« Previous | Table of Content | Next »

The Way to Practice in Order to Abide with Emptiness

In the last talk I explained all the various principles associated with emptiness. Now there remains only to speak of the ways to practise in order to abide with emptiness, ways that will be useful to an people, even those who are uneducated or haven't studied the texts for themselves.

Regarding this matter of 'abiding with emptiness' we will have to look at the meanings of a number of words in some detail, in particular the words 'know' and 'realize' and the phrases 'see clearly', 'abide with' and 'to be empty'. To speak in everyday language

we know = we know emptiness
we realize = we realize emptiness
we see clearly = we see emptiness clearly
we abide with = we abide with emptiness
we are empty = we are empty with emptiness - i.e. we are emptiness itself.

How do all these phrases differ in profundity? In what way can they be looked at so as to have the same meaning or level of meaning?

First of all, to take the phrase 'we know emptiness', most people will think that that means that we have studied and discussed it. If our knowing is merely that much then we don't know emptiness correctly. The word 'know' in Dhamma-language doesn't refer to the knowing that comes from study or listening or anything like that. Such knowing, even if we are sure that we fully understand, is not complete. The words 'know' and 'understand' in ordinary everyday language are solely a matter of reading and listening, of thought and logical consideration. Those techniques cannot be employed to know emptiness. The knowing of emptiness refers to the awareness of emptiness in a mind that is truly empty. For there to be the' knowing of emptiness, emptiness must be experienced at the moment of knowing, it must be a moment of direct realization. This then is called 'knowing emptiness'.

After we've heard something a couple of times, going off and thinking about it and then considering logically that it should be possible or that it 'may well be like that, is not yet the knowing that is meant here, it is the knowing and understanding of worldly language. Please take the word 'know' as it is used here in the particular sense it has in the Buddhist Teachings.

To know Dhamma means that Dhamma is truly present and that we are aware of it. Similarly to know emptiness means that emptiness is manifest in the awareness. So I have encouraged people over and over again that in any moment that the mind has any measure of emptiness, even if it's not finally or perfectly empty, to keep recognizing it. Actually, on any one day emptiness is there repeatedly and even if it's not a fixed, absolute emptiness it's still very good, if we take the trouble to observe it. If we take an interest in this sort of emptiness right from the start, it will generate a contentment with emptiness that will make it easy to practise to attain the real thing. Therefore the phrase 'we know emptiness' refers to having emptiness manifest in the awareness.

The phrase 'seeing emptiness clearly' is the same. It is seeing with more and more clarity and precision. When we have become aware of the mind's emptiness we contemplate it, focus our awareness on it until there is a clear penetrative seeing of it, or in other words a thorough knowing. The meaning of the phrase 'we realize emptiness' is once again the same. It refers to the moment of realization. In conventional terms it's said that 'we' realize emptiness but in fact it's the mind that realizes, it is the awareness that is the 'one who is aware' and that realizes emptiness.

As for the phrase 'abiding with emptiness' it refers to sunnatavihara. Living and breathing with the constant awareness of emptiness is called 'abiding with emptiness'.

The phrase 'being empty' means that there is no feeling of 'self' or 'belonging to self', there is no feeling of 'I' and 'mine', the creations of craving and grasping. Being void of these things is 'being empty'. What is it that is empty? Once again it is the mind that is empty, 'emptied of the feelings of 'self', and of 'belonging to self', 'both in their crude and subtle forms. If the mind is empty to the degree of being free of even the refined self it is said that the mind is itself emptiness. This agrees with the teaching of some other Buddhist traditions that mind is emptiness, emptiness is mind; emptiness is Buddha, Buddha is emptiness, emptiness is Dhamma, Dhamma is emptiness. There is only one thing. All the myriad things that we are acquainted with are nothing but emptiness. I will make this clear by looking into the word empty once more.

The word 'empty' or 'emptiness' is pointing at two things, two characteristics.

Firstly, it refers 'to the characteristic of all things. Please fix in your minds that the characteristic of all things is emptiness. This phrase 'all things' must be understood correctly as encompassing every single thing both rupadhammas and namadhammas, everything from a speck of dust up to Nibbana. It must be well understood that in a speck of dust there is emptiness or absence of self, absence of a permanent, independent entity. Gold, silver and diamonds have the characteristic of absence of a permanent, independent entity. Going on to the mind and heart, thoughts and feelings, each thing is characterized by emptiness, absence of a permanent, independent entity.

The study and practice of Dhamma has the characteristic of absence of a permanent, independent entity. Finally the Path Realizations, their Fruits and Nibbana, itself all have this same characteristic, it's just that we don't see it. Even a sparrow flying to and fro has the characteristic of emptiness but we don't see it. Please think this over, contemplate it, observe and ponder over it until you perceive that all things display the characteristic of emptiness, it's just that we don't see it. So who is to blame but ourselves? It's like the old Zen riddle, or koan as they call it, that 'An ancient pine tree is proclaiming the Dhamma'. That old pine tree is displaying emptiness, the emptiness that it shares with all things but people don't see it, don't hear its Dhamma teaching, its proclamation of the characteristic of emptiness. This then is the word 'empty' in its first sense as relating to all things.

The word 'empty' in its second sense refers to the characteristic of the mind that is free from all grasping and clinging. Regarding this point please understand that ordinarily, although the mind is empty of self, it doesn't realize that it is empty, because it is constantly enveloped and disturbed by the conceptual thought that feeds on sense contact. Consequently, the mind is neither aware of its own emptiness nor the emptiness in all things. But whenever the mind completely throws off that which is enveloping it, the grasping and clinging of delusion and ignorance, and detaches from it completely, then the mind through its non - clinging has the characteristic of emptiness.

The two sorts of emptiness, the emptiness of the non-clinging mind and the emptiness of all things are related. Because all things do truly have the characteristic of being empty of a self, a permanent, independent entity to be grasped at or clung to, we are able to see the truth of emptiness. If in fact they weren't empty of self, then it would be impossible to see their emptiness. But as it is, on the contrary, although all things are empty we see everyone of them as not - empty.

The mind that is enveloped by defilements and ignorance grasps at and clings to all of them as self, even a speck of dust. Even a tiny particle of dust is conceived to be an independent entity, a 'second person' that stands apart from ourselves, the first person: We label the second person, the various things that surround us, as being this and being that, and in every case see them as being permanent, independent entities.

Therefore we must know absolutely correctly the meaning of the word 'empty' which, to sum up, is to know that firstly it is the characteristic of all things and secondly it is the characteristic of the non - clinging mind. The first emptiness is an object of knowledge or realization. The second emptiness is the empty mind, the characteristic of the mind that is empty through realizing the truth of emptiness. Thus the mind seeing emptiness in all things disintegrates of itself, leaving only emptiness. It becomes emptiness itself and sees everything as emptiness, everything as I have said from a speck of dust up to Nibbana. Material objects, people, animals, time and space, every sort of dhamma melt into emptiness through knowing the truth of this point. This is the meaning of the word empty.

What I've said so far should have been enough for all of you to have observed or grasped for yourself that the word 'empty' is equivalent to the remainderless extinction of 'I' and 'mine', the utter destruction of self.

The self is merely a condition that arises when there is grasping and clinging in the mind. We don't see it as empty, but see it as self, because of that grasping and clinging with ignorance and defilement. There being ignorance or unknowing in the mind grasping arises by itself, it's not that we make a deliberate effort or consciously establish a self. When the mind contains avijja, it inevitably experiences all things as being independent entities, with no need for there to be any deliberate intention.

If authentic knowing takes place, the seeing of all things as they truly are, then we will see the truth that emptiness is the remainderless extinction of self. So it can be laid down as a principle, that 'empty' means the remainderless extinction of self. That being so we should give some attention to understanding the phrase 'remainderless extinction' correctly.

What is the extinction, with remainder and what is the extinction without remainder? Extinction with remainder means a mere change of shape or form: although one form is extinguished there remains the germ of a new one. There is still grasping and clinging continually in the mind, first at this thing and then at that.

The truth-discerning awareness or knowledge of Dhamma which has not yet reached its peak, can only extinguish some types of grasping, sometimes. Some people may be of the opinion that dust is not an independent entity but that a sparrow is. Others may see that trees and animals are not independent entities but take people to be so. In seeing people as independent entities or as selves, some will say that the body is not - self but the mind is. This is called incomplete extinction; some aspects are extinguished but others are always left behind as self. One may reach the point of saying that the mind is not - self but that some good qualities of the mind, such as the virtues, are. Or one may believe that if these are not - self then that which is beyond time, the Nibbana-element is self. This sort of extinguishing always leaves a seed. Whenever we sweep out the whole lot, even the Nibbana -element, as not - self that action is called the true remainderless extinction of ego or self.

Therefore the phrase 'the remainderless extinction of ego' means the non - arising of ego - consciousness. In terms of practice it means preventing its arising, and to practise in this manner consistently may also be called the remainderless extinction of ego. Correct or impeccable practice refers to the practice whereby ego - consciousness has no way of arising in the future, in other words, not allowing it to arise at any moment.

What has been said so far should be enough for everyone to be able to understand the phrase 'the birth of ego'. Birth here does not mean the birth from a mother's womb but birth in the vastness of the mind. So please understand that the feeling 'I am I' that arises is born the mind, and 'birth' is not the birth of the physical body.

It must be understood that even though the body has emerged from the womb, physical birth may be considered to be completely meaningless until there is a mental birth, a birth of ego - consciousness. The body is just a lump of matter until there occurs the grasping and clinging to self. At that moment the birth of that lump of flesh is brought to completion. At the moment that self-consciousness arises in a child it is said to be born. As soon as that feeling is absent then 'it dies' and reverts to being a lump of flesh once more. As long as there is no other feeling able to stimulate the creation of a self, there is no birth; it is the same as if the child is dead. But all of a sudden if there is contact with a sense object and self - consciousness arises again, then there is a new birth, and then shortly afterwards another death. So it can be said that. in a single day a child is born many times.

The way to practice in order to liver with emptiness lies right here, right in the practice of preventing self-consciousness arising in this lump of flesh. This is the main point. As for the details, one must look to see quite clearly how to do the practice and at what moments or occasions to practise. These two points must be explained together. Consequently, in order to facilitate our understanding we will divide practice up into three occasions or times:

The 'ordinary' times
The moments of sense-contact
The moment of physical death

How should we practise on the first occasion, in the 'normal times' when there is no association with sense- objects? These 'ordinary times' are the occasions when we are doing some kind of work alone and unconcerned, and may perhaps be times of performing our daily tasks or of practising some kind of formal meditation. There is no problem due to sense-contact. We may be doing some worldly task, or if it's in our spare time reading a book or even thinking about something, as long as the mind is undisturbed by sense-contact. At such times our practice must be the study and clarification of the way in which things are empty and the way in which to make the mind empty and undeluded by all things. Think about it, study it for yourself, enquire from others, and discuss it regularly. Keep doing it.

There is another kind of short cut particularly for lay-people who have never ordained or studied the scriptures and for those who cannot read at all. It has the same meaning and aim, the knowledge of the emptiness of all things, but with such people we don't use the word emptiness as they will not understand; We tell them to make a habit of contemplating what there is that is worth having and what there is that is worth being. Gaining wealth, possessions, prestige and power, what is worth gaining, what is worth having? Being a human being, being a millionaire, being a beggar, being a king, being a king's subject, being a celestial being, what is worth being, what about it is worth being?

First of all we must understand the words 'have' and 'be' correctly. These words refer directly to grasping and clinging. To fulfill the meaning of the words 'have' or 'gain' there must be a grasping at something to make it ours.

For instance if we take diamonds and jewels and pile them up so that they completely fill a room and there is no clinging to them as being ours or that we are their owners, it's the same as if there is no possession or gain. The pile of precious stones stands there without meaning. But if grasping at 'I' occurs, that 'I have got them', 'I have made them mine', then that is having or gaining. Please understand these words in this way.

I'll ask again, what is there worth having? What is there worth gaining? What is there that having been possessed won't cause its owner to suffer? Every single thing there is will burn up its owner, pierce, strangle and entangle him, envelop and oppress him should he start to 'have' or to 'be'. But should the precious stones stand piled up filling the room and he has no feeling of having or being, then there is no burning, entangling or strangling of any kind. This is called not-having and not-being. So what is there, that having possessed it or having become it we will be free from Dukkha?

Once there is the feeling of having or being, we don't have to be in the room with the stones, we can be in the forest or in another country on the other side of the world and the mind will still experience Dukkha. Try having children living in America you'll see that if you still cling to 'I' and 'mine' they will be able to give you sleepless nights or even a nervous breakdown.

Please make it a habit to regularly contemplate what is worth having and what is worth being; what is there that once possessed or become, will not cause us Dukkha. When we discover the truth that there is absolutely nothing that is worthy of the feelings of having or being then we become even - minded towards all things. Whatever action we perform, be it arranging, having, collecting, using or whatever, we just do what needs to be done. So don't let the mind have or become! Keep in mind the principle of doerless doing:

The doing is done but no doer is there
The path has been walked but no walker is there

This verse refers to the arahant, the one who has practised Dhamma, or who has walked the Noble Path to its very end and who has reached Nibbana, but with no walker or no practiser to be found.

The principle of doerless doing must be taken up and utilized in our daily lives. Whether we're eating, sitting, laying down, standing, walking, using, seeking, whatever we're doing we must have enough truth-discerning awareness to prevent the arising of the feeling of 'I'- the feeling that 'I' am the doer, 'I' am the eater: the walker, the sitter, the sleeper or the user. We must make the mind constantly empty of ego, so that emptiness is the natural state and we abide with the a awareness that there is nothing worth having or being,

Dhamma can be practised in conjunction with our daily tasks and the to and fro that they entail. There is no need to separate Dhamma from everyday life. It is a very high practice. If there is mindfulness and self-awareness, not only will our work be successful and free from error but at the same time the Dhamma in our hearts will develop and grow greatly. Not having and not-gaining will be the normal state of the mind.

As for 'being' it's much easier. Consider what is there that having become there is no Dukkha? This can be a formula for reflection. It is the essential point. The word 'being' just as with the words 'have' and 'gain', refers only to the being that is accompanied by upadana, the grasping and clinging to the 'I am'. If a room is piled full of gold and we have no feeling of being its owner there is no gaining or having and no being. Although the ownership rights and social conventions recognized by laws and the world have a certain validity, in our true hearts we shouldn't be misled into taking those relative truths to be ultimate. For instance when there is a birth it is, conventionally speaking, natural that the one who gives birth becomes a mother and the one born a child. However, if one doesn't take oneself to be a mother then one won't be a mother. Because one deludedly presumes oneself to be a mother one becomes one. Mother chickens, mother dogs, mother cows, all sorts of mothers consider themselves to be mothers and feel it natural to love their young. .It's not necessary for them to create or nurture such feelings, these are instincts natural to animals.

But those with truth - discerning awareness are on a higher level. They have the knowledge of the way to destroy the grasping and clinging that arises from such ignorance.

Now some people will think: "Not let us feel ourselves to be mothers! How cruel and heartless! Won't you let us love our children?" Listen carefully; it doesn't mean that at all. It means that it's possible to be a mother and perform a mother's duties with truth-discerning awareness. It's not necessary to be a mother with grasping and clinging, the cause of every kind of Dukkha. It's not necessary to suffer the unhappiness, the heart-break and the tears. That suffering is indeed the price of not knowing how to be a mother, of being a mother in a way that does not conform with Dhamma.

When one is a mother one must have the Dukkha of a mother; when one is a son or daughter one must have the Dukkha of a son or daughter; when one is a father one must have the Dukkha of a father. Try asking yourself 'Is being a mother a pleasure?' 'Is being a father a pleasure?' Those of you old enough to have had a full experience of parenthood, think over what it's like. How will you answer? Even if you don't say anything outright, probably everyone of you will shake your heads. Is being a mother a pleasure? Is being a father a pleasure?

This is something that you should study and be naturally and habitually conscious of at the times when the mind is not occupied with sense contact.

Is it a pleasure to be a husband? Is it a pleasure to be a wife? Think it over for yourselves. Those who have fully experienced being husbands and wives will all shake their heads.

Is it a pleasure to be male? Is it a pleasure to be female? If your truth-discerning awareness is following step by step and becoming increasingly refined, you will all shake your heads. To be female is to have the Dukkha of a female. To be male is to have the Dukkha of a male.

Is it a pleasure to be a child? Is it a pleasure to be an adult? Young children will probably say 'Yes, it's fun' but we who are now adults, we who are now old, look back and ask yourselves 'Was it really a pleasure?' Children have Dukkha of children and adults have the Dukkha of adults if there is grasping and clinging.

To expand this further - is to be a human being a desirable thing? Is it worth being? Or is it worth being an animal? To be anyone of a pair of opposites or to be nothing at all, which is better? To be a man, to be a denizen of hell, are they worth being?

To take another pair: Is this person you are, worth being? Or is it worth being a deva[25] in heaven? These questions are a measure of truth-discerning awareness, of whether or not one sees grasping and clinging fully and truly. Those who have seen the painful consequences of grasping and clinging will shake their heads in the same way; for to be a person one must have the Dukkha of a person, if one is a deva one must have the Dukkha of a deva.

If we are empty, not taking ourselves to be anything at all, then we are neither a person nor a deva and so the Dukkha of being either of those things is absent. If one is a human being or a deva following the urging of grasping and clinging is it a pleasure? Those who have realized the truth will all shake their heads.

To be more specific, is it worth being a good person? Is it worth being a bad person? If one asks who wants to be a good person there is likely to be a forest of raised hand. Such people don't yet see that if one clings to being a good person then one must have the Dukkha of a good person in exactly the same way that a bad person will have the Dukkha appropriate to a bad person. When there is grasping and clinging at being, then there is no happiness at all, for that state of being will be weighed down by a heaviness of one sort or another. Even if some kinds of Dukkha do not show themselves openly, if there are pleasures or distractions covering them up, through being fooled by those pleasures and distractions there will be the Dukkha of having, being and gaining of ambitiously striving to be this and that.

In truth, nature fools us into taking on Dukkha, an obvious example being the case of the Dukkha that arises from propagating the species, from giving birth. It fools us so much that people actually enthusiastically volunteer. If they were to see the truth for themselves they would probably have nothing to do with this deception of nature. Is it a pleasure to be a good person? Is it a pleasure to be a bad person? Think about it.

Coming even closer, is it worth being a fortunate person? Is it worth being an unfortunate person? The hasty and uncircumspect are likely to raise their hands immediately saying that being fortunate is extremely pleasant but those who have fully experienced good fortune will shake their heads. One who is fortunate must endure the Dukkha of one who takes himself to be fortunate in exactly the same way that the one who is unfortunate must endure the Dukkha appropriate to one who is unfortunate.

Coming closer still. Is it worth being a happy person? Is it worth being an unhappy person? There will be a real forest of raised hands here, even more than before, all asking to be a happy person. On the other hand, those who have been happy, who have fully experienced being happy, will shake their heads. You may not understand this section so let me repeat, people who are happy must have the Dukkha of people with happiness. Regarding this point you must bear in mind that it is the worldly who establish the conventions as to the nature of happiness: that the one who has money and power and enjoys every sort of sense - pleasure is the happy person. But if we look closely we will see that such a person suffers Dukkha in an appropriate fashion, a 'fishbone' forms in the flesh of his pleasure. Even with the more subtle happiness that arises from samadhi and the meditative absorptions of the rishis and munis if the feeling that 'I am happy' arises, then it too will form a 'wishbone' in the flesh of that happiness that will stick in the enjoyer's throat. Those who grasp at and cling to the happiness of rupajhana suffer accordingly.

Consequently, there is the injunction to renounce lust for form and lust for the formless, the first two of the higher fetters (samyojana) that prevent us from becoming arahants. If there is clinging to the idea that we have happiness, even if it's the happiness that arises from Dhamma, it will cause a fine kind of 'fishbone' to stay stuck in the throat, so that the true Dhamma cannot be discerned.

Grasping at Nibbana as being my self or my happiness is impossible. One may say, if one wishes that Nibbana is the supreme happiness and that one grasps Nibbana as being "I" or "mine", that I have the happiness of Nibbana or I have attained Nibbana. But these are mere verbalizations, in fact it can't happen. One who still grasps and clings cannot possibly attain Nibbana. If anyone takes himself to be the enjoyer of the happiness of Nibbana it can only be a counterfeit Nibbana. True Nibbana, is not of a nature that can be grasped at in that way.

So we drive out happiness! We drive it out right from the happiness of children, the happiness of adults, of young men and women and the elderly, the happiness of the powerful and influential, right up to the happiness of being a deva, of having meditative absorptions and attainments and finally to Nibbana. If we deludedly consider 'I am happy' then we must suffer accordingly. Those who have realized the truth see this. Those who have not are in turmoil, ambitiously and hungrily striving for wealth, power and sense pleasures, or on a higher level, greedily striving for insight, meditative absorptions and attainments, pushing so much that some end up in a mental hospital. That in itself demonstrates the dangers of grasping and clinging to happiness. Young children will not understand this point but adults should.

Now we'll give some thought to another pair of opposites. Is being born a pleasure? Is dying a pleasure? Choose one or other of the pair. Which is more enjoyable, being born or dying? If we really understand Dhamma we'll shake our heads, we'll want neither birth nor death. However, although people don't usually want to die, they do want to be born. They want birth without death and what's more, they want eternal life or if they must die they want to be reborn. This is indeed grasping and clinging. Only from the time when there is neither birth nor death, when the mind is empty, will there be an end to Dukkha.

Why not try thinking this over when you're lying down or walking in the moments that the mind is not occupied by sense contact. When you're doing something or being something, why not try thinking in this way?'

When you're suffering and exhausted with being a mother, why don't you ever feel that it's unpleasant? Being a husband, being a wife, being any of the things that I've mentioned, when you're disturbed and upset by that state of being, why don't you ever feel it to be utterly unpleasant? You still find it pleasant even when it brings you to tears.

We must contemplate well that we want neither birth nor non - birth, for neither is empty. If we cling to non - birth then it too is not-empty. This section, concerning birth and non -birth, the final pair, is the hardest to understand and the hardest to practise. We want neither birth nor non - birth and through not grasping at or clinging to either of them there is emptiness. Having spoken continually of having and being, of not - having and not - being, we reach birth and non - birth and almost immediately we grasp at non-birth. Thus at the final stage our practice must be to advance to the point that our knowledge of non - birth dissolves, without becoming an object of grasping and clinging. Then true emptiness will appear, that which is neither birth nor non-birth, or in other words true non-birth, the remainderless extinction. Speaking in this way may seem to be quibbling or splitting hairs but the meaning is unequivocal there is a definite/difference between those two kinds of non-birth. So don't cling to the idea that Nibbana is non-birth and is wonderful and amazing in this way and that or that vattasamsara (the wheel of birth and death) is a plethora of fun filled births. There must be no grasping or clinging on either side for there to be emptiness and genuine non - birth. The practice at the normal times must be of this nature continually.

As for the moments when we are doing the great work of kammatthana, the most technical aspect of the practice of samadhivipassana, whereby one examines the painful consequences of grasping and clinging, it too is a matter of being empty. A large part of kammatthana practice depends on following instruction, it's not something an unlearned person can do on his own, and thus there are many guidelines and explanations. You may read these for yourselves or bring to mind those you have formerly heard. All of the points that I have been making here are included in the practice at the ordinary times.

The second occasion is the moment of contact with sense - objects. When visible forms, sounds, odors, flavors and tangible objects contact the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body we must practise letting phassa stop at, phassa and let vedana stop at vedana, in the way that I have previously explained in many places and on many occasions. Letting phassa stop just at phassa is an extremely high level of practice. On the ordinary level, phassa develops into vedana and then we stop it just there, without allowing the further development of craving and grasping, of "I" and "mine".

Some of the articulate talkers in monastery halls and teachers in Buddhist colleges say that stopping just at phassa is impossible, that there is always the development of vedana. That is because they cling to the written word. It's not the truth.

In fact, the Buddha taught that when seeing forms there should be just the seeing, "when smelling odors just the smelling, tasting flavors just the tasting and touching tangible objects just the touching. If you can do it then there is no you, the ego is not born. It is the end of Dukkha, immutable emptiness.

It is sufficient to observe one's reactions at the times that we glance in the direction of some neutral form or other.

Try casting your eyes on the door or a window and you'll notice that there is merely phassa, there are no feelings. of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. When visible forms, sounds, odors, flavors and tangible objects enter as contact let them stop there in the same way.

Let it be like the soldier asleep by the side of a piece of artillery. When a shell is fired he merely registers the sound without feeling anything and just goes on happily sleeping. No matter how heavy the shelling he is not startled or disturbed. There is just the sound of the piece of artillery contacting his ear and then ceasing.

Can you let phassa stop at phassa in that way when you hear the sound of a' man or the sound of a woman or the sound of a loved one? If you can then you're really adept. Here animals may be more accomplished than we are because they lack all the excess mental baggage carried by humans. If we wish to reach the peak of excellence then we must train ourselves to let phassa remain as merely phassa.

But if you can't do it and concede defeat, you can still stop at vedana. As soon as there is a feeling of comfort or discomfort, of satisfaction or dissatisfaction then extinguish it just there, without giving birth to the various kinds of desire that spring from the urges of craving and clinging. This is the practice on the occasion of contact with sense-objects.

Now in the short remaining time I would like to talk about the practice on, the, third occasion, the moment when the mind is extinguished and the body breaks up and dies. How can we practise so as to be empty at that time? For this matter' we must depend on taking remainderless extinction as our basic principle in life.

The natural death of the aged is something definite and sure. When someone reaches old age it's said that they have little time left. What can be achieved in that short remaining time? So as to be in time, those who are old and unlearned, who don't have the time to study very much and whose brains aren't as good as they were, can hold to this very principle of remainderless extinction of the 'I', that I have been speaking of.

Make it natural to yourself to see that being a person is not pleasant, being a deva is not pleasant, being a father is not pleasant, being a mother is not pleasant, being a son, a daughter, a husband, a wife, a servant, a master, a victor, a loser, a good person, a bad person, a fortunate person or an unfortunate person - none of them is pleasant, none of them is any fun. Then the mind will hold no hope of having or being anything at all. The phrase 'absence of hope' may be used in regard to the attainment of arahantship, but it's not the resignation of the foolish and lazy, it's a different matter altogether. It is the absence of hope of one who with true wisdom sees that there is nothing in this or any world that one should wish to have or be. Truly nothing is worth having or being at any time or at any place.

So what path will be taken by the mind of a person without hope? It won't take any path at all because it sees that nothing is worth wishing for. Thus it lays the way for its own death. There being no desire to have or be anything, it dissolves into emptiness. This is the skillful means to cheat nature a little. When the time of death has truly arrived, we give rise to the feeling that nothing anywhere is worth having or being. If that feeling is present in the mind at the moment of death then one will inevitably reach Nibbana through the act of dying itself. It's a really good deal-putting down a tiny amount of capital certain of great results!

Let the great scholars of the land come and test out what it's like for the mind to .meet death with the authentic feeling that nothing anywhere is worth having or being. Death will be a disintegration accompanied by nirodhadhatu. The mind will be transformed into nibbanadhatu through physical death. If a grandma or grand-dad are unlearned and inarticulate but have this single feeling it's enough.

When the time of death arrives let this feeling be present. You should remember that close to death the mind will gradually slip away. As the body runs down nearing its end, consciousness will gradually disappear. You will forget more and more until you forget everything. Yon won't know what time it is, whether it's day or night; you won't be able to tell where you are or whose house you're in, you won't even be able to remember your name or even the most basic daily chants properly. But the way for you to stay as the companion of the mind until the end is to be aware that nothing is worth having or being. Volunteer for the remainderless extinction! Let that feeling of volunteering for the remainderless extinction, that readiness to accept it be a partner of the mind until the very end. With this skilful means the mind will be able to dissolve itself into the emptiness that is Nibbana. This is the practice at the moment of physical death for those of little knowledge. With it an unlearned grandma or granddad can reach the final extinction. We call it the skilful means of turning a fall from a ladder into a measured leap.

The body must inevitably break up, it's old it has reached its end. This is to have fallen from the ladder. As one falls one leaps on, leaps on to the remainderless extinction by establishing in the mind the feeling that nothing is worth having or being. It may be called leaping in the right direction. There is no pain of any sort. There is, on the contrary, the best possible result, attainment of remainderless extinction.

It is to be adept. It is to know how to fall from the ladder. It's not like the foolish people who, when, they fall from a ladder, break their necks and all their limbs. Even those who've studied a lot and travel about, giving articulate talks in monastery halls, can still fall from the ladder and break all their bones. They can't compare with those who have been interested in the right way even if it's only in this one matter.

Now in the event of accidental death, such as getting run-over by a car, having a building collapse on top of you, being gored in the rear by a bull or getting blown up by an atom bomb, what should you do? If you have a little intelligence you'll see that it's exactly the same. If there is even a tiny amount of awareness left, in that moment resolve on the remainderless extinction. Through having previously developed the feeling that there is nothing worth having or being, until it is completely fluent and natural to you, on reaching the moment of death, you will be able to bring it to mind for a split second before the end. For example, someone run-over by a car doesn't die immediately there is always an interval even if it's only a fraction of a second or a single thought-moment, and for the flash of feeling resolving on remainderless extinction that is plenty of time.

Now suppose that death occurs in an instant with no feeling at all, well that itself is the remainderless extinction! As I have already explained we have already trained in the normal times to keep, this feeling that nothing is worth having or being constantly in the mind, so that when the body meets death with no opportunity to think or feel anything, that awareness being already present there will be remainderless extinction. But if there is even one thought - moment or half a second then we can think comfortably. So don't be cowardly, don't be afraid! Don't let cowardice and fear sap your strength: "please may I go with you doctor", "take me to the hospital" and so on. If, you go you'll die there just the same, it's a waste of time.

Against unnatural death, dying not wanting to die, dying unexpectedly, the sublime Dhamma can not only provide an infallible protection, but can provide Nibbana right there at the wheels of the car, beneath the collapsing building, at the horns of the bull or in the pile of bodies charred by the atomic blast. There is no violent unnatural death, instead there is Nibbana.

Those who have studied little, know little, right down to grandma and granddad who can't read, are all capable of understanding this teaching and should keep training in this correct understanding.

Now as for the death of those of perfect knowledge and truth - discerning awareness, those who have studied sufficiently and are proficient' both in the theory and practice of Dhamma, for such people it doesn't have to be a matter of leaping as they fall from the ladder. They are deathless from the start, from before any illness. Through having attained a high level of Dhamma since long before, they have no death.

If a person has such abundant knowledge then when the time of death truly arrives, his preparations win be much better than those of people who have to leap as they fall from the ladder. Knowing how to establish mindfulness and self - awareness that is incorruptible he may laugh contemptuously at death., It might be called descending the ladder rung-by-rung and is the way of one with perfect knowledge.

Now I would like to talk about the way that the sick and diseased should prepare themselves for death. When one knows that death is inevitable, such as when suffering from a terminal disease like tuberculosis, one should make the very best of it with mindfulness and self-awareness, without cowardice or fear.

I'd like to relate to you an account I once came across of the way that people in the time of the Buddha prepared for death. For those who kept the Precepts of Virtuous Conduct fasting was not at all difficult because they were used to abstaining from an evening meal on Uposatha [26] days. When their illness reached the point that they felt that they had no more than ten days left to live they would stop eating. Not like us. These days, if someone is close to death we go out and look for the most expensive and delicious foods, so that some people even die prematurely from the food. Their efforts to avoid food were for the purpose of having a mind completely undisturbed. When the body starts to run down it loses its ability to digest food and so anything consumed turns to poison, making the mind restless and confused.

So they prepared themselves for death by abstaining from food and taking only water or medicine. As death got closer, they would stop taking even water or medicine in order to focus their mindfulness and self - awareness, so as to die in the way of remainderless extinction.

People who cling to goodness and virtue prepare themselves for death by clinging to goodness and virtue. The wise prepare themselves to let go and meet the remainderless extinction. There is nothing that they want; injecting drugs to extend their lives would be a great irritation. This is relinquishing the body (sankharas). Relinquishing the body while still alive they prepare to make the best of its disintegration by acquiescing in remainderless extinction.

As for us these days, we mill around the doctor in a tumult, sometimes until the room is packed tight, trying to get the dying person to take medicine or eat or have injections. We try to do so many things that the sick person becomes anxious and flustered, and has no peace of mind. He doesn't know how he is going to die or whether in fact he will die at all. There is nothing but doubt and anxiety. The sick person does not experience victory over death, he does not realize emptiness or the remainderless extinction that I have been speaking of.

Unlike the people of the Buddha's time, people today usually look for the most comfortable bed, the most comfortable room, the most expensive foods and medicines, and then die with a great fuss. They want to go on living, to put off their death even if it's only for a single minute. They start having all sorts of injections and treatments and die with no mindfulness or self-awareness. It is the action of delusion.

To die in the right way we must be brave with Dhamma, and die having victory over death, die realizing emptiness in the last second of life. Please remember well, there is an opportunity right up to the last moment.

These then are the ways of practice divided into three moments or occasions.

The 'normal' times when we're doing our normal tasks
The moments of sense contact - how to deal with it so as to produce emptiness
The moment of death-what to do when the five 'aggregates' khandas meet their inevitable disintegration

These are things that should be brought up and thought about, spoken about and discussed regularly in the same way that we chat about radio and television programmes, and the general goings-on of the world. People who like boxing can get so excited talking about it that they can't get the words out quickly enough.

Why is it that we can talk about those things all day and all night and yet when it comes to something as important as this we don't discuss it at all? Why don't we ever talk about fighting with death, of having victory over it and being free of both death and birth? If we did it could become easier straight away. If we talk about and discuss these things as much as we talk about other matters, in no great time the practice will become truly easy. If we follow the correct method everything will be easy, even attaining Nibbana or leaping as we fall from the ladder.

To sum up, we must understand correctly the meanings of the phrases 'empty', 'realizing emptiness', 'abiding with emptiness', 'being naturally empty' and 'being emptiness' itself.

Emptiness is present in all things; it is their characteristic. If the mind is empty of grasping at and clinging to all things, then it is itself emptiness, the remainderless extinction of 'I' and 'mine' and there is no more birth.

Here I will bring to an end this talk on the practice that leads to emptiness.

25. A celestial being.