kind and helpful to your children, your family, but you would destroy others to support your children, to support your family.
For other people, it's maybe their religion.
Good to your people in your religious group, but who cares what you do?
Do whatever you want to those who are outside of it.
Some people, it's country, our country.
So many, you hear about, it's none of our business, the suffering that's going on on the other side of the world.
Now, I think the one thing I could qualify this with is by saying, of course, no one is expected to look after the whole world.
There is, in fact, I think, a goodness and a greatness when people look after their own circle of relations.
So looking after your families, I think there's a greatness there.
But it's much more looking after the people who you interact with, people who you are responsible for, rather than partiality, affection, which limits it, which is the limiting factor to your goodness.
And so you can see, in fact, it's not a question of
Affection Taking the good with the Taking the bad with the good Taking the bad with the good Taking the good with the bad When you have good and bad Well, it's good enough It's good enough But it's going to lead to suffering It's good enough for most people And most people get by and they suffer And they die and they're born and do it again And so on and so on We're very quick to forget You know
I've seen, I'm sure everyone has seen, people go through such suffering because of family.
Such sadness, such anguish, such cruelty to each other, evil.
And then forget about it and say, oh, you know, best thing I did to have children, to have family.
Sorry, my mother said that to me recently.
I'm not thinking of her specifically in this case, but it's probably true.
In our family, there were experiences like that as well.
Great suffering, great cruelty to each other.
And now we get along and we think family is great and so on.
And it's great that we get along.
But we've somehow tempered our affection, which I think happens as you get older, you know.
Nonetheless, it's not a question of, again, it's not one big thing where you say, I take the affection and I take the good relationship we have, and it's one thing.
No, it's very much two things.
And it's two sides of the equation or two poles, polar opposites.
And most people are just somewhere in the middle where they are both.
But if we can become less attached
And more and more caring, more and more kind, thoughtful, generous, absolutely will be more and more able to be that way towards all beings and to have a better, happier life.
It's a very important underpinning of the Buddha's teaching and so it has great importance in our practice, of course, because we're very much attached to people.
It's a good example of how we have to separate out our lives into ultimate reality.
And this works, it's a good example for any problem we might face.
Sometimes our problems are so complicated
But they can all be simplified down to experience.
There's no complicated experience.
Every experience is a moment.
And it's a moment where we can react in a positive way, react in a negative way.
It's a moment where we can see clearly or a moment where we can get lost.
Every moment.
And so practice of Buddhism is cultivating the ability to see clearly.
So we don't get lost.
Not that we aren't kind and caring and thoughtful.
But that we give up this idea of affection.
That we learn to rise above our addiction to the pleasure of objects.
Because ultimately that's one reality that's in so much of what we do.
It's in our relationships, it's in our interactions with inanimate objects, our addiction to the pleasure that comes from certain experiences.
And that's very specific.
And that's very specifically what we're focused on.
It is in fact thought to be the cause of suffering.
Not thought to be, it is from a Buddhist perspective the cause of suffering.
Everything else is fine.
Everything else would be perfect if you just didn't have this one little thing where we needed to find pleasure.
Because it's that which stops us from being happy.
It's that which stops us from being at peace.
And it's that which we seek to understand in our practice of insight meditation.
So a very good verse.
Good one to challenge us with.
Buddha's not very quotable because you don't hear the Buddha's words and say, yeah, that makes sense.
But what is very profound and special about the Buddha's teaching is once you are
present, living here, experiencing this.
This means this.
Once you are in tune with your experiences of seeing and hearing, the present moment, the reality, then it all makes very much sense.
It's like before you practice, if you read the Buddha's teaching, you have one experience of it.
And an experience of the Buddha's teaching after you practice is so much, it's like night and day different.
It's almost like you read something, two different things.
Because your perspective is completely different.
And the fact that that happens, that the Buddha's teaching makes sense, complete sense, to one who sees reality clearly, without any reference to Buddhism at all, but one who is present, one who is here and now in touch with reality.
Buddhism is only...
It's only agreeable to people who are in touch with reality.
Those are the only people who are going to appreciate it.
Everybody else won't appreciate it.
It sounds like you're saying it's, it almost sounds like it's something that's very niche, right?
That's the word I'm looking for.
It's a very niche sort of teaching.
It's only for people who understand reality, who appreciate, who are in touch with reality.
But that's a very powerful statement.
I mean, it's easy to say.
But if you look at it, if you examine it, you can see that it's true.
Because what we're doing here is not Buddhist in any niche or specific sense.
It's Buddhist in the very simple word Buddha.
A Buddha is someone who knows, someone who is awake.
And awake just means here, now, present.
So that's the teaching Dhammapada verse 213 Thank you all for listening I wish you all the best