Dhamma Q&A with Students from Puget Sound University
Photo: Buddhadāsa Indapañño Archives C01317
“My question has to do with kamma and duty. It seems to me that there are two different duties, a higher one and a lower one: one to the self or to the ridding of the self, and one for the community, to society. I was wondering which duty comes first. An example that I thought of was an animal that was struck by a car that was still alive but in deep suffering and he would die in time. You had a duty to the animal in the sense of society to end his pain, but you also have the duty to the self of not killing the animal to end the pain.”
(Translator’s note: By the way, part of your question is based on a cultural assumption which is not shared in this part of the world, that when a dog is suffering you kill it. That’s not the Thai way to put it out of its suffering.)
~ Response by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu ~
One must be careful not to mix things up too much, to mix up these duties. One should clearly separate the two duties, the duty for oneself, and the duty for society. Further, one should see that in terms of one’s duty towards oneself, there are two levels: There’s the basic duty of survival; this is the first duty, to survive. And then the higher duty is to realize the best thing there is in life. One has to do what one can to survive, and then one does the best one can to realize the highest best thing in life. And if there is opportunity and time, one also does things to benefit others. There’s no need to mix these up.
If we complete all the duties there’s no problem. If you look at duty too much from the outside in terms of your own cultural conditioning and opinions, then it gets very confused. We need to look at the Dhamma, then duty from inside in terms of how nature is happening right now. As long as we just approach duty as assumptions, we are unable, actually, to do our duty.
An interesting question that ought to be asked is, “When all things are not self, then who does the duty?” Is there anybody who’s got an answer to this one?
It’s the duties of the things which are not self. Whether you understand what we’re saying or don’t understand is your own business. All these things that are not self, it’s their duty. Whatever is hungry has the duty of finding food. Whatever is suffering has the duty of ending suffering. All these things are not self. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a duty.
When something which is not self is struggling with dukkha, when it’s suffering, then it will naturally struggle to get free of that dukkha. Although there’s no self there, it just naturally does what it can to get out of dukkha.
Therefore in life there’s just body and mind. Body and mind are sufficient for performing all duties. They can take care of all duties as they appear. Even though these things are not self, they can do all duties. Whenever there is dukkha, then body and mind respond in order to get free of – to eliminate – that dukkha. So even though things are not self, they can do this duty. This point is very important. If we don’t understand it, then we’ll get confused about everything. We won’t know who’s supposed to do what, when, or how. But if one just understands the things that are suffering, they have the duty to end suffering although they’re all non-self.
When you are hungry, how do you experience it? Do you experience it as ‘I am hungry?’ Or do you experience it as merely the nerves in the stomach are hungry? Do you feel hungry, or is it the stomach and the nervous system which feel hungry? If it’s just the stomach and the nervous system there’s only a very minor problem or difficulty, but if it’s ‘I am hungry, I feel hungry,’ then you’ve got a big problem. The nervous system that the stomach feels hunger is totally natural, but ego is something added to nature, something extra and unnecessary.
The purpose of Buddhism is to eliminate the self illusion so that there’s just the natural body and mind. Don’t take the body to be self, don’t take the mind to be self. There’s just this body existing naturally. And then the mind is mindful, and there is intelligence and wisdom in order to respond to things properly. So one shouldn’t take the body as being self. One shouldn’t take the nervous system that feels and senses things as being self. And the mind shouldn’t be taken as self. When none of these are taken to be self, there’s just the body and mind left functioning naturally.
Some groups teach that the mind is self, or that some aspect or function of mind is self, so they end up with three things – the body, the mind, and then the self or soul or whatever it’s called. But Buddhism doesn’t teach that way. In Buddhism there’s just the body and the mind – we don’t see anything about the mind that can be taken as self. So in Buddhism there’s only body and mind responding naturally with mindfulness and wisdom to all these situations and experiences of life. However there are some who claim to be Buddhist and teach in some way or another that mind is self or some aspect of mind is self. What they’ve done is they’ve borrowed a teaching from outside of Buddhism and dragged it into Buddhism. So things in some places are getting very confused because there are people teaching that mind or some aspect of mind is self. This is incorrect. In Buddhism there is just body and mind. There’s no need for any third thing or any self or soul.
So to understand Buddhism, one must understand anattā, or not self. This is the only way to understand Buddhism properly. Otherwise one will sneak in some kind of self, and then it’s no longer Buddhism. So you need to study for yourself, to experience for yourself, no longer relying on books or somebody else’s word, that when there is attā (self), then there will be concern for attā, and this is selfish. When there is self, there’s only concern for the self, and this is what is meant by selfishness. This must be seen by oneself, realized in one’s own experience.
Our lesson here is to not to let the feeling or illusion of self arise. We call this ‘doing without a doer.’ Do everything that needs to be done, but don’t let the ‘doer’ get involved. You walk here without needing any ‘walker’ and after the talk you can walk back without a ‘walker.’ To do things without a ‘doer’ is totally correct in line with nature and the Law of Nature. This isn’t some kind of show or game or pretense. We’re not just pretending to do it, but to do it is fully correct and in harmony with nature.
It’s quite funny, we can do anything without a ‘doer,’ we can walk without a ‘walker,’ stand without a ‘stander,’ sit without a ‘sitter,’ eat without an ‘eater,’ breathe without a ‘breather,’ bathe without a ‘bather,’ think without a ‘thinker.’ We listen without a ‘listener.’ We can do everything without any ‘doer.’ There’s no need for an attā, a self, as we do the required activities of life. The thought that there is someone who’s doing the activity, to identify the ‘doer,’ this is the basis for selfishness.
(From Dhamma Questions & Answers with students from Puget Sound University, State of Washington, USA as translated from the Thai by Santikaro)
- - ❖ - -
Dhamma Questions & Responses sessions were offered by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu in 1990-1991 to foreign meditators attending Suan Mokkh International Dharma Hermitage courses.
Listen to this teaching on Soundcloud or Youtube Channel Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
Listen to other English retreat talks by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu
For more information and free ebooks, visit Suan Mokkh – The Garden of Liberation