Dhammapada verses 1-10

Please note that in this discussion I assume that the word “mind” in these verses is a translation of the term citta. This is incorrect according to this resource, which shows the text talking about mano. The discussion overall remains very rich, salient, and faithful to the import of the text. The primary distinction is that mano points more closely to the “mind” as a rational faculty where citta points to “mind” as the unfolding subjective process.

The philosophical impacts of this nuance are worth exploration – and maybe not that big of a deal.

*transcript generated by AI

Alright.

Thank you all so much for being here.

It’s fun to have a nice, strong crew on our first Thursday of 2025, so I really appreciate that.

This section, so far we’ve done things that we’ve been doing all along in Opendoor with the Qigong, Zazen, and service, a little bit different order.

Definitely some kinks to work out in terms of the Zen Do setup and some of the timing, but all in all, it feels pretty exciting.

This section, however, though, we’re going to start using sacred scriptures to seed the Dharma discussion and study instead of me just giving a Dharma talk.

It was Ryan’s idea actually.

He’s like, well, it’s not priest training, but you have this core set of texts that you require all your priests to read.

Doing it a little bit at a time, week by week, it’ll take, I don’t know, 15 years to get you the material.

It’s certainly not a thing, so we might bounce around a little bit because we might get tired of this or that text, but we’ll just grab from that corpus of literature to work our way through a Dharma study.

Now, today we’re going to start with the Dhammapada, and for those of you who are aware, or who are not aware, the priest training texts are structured going backward in time forward.

So we start with what is believed to be the earliest teachings that are relevant to our lineage, and then we move forward in time after that, at least for the first chunk, and then we do a little hopping around in year two of priest training, and all of that’s up for potentially restructuring, but that means that we start with the Dhammapada, some of the earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha.

Dhammapada actually means the foot of the Buddha, so it’s kind of like walking the Buddhist path or walking the path of the Dharma is one way to think about it.

It’s also a way to think of it as a root.

So we’re going to start just by reading Twins, which is the first little section here.

It’s 20 verses, doesn’t take very long at all, and let this just kind of sink in and vibrate in your body, and then just feel what needs to be said afterwards, right?

And that’ll be how we start our Dharma study.

Mind is the forerunner of all actions.

All deeds are led by mind, created by mind.

If one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, suffering follows.

As the wheel follows the hoof of an ox pulling a cart.

Mind is the forerunner of all actions.

All deeds are led by mind, created by mind.

If one speaks or acts with a serene mind, happiness follows, as surely as one’s shadow.

He abused me, mistreated me, defeated me, robbed me.

Harboring such thoughts keeps hatred alive.

He abused me, mistreated me, defeated me, robbed me.

Releasing such thoughts banishes hatred for all time.

Animosity does not eradicate animosity.

Only by loving kindness is animosity dissolved.

This law is ancient and eternal.

There are those who are aware that they are always facing death.

Knowing this, they put aside all quarrels.

The one who lives for sensation, indulgent in eating, lazy and lacking in energy, the tempter Mara breaks, just as the wind breaks a frail tree.

The one who lives mindfully, senses under control, moderate to eating, devout, energetic, cannot be overthrown by Mara, just as the wind cannot shake a rocky mountain.

The monk’s robe does not in itself render one free from stain.

If the one who wears that robe is lacking in self-control and honesty, he is unworthy of such a robe.

Only one who is free from stain, well-disciplined, honest, and endowed with self-control is worthy of the monk’s robe.

Actually, that’s about halfway, so I’m going to stop there, and we’ll see if we read more today, but there’s certainly plenty that we could talk about in those 10 verses.

So what arises?

Anything jump out and grab anybody as a, as a, ooh, yeah, that’s the thing, or, oh, really?

I don’t want to follow that.

Hey there, Omi.

It’s, what occurs to me is the definition of mind.

Not that there’s a right or wrong definition, but I want to understand clearly, because sometimes I think of mind, capital M, mind, right?

Mind.

It sounds like they’re using a personal mind, like all the mental domain of an individual, so that, that’s just how I’m looking at it, and that’s what comes up for me.

Yeah, so that’s a great question, and I would suspect, I don’t have the Sanskrit here in front of me, but I would suspect that it’s translating the word citta, c-i-t-t-a, and as a Sanskrit term, citta has been used for all levels of mind, and so I think if we want to, we can be quite specific, because mind is the forerunner of all actions.

Well, that, to me, is big mind, because, you know, we are led by our, the deepest desires of our hearts.

The most, the most powerful influence in our entire being is that which flows from big mind and emanates into individuality, right?

And then it’s like, so this is led by the mind, right?

And we live in an ongoing frame, and so what we do impacts that mind, and so the cyclical cause-effect, seeds and fruit creating each other, then says that all these are led by mind, created by mind.

Speaking with a corrupt mind, right?

Speaking with a serene mind, right?

Conditions the mind, conditions the mind conditions the mind, conditions the heart’s deepest desires to produce the following fruit, and so taking this into a non-dual frame, all of a sudden means that mind, citta, is both.

Okay, that must be the case, because can big mind be corrupt?

So, where it says, if one speaks or acts with a corrupt mind, suffering follows, and what, so now we’re just talking about basic karmic cause and effect.

If I speak or act with a corrupt thought, word, or deed, that feeds back into the system as a seed planted as a cause, and big mind can only produce the fruit of that.

It’s not corrupted, it is, but if you, put poop in it, you get poop out.

Yeah, thank you.

Pretty gnarly start.

Yeah, Tyson.

But at the same time, if it’s karmic in cause and effect, doesn’t big mind kind of function as the big washing machine, and yeah, you threw me in some dirty stuff, but I’m going to clean it up, and so the next time you take it out, it might be a little more polished.

Not in my experience.

As far, I mean, you know, and this is a great question, definitely open mics, everybody, and this is not just, you know, satsang style here.

I definitely want this to be an overall discussion, but pure selfless awareness doesn’t care about your karma.

Karma is just a natural law, so it doesn’t, it just, it is cause and effect.

It is interdependent function, right, and so how can it wash anything?

For it to wash things would mean that it would have a self that says that this is good, and this is bad, and this needs change, and this doesn’t need change.

So nothing gets recycled, it just goes downstream, and you get the pureness of what’s coming from upstream.

But turn that stream into a circle.

It’s just like the water cycle, right?

If you pollute your river, your river is polluted, and you’re going to eat three-headed fish.

Hey, now.

I grew up in Kailua Falls.

Our river caught fire, all right?

Our river caught fire.

We win.

Touche, sir.

Touche.

I mean, if I could interject, I look at it as kind of a combination of the two.

So if you speak your act with a corrupt mind, then what results is corrupt in some way.

Correct.

Right.

However, the big M mind that’s the observer that looks at all of that, maybe in the moment or maybe reflecting afterwards, then goes, hey, you didn’t do so great there.

Maybe fix it going forward, and then so you take that and just constantly cycle that every time, try to go, hey, you’re a little bit better than the last time.

It’s the same point that I tend to make all the time because I’m stuck right in the middle of it with a small child, like, hey, did you drive me absolutely insane today?

Okay, yes.

How did I react to that?

Was it out of compassion?

Was it out of frustration?

Was it out of whatever?

Was it a reasoned response?

Or was it an intentional response?

And was that intentional response coming from a place of compassion?

It was coming from a place of you’ve turned my last hair gray today.

And then that’s where big M mind that comes in and goes, okay, well, yeah, some were good, some were not great.

Here’s the not great.

Work on the not great.

And then that’s how you grow.

That’s how you continue to evolve.

At least that’s kind of where I’m pulling from on that, I guess.

Yeah.

So this is really important because it taps into what do we mean by big mind?

What you just indicated is that kind of a higher self, self that’s aligned with a certain value system and has the capacity to detach from your reactivity and make enlightening choices, right?

That’s not necessarily what I think big M mind when we’re talking about Chittenden Pure Selfless Awareness relates to.

But I think I hear somebody else want to chime in.

Was it Robin?

No?

I thought I heard somebody over there want to say something.

I heard a cough, a chuckle or something.

Okay.

But I think so.

And the way that I understand this whole process here, there’s really three me’s.

There’s the egocentric me, right?

Basic small S self.

There’s the higher self, Christ Consciousness, the big S me, right?

And there’s the true self.

And the true self is the singularity, that which is beyond all knowing.

Right?

And so when I think of Pure Selfless Awareness, I think of true self, where in which there is no individuality.

There is only the cosmic web of interpenetration.

And that, as far as I can tell, that state of mind has no value judgments.

So it’s incapable of saying the thing you did there was bad.

All of that happens in the realm of some sort of self, right?

I didn’t like the way that impacted me, or that’s not who I want to be based on my value scheme, right?

It all has an individual identity attached to it.

But the cosmos, as far as I can tell, doesn’t have value judgments.

That’s a good distinction.

I don’t know if I’ve quite…

Still, I was quite excited just to be like, hey, you’re self-aware enough to be like, yeah, that sucked.

Don’t do that again.

Functionally, that’s about as high as you need to go.

After that, it just starts getting weird.

There’s an interesting distinction.

Oh, I see a chat.

Oh, no.

Well, we’ll miss you.

Hopefully, everything goes well, and we’ll see you next week.

I just had an urgent work thing come up.

Oh, dang.

Work is actually great.

Yay, work!

Keep it up.

All right.

Yeah, so with the three different definitions of self you gave, Umi, if we go with that, then there’s three different types of mind.

And my complaint, if you will, is, gee whiz, I wish that the Dhammapada would just say which one they’re talking about, rather than just keep saying the same thing over and over and over again.

Gee whiz, I wish that the Dhammapada would just say which one they’re talking about, rather than just keep saying mind every time and leave it up to me to figure out which one they’re pointing at in any given statement.

Couldn’t it just be all?

Does there need to be a distinction?

From my logical mind, to make sense of it, there does.

But you’re right.

I think, so one, I want to go read the Sanskrit, because it might be more specific than this translation.

So that was going to be my question.

Is it a translation issue, or is it a original, you know, what was it originally?

So we’ll have to check that out.

But then there’s, you know, I’m an emanationist.

So my experience of reality has said that these are all connected in a constant flow, connected in a constant flow, and that flow is like a double helix going both ways.

So there is no, we functionally experience different layers of self, but those layers of self are just like pure white light.

White light with maybe like a tinge of, I like to think of it with a tinge of gold, you know, as a Kabbalist, Tiferet, it’s gold, you know, it’s beautiful, right?

And then we start to add all the other colors by the time we get into that lower self, right?

So it’s that fracturing of light that we kind of go through, but it’s all just still the same light.

So there’s not really a distinction between the minds except for in the function that they hold for the individual organism as it moves through its life and where we choose to anchor ourselves.

Now, I don’t know if that directly addresses your question, but that is how I have come to understand terms like this, where mind as a former of all actions is totally like pure light pouring through, but it’s also whatever’s happening in the higher self and it’s whatever happening in the individual self.

Yeah, that makes sense.

The separation is artificial and maybe is more logically accurate to talk about it the way they do.

And it’s just, reality is like a slippery fish.

I just want to get a good bite out of it, but it’s tricky.

This is a good way to put that.

Yeah, I like it.

So we’ve been talking about the first two verses.

Is there anything, I think the he abused me, mistreated me, defeated me, robbed me, harboring such thoughts keeps hatred alive, releasing such thoughts banishes hatred for all.

Does anyone have anything you want to pick up around that pair of twins?

Would you like a serious response or a joking response?

Both.

I’m trying real hard not to sing Frozen right now.

Just let it go.

Just let it go.

I mean, that’s all I took from that literally was, hey, if you hold on to it, it’s going to make you miserable.

If you let it go by however, you know, whatever means you need to do to let that thing go, you’ll be better off for it because you can’t change the fact that it happened.

You can only change how you deal with it.

So let it go.

Pretty straightforward.

Yeah, I have spent a lot of time with that dichotomy over the last couple of years and where I struggle with that.

I mean, of course, that’s the reality.

That’s truth.

You will never transcend animosity by returning that energy or that negative context that would go with that energy.

That’s where I need to go further into the Dhammapada, where it then talks about the importance of who you associate with for that to resonate with me because otherwise I just fall into, it’s all good.

Everything’s fine.

Everybody’s fine.

And then it just starts the whole ball of wax rolling again.

And so for myself, I need to see the truth of that, but then it does not require, it requires that you do not forget.

To me, this passage is a forgiveness and to forgive does not mean to forget or you just keep the same cycle going.

Yeah, thank you for that.

And that, I think, is a critical piece of context for the Dhammapada, which is that we have to remember that this was written for ascetic monks.

This is for, this is not, I mean, it is advice to the people, you know, but it’s advice to the people coming from renunciants, coming from people who lived in, mostly in solitude or, and, you know, had a very different set of social interactions and social concerns than we have.

And then this, the advice is, you’re not going to attain to the states that you’re looking for.

You’re not going to achieve intermediate enlightenment.

You’re not going to achieve inner peace if you are rolling around in this stuff, right?

So we have to, I think, constantly reflect on the fact that this is advice for us to have inner peace.

It’s not, generally speaking, although there are definitely places in here where it shows very explicit things about how we interact with people, and they’re pretty cut and dry, like if those people aren’t good for you, get away from them, right?

It’s pretty ruthless.

But generally speaking, most of this is directions for us to treat our own minds, not really a behavioral, social structure or commentary or set of, like, rules and regulations for dealing with the world.

And yeah, yeah, that’s a really good point.

Hey, bro, I think it’s also one of those things that’s very easy to read and very easy to understand from a, you know, 30,000-follow me, just let it go.

Like, regardless of how absolutely shit whatever happened was, yeah, just let it go, it’s fine.

Very different thing to put into practice.

And so, you know, I mean, it’s not always as easy as it, you know, easy to understand, very hard to, just like everything else, you know, very, has very degrees of difficulty in putting it into practice, depending on the context of, you know, what you’re trying to let go, for sure.

I think I saw Tyson indicate.

Yeah, to me, it’s definitely about being in the now and not looking back and looking forward.

It’s kind of like the samurai, you know, if you’re going to do it, do it now and do it cleanly.

And like, hopefully, tonight, the fighting Irish and tomorrow night, the Buckeyes.

Sports ball.

Yeah.

So, you know, we could, we could dig into a little bit to releasing the things.

But I think as we study more, there’s going to be a lot more in here about, like, the technique of releasing things, how do we release things.

And even later in this chapter, it actually gets into that a little bit.

So I don’t know if we might want to run on to some of the things that are connected to that, or if we want to look at a really juicy section here.

The one who lives for sensation, indulgent in eating, lazy and lacking in energy, the tempter Mara breaks just as the wind breaks a pale tree.

The one who lives mindfully, senses under control, moderate in eating, devout, energetic, cannot be overthrown by Mara just as the wind cannot shake a rocky mountain.

The monk’s robe does not in itself render one free from stain.

If the one who wears that robe is lacking in self-control and honesty, he is unworthy of such a robe.

I think already here, we’re talking, we’re breaking into what it’s talking about in terms of letting stuff go.

But what do y’all think?

Anybody else?

Personally, personally, that’s the hardest passage there, period, because it applies to every facet of your life, regardless of what it is.

The first part, anyway.

So it’s just discipline.

That’s all it is.

It’s literally just discipline.

If you’re going to go, hey, I’m going to do this and this and this because I love food and I love this and I love, you know, I could go out and work on my fitness or I could whatever, or I could sit and play Xbox and do nothing.

Or I could, what have, it’s just discipline.

And sometimes, maybe not even sometimes, a lot of the times, I’m speaking for myself, sometimes that’s the hardest thing to maintain is just good old-fashioned self-discipline.

At least for me, I find that it swings very wildly.

I’ll do like, which I mean, I’m a bird, so like I’m not, you know, inexperienced in the whole discipline thing, but you’re going to find a balance between the two, at least for myself, I find it’s either super regimented and sometimes unsustainable outside of, you know, that rigid military or rigid monastic, you know, it would be much easier to maintain very strict discipline if you’re a monk.

That’s what you do, is have that discipline.

It’s finding a balance between the two.

For a layperson in everyday life, it’s like, yeah, I should be a little bit more disciplined.

I should eat a little less.

I should be a little bit more mindful of what I’m doing.

And sometimes that’s the hardest thing to keep in mind, at least for me, on a daily basis.

The second part of that passage is literally just, because you wear that rope doesn’t make you, the clothes don’t make the men.

It’s how I grew up, or the woman, you know, just because you wear the rope doesn’t necessarily if this isn’t correct, then you can wear whatever you want.

And you’re not going to get anything out of it.

My two cents.

Thank you.

I think you’re not the only one here who has such a relationship with discipline.

I don’t know whom he’s talking to.

I see Robin laughing.

I didn’t know if he was talking to me.

He gets to look in one spot.

What are they, orioke bowls?

I keep threatening to buy a set.

I’m like, that’s the only footwear I’ll have forever.

There you go.

I think whoever wrote the Dhammapada would have a lot to say about the world today.

I think Mara is clearly in charge of this place.

It’s good advice, it’s good advice then and now, right?

Today, it applies all the way to like, I’m just thinking screens and dopamine and culture of immediate gratification constantly, you know, it’s like the antithesis of what they’re seem to be talking about.

And I think this is, for me, this is where hollow bones, in this particular form, the Dharma is so beautiful, and the idea of a lay monasticism, the idea of being sophisticated enough in our discipline to hold ourselves in a disciplined way, but not allow that to turn into rigidly expecting others to be disciplined.

And that’s, I think, one of the hardest things to do is to maintain our own internal discipline in a world that is undisciplined, right?

And this then translates to a lot of the other stuff that I teach, if you come to your turn, or if you do martial arts with me or whatever, so much of the training has to do with, we are going to vibrate at the frequency we choose to vibrate, and we are going to let that impact the world, instead of having the world vibrate at whatever frequency it’s vibing at, and having that be what we sync up to, right?

And I think finding little ways, you know, like one of my mantras is, don’t put it down, put it away.

Don’t put it down, put it away.

And that’s just like a way to keep myself disciplined, as I live in a space with beings that don’t know what that means, right?

Even though they ostensibly speak English and are doing well in school.

But anything that we can do, I think, to make ourselves be the radiant force, to have that, it’s called Ba, Japanese Ba, that energetic field that is expanding out from us, and catching people’s attention so that they look and they go, oh, that’s what a disciplined life is like.

That’s not mean.

That’s not somebody beating me.

That’s not privation.

Well, actually, they’re thriving in their discipline.

That’s not what I typically think of, right?

And I think that’s a rich opportunity for us as a lay order to kind of become more sophisticated in how we approach these things.

It also occurs to me that if one is in an environment rich with distractions, you have to be even more disciplined internally to be able to achieve the same amount of output that you would have if you were in an environment without any distractions.

The amount of internal discipline you need for the same outcome is less.

So we need a lot of internal discipline to be lay practitioners in the world today, right?

Some more than others.

Sure.

Which makes cultivating effortless concentration that much more critical.

Robin, do I see you getting ready to hop on?

Well, I was just thinking how over the years learning self-care and how much that requires discipline.

And I think that’s what this is kind of talking about, that that moral breaks those who do not have the discipline because your way of caring for yourself is indulgence.

There’s a huge difference between care and indulgence.

And care requires order and routine.

And also flexibility within that.

Whereas indulgence is a former hedonist.

Former or recovering?

Oh, that’s good.

That’s good.

All right, so I’m keeping an eye on the time here, which tells me that actually we need to be thinking about doing our closing check-in, which says, so help me remember, we went through to verse 10, chapter 1, verse 10.

So we’ll pick up on verse 11 next Thursday and see where that Dharma discussion is going to take us in the next few days.