Ai Le's Blackjack. This is Version 3 of 'Ai Le's Blackjack'. 11:27
PM, October 7, 2005.

********** I started typing this three days ago when I was in my
prajnaparamita (#12, the last one, in my list) dwelling. Now I'm not
in prajnaparamita, but focused on the the Majjhima Nikaya 61 (#11 in
the list). It is October 7, 2005. **********:

I am in my prajnaparamita dwelling right now. I entered it about two
and a half hours ago in my room, before I came to this certain place
with free internet computer access. I entered it by
uttering ?prajnaparamita? to bring my mind to focus on it, the #12
(last) of twelve things in my list of verbalizations in my mind (see
the writing on my list of 12 sets of things, the first article in
the Appendix found after this writing on gambling). It is right now
7:43 PM, Tuesday, October 4, 2005. I have been working on this 'Ai
Le's Blackjack' writing of mine since coming to this place, so the
time 7:43 PM noted for right now is not the time I wrote much of
what you will see in the paragraphs below.

Prajnaparamita includes the bodhisattva course. Although I have not
made any vows to become a Buddha, maybe coursing in prajnaparamita
is the way of a bodhisattva, there is no need for vows. And I making
a vow to become a Buddha would be a lie, because I wouldn?t want to
do all the stuff, be in samsara for aeons without the possibility of
rest in Nibbana. So my dwelling in prajnaparamita is maybe the best
I could do for myself sometimes? (and maybe others?). That?s "when"
I want to enter prajnaparamita dwelling. You could look for the
Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra, also the other Prajnaparamita
Sutras/texts in book form (you can try looking on the internet
also), and the book(s) about them. Edward Conze is known in
connection with prajnaparamita.

Now I?m going to write about blackjack, the way I know and think it
was in the casinos I went to here in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and in
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

I have, though, stopped gambling for about one month now. I have
quite a few verbalizations to give me the power to overcome those --
and whatever? -- I imagined might be trying to make me gamble again.
These verbalizations were not at one time, but at certain times over
a period of time, when I had anger and determination to not let me
go back to gambling. I even had in one verbalization the idea not
even Reality and/or reality, and myself, make me go back to gambling.
All of these verbalizations are in #3 of my list of 12 sets (see the
same writing mentioned above, the first article in the Appendix).I
don?t know if I will return to gambling in the future. If I do, three
things either will happen with my going back to gamble: (1) I will
either (1) go around, or see it is okay to go back to gambling while
I have still, my verbalizations of not to gamble (by just going to
gamble and not making any verbalization (or anything otherwise?) that
says I give up those verbalizations of not to gamble); (2) give up
those verbalizations to not gamble; or (3) go gamble without giving
up those verbalizations as said in (1), but it is actually breaking
the verbalizations if I do so.

As said in the Sigalovada Sutta found in Theravada Buddhism (the
whole sutta is the second article in the Appendix at the end of this
writing), gambling is bad (and maybe in any kind of Buddhist way it
is an evil, or not?).

I?ve lost maybe around $11,000 (eleven thousand dollars) in total
(an imaginary estimate, that?s with my winnings acknowleged in this
imaginary estimate) since starting gambling in casinos about 12
years ago or so I am guessing (1993 or some year around there I am
guessing). It?s an imaginary estimate because I never really kept
track when I began first going to the casino, maybe only in the not-
so-distant past (before I quit gambling). I went to the casino for
the very first time when they had a casino -- no more casino there
for years, I think, but I am not sure -- in West Edmonton Mall, in
1993 or so. I lived in Edmonton, Alberta then. I have been in British
Columbia since late 1999.

$11, 000 or so (like I said, an imaginary estimate, that?s with my
winnings acknowleged in this imaginary estimate). It?s because I
never worked for most of those years -- had my nose & mind problems -
- and used money I got from my mom or whomever. Not having a job
means not having a lot of money. So not having a lot of money means
not having the possibility of losing a lot of money. Also a/some
period(s) of time I did not gamble between 1993 or so to 2001 or
so ... In 1999 or so, I got a monthly income up to now, different
from usually (?) for most of my life where I had no personal
income... In 2001 or so I started gambling again, but like I noted,
I now had a monthly income... And from this time on, I have lost a
lot more money in comparison to before that...

I heard from a man -- I am guessing around 50 years old -- about 5
weeks ago or so, say that he has lost $400, 000 (four hundred
thousand dollars) in gambling -- did he really say $400 000? I don?t
know how much -- if any -- of that was lost in the casino, for my
memory is only sort of sure of him saying he still bets on
horseracing for fun, and acknowledges it will be a monthly loss of
money (of $100 or something more, he maybe said as the amount) (just
for the excitement, he may of said). He said he was a technician or
something as his job, and lost half of his salary (yearly?) gambling.
He never had a wife? $400, 000. Compare that to my imaginary estimate
of $11, 000 or so. $389, 000 difference between the two numbers,
right? I have heard from another or others before hearing this guy I
just told you about, of losing a lot like that also. I myself am 35
years old.

I played blackjack (gambling my money in that game) almost all
of the time I went into the casino. The casinos are where I lost
that imaginary estimate of about $11, 000 or so -- I did not do any
other kind of real money gambling anywhere else (except I had played
lottery -- like many others?-- also when I was younger..., but I
imagine it was in total a miniscule amount in money in comparison to
how much I lost in the casinos these 12 or so years. I had stopped
buying lottery stuff -- lottery tickets and scratch and win tickets -
- for about seven years or so I am guessing. I just stopped gambling
about one month ago, like I said, after losing in the casino the
last $54 I had (not counting the few cents, or dollar(s) or so plus
cents, I imagine I had still at home and/or my bank account). I got
a guy -- who I told already before sometime I had been gambling (I
told him already sometime in the past that the money I borrowed from
him those time(s) earlier was for gambling (and food when I did not
try to win back my money with his money?)) -- to lend me $60 for
food (etc.), and told him I would not go gambling until at least I
payed him back $50 in the near future (I live on $5 a day normally...
When I had a little more money due to people giving me more money...,
I had the possibility to live on more than $5 a day). He gave me $60.
I did not go gambling like I said, and have not since then. And I
payed him back $50 not so long ago (but I borrowed later an extra $35
more for food (etc.?), and $10 for a phone card to phone my mom in
Vietnam..., PLUS TODAY -- October 7 -- I borrowed another $55 from
him to help me last until the end of the month, ... so now I owe him
$110). Like I said, I have not gambled since that time I lost my last
$54, about a month ago, I imagine.

*************** A) HOW I PLAYED BLACKJACK:

*************** 1) Rules of the game:

In the casinos of Edmonton and Vancouver (both in Canada), there are
seven or some other amount of possible spots -- I am not sure if its
seven spots or some other amount of spots -- for players at each
blackjack table. A player can play more than one spot (maybe the
spots all have to be beside one another, if he chooses to play more
than one spot). But if he chooses to play more than one spot for a
deal, the minimum money amount for a bet for each spot is increased.

*************** a) The deal: the dealer gives each player a card --
face up so everyone sees what each player's card is -- starting from
the player to his leftmost going towards the right, then gives
himself a card also -- also face up, so everyone sees what his card
is. Then he gives each player in the same way a second card, face up
also, but then it stops there, the dealer not giving himself a
second
card at all. So the scene at this point is that each player has two
cards, both face up, and the dealer has one card face up.

************************************************************
NOTE: The player that is the last player to receive a card before the
dealer gets his card, is called the 'anchor' (and his spot is called
the 'anchor spot'). If all spots (seven, or how many I don't know)
are filled with players, then the spot to the right-most of the
dealer would be 'anchor spot'.

If it were just one player at the table with the dealer, then it's
the same thing: the player has two face up cards, and the dealer has
one face up card. And also that one and only player would be the
anchor.
************************************************************

Then the dealer goes back to the player to his leftmost, to take
order(s) from that player of him either wanting to hit for
another/other card(s) or standing (or splitting cards, etc). If
there is any other player(s) at the table, the dealer comes to that
player going from his left to his right, and so on. After the anchor
player has done his hand, the dealer does his hand. That?s the whole
deal.

NOTE: I am unsure, but this system only works for the anchor spot,
right? And also where it will not work: on the internet, I am
guessing I saw blackjack played where the dealer gets two cards in
the beginning, where one card is face up and one card is face down,
NOT as described above where the dealer has one card only in the
beginning (that card being face up). This does not work for those
blackjack games, because of the dealer?s face down card (of his two
cards at the beginning). I say again, my system works with the way
of dealing done by the dealer as described above where the dealer
gets one card face up in the beginning, not with the way where the
dealer ? I am guessing (can?t be sure how it was with those internet
blackjack games) -- gets two cards, where one card is face down and
one card is face up, in the beginning.

Ace=value of 1 or 11
2=value of 2
3=value of 3
4=value of 4
5=value of 5
6=value of 6
7=value of 7
8=value of 8
9=value of 9
10=value of 10
Jack=value of 10
Queen=value of 10
King=value of 10

Therefore, in my writing when I say a '10-value' card, that could
either be a 10, Jack, Queen, or King card.

*************** 2) The system:

I found this system out at home sometime in the 1990s (after I
started going to the casino?) --- when I was doing the Bodhisattva
course (with vow(s)?)? And was I dwelling in (my way of?)
prajnaparamita then also? Or I was not doing the Bodhisattva course?
Or I was not doing (my way of?) prajnaparamita, but just the
Bodhisattva course (Mahayana and/or Hinayana Bodhisattva course?)?
But it may have been worldly (worldly desires) and/or fake reasons
that I wanted to use the Bodhisattva course (and prajnaparamita?),
and was doing the Bodhisattva thing then? OR I WAS DOING NONE OF
THIS BODHISATTVA OR PRAJNAPARAMITA STUFF? ---, with a deck of cards,
and paper and pen (or pencil). With the deck of cards, I would
simulate casino blackjack deal(s) as done in the casino: I deal one
or more players a card (each takes a spot), then above that/those
card(s), I deal a card to the ?dealer? (which is me also), then deal
another card to one or more player. That's a casino black deal (see
paragraph A.1.a 'The deal' above). I play the one player spot (or all
the player spots, if I dealt for more than one player), and play also
as the dealer (off course, it's only me doing this alone). I had
investigated card combinations on paper. Through investigating, I
found this system?

HERE?S THE SYSTEM: first, the object is to think of the highest
possible card one could get for one's hand if one were to ask for
another card (which is called 'hitting'). The highest possible card
means what card would make one's total 21. And, secondly, knowing
what the card that is one number higher than that (that card would
always bust one's hand?). I am not sure, but is it that any card
that is the highest possible card or under, would not bust your
hand? And any card that is the card one number over the highest
possible card, or over, would bust your hand? For example, if my
hand total was 14, then a 7 (highest possible card), 6, 5, 4, 3, 2,
or Ace would not bust my hand, while an 8 (card one number above
highest possible card), 9, 10, Jack, Queen, or King would bust my
hand.

Example 1:

For example, if one's first two cards added up to 13, the highest
possible card would be a 8: 13+8=21. And the card that is one number
higher than that would be a 9: 13+9=22, which busts one's hand.

Now one looks at the dealer's one card that is face up. Let's say,
for example, it is a 10-value card (like I said, that means the card
is a 10, Jack, Queen, or King).

Now add the highest possible card (in our example, it is a 8) to the
dealer's face up card: 10-value card + 8 = 18. Secondly, add the card
one number higher than the highest possible card to the dealer's face
up card: 10-value card + 9 = 19.

So reasoning this way ?

1) If I hit and it was an 8, that would be good, for my hand becomes
21: 13+8=21
2) If I hit and it was a 9, that would be bad, for my hand becomes
22, and that busts me: 13+9=22 ? bust
3) If I ?stand? (do not signal for another card), and the next
card was an 8, the dealer would then have 18: 10-value card+8=18.
Dealer would then win with this 18 hand over my 13 hand.
4) If I stand, and the next card card was a 9, the dealer would then
have 19: 10-value card+9=19. Dealer would then win with this 19 hand
over my 13 hand.

So I reason out: if it was an 8, I would have 21; and so what if it
is a 9 and I bust, because if I pass, the dealer would get the 9 (or
8) and still win. So hit, because there?s no choice. So what to do
for this example: hit (signal for another card to be dealt to me).

I AM NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THIS IS MAYBE HOW IT GOES NEXT?: And after
you get the next card ? and don?t bust with this card you hit for --,
continue this reasoning for your new hand total (which now consists
of three cards), reasoning to see if now you should hit again or
stand. If you hit again and don?t bust with this next card you hit
for (your new hand will now consist of four cards) then again do
this reasoning (of 'highest possible card' and 'card one number
above highest possible card') to either hit or stand. So, in other
words, you do this reasoning with the present hand total ? hit or
stand. If your reasoning tells you to hit, then hit, and so on,
until when your reasoning tells you to stand on that present hand
total, then it passes to the dealer?s turn?

Example 2:

My first two cards add up to 16. The dealer?s card is a 10-value
card.

In this example, the highest possible card would be a 5: 16+5=21.
The card one number higher than the highest possible card would be a
6, which would bust me: 16+6=22 ? bust.

Now reasoning:

1) If I hit, and it was a 5, that would be good, because my
hand would become 21: 16+5=21.
2) If I hit, and it was a 6, that would be bad, because my hand
would become 22, busting me: 16+6=22.
3) If I stand, and the next card was a 5, the dealer would then
have 15: 10-value card+5=15. In the casinos I went to the rule maybe
has always been that the dealer has to hit on a hard 16 or less,
hand, and stands on a hard 17 or higher, hand. But a dealer has to
hit on a soft 17 or less hand, which is a hand of 17 that has an Ace
card in it, making it able to change value ? hence ?soft? ? SO
REMEMBER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A ?HARD? HAND. So because this hand is
a hard 15, it is not a hand of hard 17 or over, the dealer MUST hit.
With the next card, the dealer may bust. So me standing for the
possibility that the next card is a 5, is good for me also.
4) If I stand, and the next card was a 6, the dealer would
have 16: 10-value card+6=16. I have just spoken about the rule where
the dealer must hit if his hand is a hard 16 or less. So here the
dealer?s hand is a hard 16, so he must hit again. With the next
card, the dealer may bust. So me standing for this possibility that
the next card is a 6, is good for me also.

So,

1) hitting here would be good. So hit.
2) hitting here would be bad. So stand.
3) Standing here would be good. So stand.
4) Standing here would be good. So stand.

So out of the four possibilities three of them favor standing (Nos.
2, 3, and 4), and one favors hitting (No. 1). ?What to do: stand
(signal I do not want another card, so now it?s dealers turn.)

I AM NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THIS IS MAYBE HOW IT GOES NEXT?: And after
you get the next card ? and don?t bust with this card you hit for --,
continue this reasoning for your new hand total (which now consists
of three cards), reasoning to see if now you should hit again or
stand. If you hit again and don?t bust with this next card you hit
for (your new hand will now consist of four cards) then again do
this reasoning (of 'highest possible card' and 'card one number
above highest possible card') to either hit or stand. So, in other
words, you do this reasoning with the present hand total ? hit or
stand. If your reasoning tells you to hit, then hit, and so on,
until when your reasoning tells you to stand on that present hand
total, then it passes to the dealer?s turn?

Example 3:

One?s first two cards add up to 10. Dealer has an 8 as his card.

It is common sense to hit for another card if your hand total is a
hard total ? not soft total ? that is less than 12, because there?s
no chance of busting with the next card you hit for, right? (A hard
total less than 12, is either a hard 11, hard 10, hard 9, hard 8,
hard 7, hard 6, hard 5, or hard 4; there is no such thing as a hard
total of 3 or 2, because that would mean one of the cards is an Ace,
making it soft totals, right?) But when I wrote the "highest
possdible card would be an Ace" etc. in the next paragraph and
onwards for this 'Example 3', I automatically did this system on it,
without seeing the common sense of hitting on a hand that totals hard
10, because these Examples (Example 1, Example 2, this Example 3, and
Example 4) all were created by me as I was writing on paper more of
this writing on my blackjack system (later typed much of it out onto
the internet to add with what was already on the internet, saved in
my email account(s)) in a hurried state (late at night?). So what you
will read below where I use this system on a hand of hard 10 was
written before I saw the common sense of hitting on a hand of hard
10. But the system reasons out still to hit on a hand of hard 10. The
logic of my system works all the time on any hand, or not?! ...you
reason it out...? So here goes with the system reasoned out on a hand
of hard 10, below (but the part at the end of this Example 3, 'I AM
NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THIS IS MAYBE HOW IT GOES NEXT?:',etc. is a new
addition to this writing):

The highest possible card would be an Ace: two cards adding up to 10
+ Ace = 10+ 11 = 21.
The card one number above this does not exist in this case.

So reasoning:

1) If I hit and it is an Ace card, that would be good for me,
because I would have 21: two cards adding up to 10 + Ace = 21.
2) If I stand and dealer gets the ace he will win with a soft
19 (8+Ace=soft 19) over my 10 hand. About soft hands: the rule is
the dealer must hit if his hand totals soft 17 or less, and must
stand on his hand if it is a soft 18 or over. Because dealer?s hand
is a soft 19, he must stand.

So,

1) hitting here would be good. So hit.
2) Standing here would be bad. So hit.

So two possibilities favor hitting, and no possibilities favor
standing here. The two possibilities comprise all possibilities
here. So 100% (one hundred percent) ? 2 out of 2 possibilities ?
favors hitting. So what to do for this example: hit (signal for
another card to be dealt to me).

I AM NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THIS IS MAYBE HOW IT GOES NEXT?: And after
you get the next card -- there is no possibility you will bust
hitting on this hard 10 hand with this next card--, continue this
reasoning for your new hand total (which now consists of three
cards), reasoning to see if now you should hit again or stand. If you
hit again and don?t bust with this next card you hit for (your new
hand will now consist of four cards) then again do this reasoning
(of 'highest possible card' and 'card one number above highest
possible card') to either hit or stand. So, in other words, you do
this reasoning with the present hand total ? hit or stand. If your
reasoning tells you to hit, then hit, and so on it goes, until your
reasoning tells you to stand on that present hand total, then it
passes to the dealer?s turn?

Example 4:

Ones first two cards add up to 12. Dealer?s card is an Ace.

Reason:

The highest possible card is a 9. The card one number above the
highest possible card is a 10-value card (as said earlier, a ?10-
value? card means a 10, Jack, Queen, or King).

1) If I hit and it was a 9, that would be good for me, for I
would have 21: 12+9=21.
2) If I hit and it was a 10-value card (as said, a ?10-value?
card is a 10, Jack, Queen, or King), that would be bad for me, for I
would bust: 12 + 10-value card = 22; bust.
3) If I stand and it was a 9, that would be bad, because the
dealer would then have a soft 20 hand (Ace + 9 = soft 20), which he
must stand on (as said for soft hands, a dealer must stand on a soft
18 or higher). This soft 20 beats my hand of 12.
4) If I stand and the next card was a 10-value card (as said,
a ?10-value? card is a 10, Jack, Queen, or King), the dealer would
have blackjack (Ace + 10-value card = blackjack). My hand is 12, so
I lose.

So, about the above four:

1) If I hit and get a 9, it is good. So hit.
2) If I hit and get a 10, it is bad. So stand.
3) If I stand, and dealer gets a 9 and wins, it is bad. So hit.
4) If I stand and dealer gets a 10 and wins, it is bad. So hit.

So,
Three favor I hit (Nos. 1, 3, and 4), and one favors I stand (No.
2). Also this reasoning: It?s best for me to hit for if I get a 9
that?s great, and if I get a 10 that?s the same thing if he gets a
10. but if I didn?t hit and he got a 9, he?d win. TRANSLATION: It?s
best for me to hit, for if I get a 9 (I?d have 21) that?s great, and
if I get a 10 (meaning, 10-value card) that?s the same thing as if I
didn?t hit and he got the 10-value card (meaning my busting on a 10-
value card ? 12 + 10-value card = 22; bust ? is the same thing as me
standing and he getting the 10-value card and winning on it; either
way I?d lose, so HIT also for this reason?) But if I didn?t hit and
he got a 9, he?d win (going back to the first part of the reasoning ?
It?s best for me to hit for if I get a 9 that?s great --, we see
that if the next card was a 9, and I stood, the dealer would get the
9, and win).

For me to have something to look at for these examples, I could
scribble on paper how the table would look for this example: the
dealer?s card and my hand (or you can imagine this in your head, or
not?):

Ace

12

Now imagine a 9 beside your 12 hand, then imagine it beside the
dealer?s Ace hand instead:

Ace

12 9



Ace 9

12

Then imagine a 10 (this ?10? is a 10-value card: 10, Jack, Queen, or
King card) beside your 12 hand, then imagine it beside the dealer?s
Ace hand:

A

12 10



A 10

12

That's how you can visualize the possibilities for the 'highest
possible card' and the 'card one number above the highest possible
card' when added to your hand, then the dealer's hand.

So what to do for this example: hit (signal for another card to be
dealt to oneself).

I AM NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THIS IS MAYBE HOW IT GOES NEXT?: And after
you get the next card ? and don?t bust with this card you hit for --,
continue this reasoning for your new hand total (which now consists
of three cards), reasoning to see if now you should hit again or
stand. If you hit again and don?t bust with this next card you hit
for (your new hand will now consist of four cards) then again do
this reasoning (of 'highest possible card' and 'card one number
above highest possible card') to either hit or stand. So, in other
words, you do this reasoning with the present hand total ? hit or
stand. If your reasoning tells you to hit, then hit, and so on,
until when your reasoning tells you to stand on that present hand
total, then it passes to the dealer?s turn?

For this system, you see I don't ask for insurance when the dealer
has an Ace -- it's much because I did not learn how insurance work --
yes, I've been playing blackjack all this time and don't know how
insurance totally works (I know only a part of it, making me
therefore ignorant of how it works; I am confused about it). BUT
INSURANCE IS NOT DONE IN THIS SYSTEM OF MINE.

1) Don't ask for insurance
2) Don't double down, because if one does, one only gets one
card more with a double down (doubling one?s bet, with only one more
card given to one), and this system of would not be followed. This
system has one reason for a present hand, to hit or stand (and so on
with each present hand), until one reasons to stand on a present
hand, passing to the dealer.
3) Don't split cards, because the system ?in its purity? works
for the anchor hand against the dealer?s face up card.
4) Don't play any other spot except the one anchor spot. And that
means also don't play two spots, just that one anchor spot you play.
Always sit at the last seat (the end seat) just before the dealer
(the seat rightmost to the dealer), so no one can sneak into that
last seat or a seat closer to that last seat, and thus become the new
anchor of the table.

Sometimes when I was the anchor, and there were other players at the
table, I busted the dealer many times (is that true, or I just
busted the dealer an average amount of times, ?or few times?) using
this system (I used this system those times when I busted the
dealer?). I and all the other players win money when I bust the
dealer? But when this happened, quite a lot of those times or most of
those times (?) I was only betting $5 a hand, win or lose that hand,
I'd still only bet $5 again?... ...hey, I don't got thousands of
dollars...

Sometimes its luck when your first two dealt cards are a good hand
(high hand or blackjack) compared to the dealer's face card.

Maybe there's kamma (same as or similar to (Sanskrit?) 'karma', or
not?...) involved in winning money -- in my case, winning back money -
- in the casino, or maybe not.

That's all I will write (for now?). This is Version 3 of this
writing 'Ai Le's Blackjack'.

Ai

APPENDIX:

*********************************************************************
*********
*************** FIRST APPENDIX ARTICLE BELOW *******************
*********************************************************************
*********

MY LIST HAS NOW 12 (TWELVE) THINGS -- ONE MORE THING WAS ADDED. THAT
THING IS 'THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS', OR 'THE FOUR ARYAN TRUTHS'. IT
BECAME #5 IN THE LIST, AND THE PREVIOUS #5 IS NOW #6 IN THE LIST,
ETC.
A THOUGHT: WHAT IF THIS LIST NOW NEVER CHANGES FOR A LONG TIME UNTIL
I
GO WITH A TRUER WAY WITH BUDDHISM, OR EVEN EXISTS AS MY ANSWER UNTIL
I
DIE? THE NEW LIST IS:

1. refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma *1*, Sangha.
2. five precepts, but for ?not to sexual misconduct?, I had
instead ?minimum of not sexual misconduct? (or something like that).
3. verbalizations of not to gamble anymore (gambling like
gambling money in the casino, as one example).
4. not-self,no-self,anatta; not clinging *2*; Bhikkhus, is
there the holding of a self view which does not give birth to grief,
lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. No, venerable sir.
Good! I too do not see a self view which does not give birth to
grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. *3*
5. four noble truths *4*
6. Majjhima Nikaya 19. *5*
7. metta.
8. compassion.
9. mudita.
10. upekkha.
11. Majjhima Nikaya 61. *6*
12. gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha *7*;
prajnaparamita.

IF YOU ARE READING THIS FROM AN EMAIL OR ANY OTHER PLACE OTHER THAN
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/life-atmosphere OR
http://groups.msn.com/AiDinhLegoespublic: IF THERE IS ANY FUTURE
CHANGES TO MY ANSWER OR ANY NEW ANSWER, IT MAYBE -- MAYBE -- WILL BE
POSTED AT MY GROUP http://groups.yahoo.com/group/life-atmosphere OR
MY
OTHER GROUP http://groups.msn.com/AiDinhLegoespublic AND NOT BY THE
WAY YOU ARE READING THIS NOW (EMAIL, A PLACE ON THE NET OTHER THAN
THOSE TWO GROUPS OF MINE, ETC).

FROM,
AI LE
7:19 PM, MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2005.

NOTES:

*1* I am not sure if it was ?Dhamma? or ?Dharma?.

*2* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theravadabuddhism/message/3482 :

From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" <bhikkhu.samahita@...>
Date: Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:48 am
Subject: What are the Causes of Egoism ... ???

Friends:

What causes this Blind Belief in an Unchanging Identity ?

At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this:
Bhikkhus, when what exists, by clinging to what, by adhering to what,
by insisting dogmatically on what, by misinterpreting what, does this
'personality belief', this 'same identity' view: 'I am this &
that...' arise ?
Venerable Sir, our teachings are rooted in the Buddha, who knows &
sees!
When there is form, Bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by attaching to
form,
this identity view: 'I am this form...' arises! Furthermore: When
there is
feeling, perception, mental construction & consciousness, by
clinging to,
by attaching to feeling, perception, mental construction &
consciousness,
this identity view: 'I am this & that mental phenomena...' arises &
remains!
Understanding this, Bhikkhus, a well instructed Noble Disciple
experiences
disgust towards form, disgust towards feeling, disgust towards
perception,
disgust towards mental construction, & disgust towards consciousness
itself!
Experiencing disgust, he becomes disillusioned! Through disillusion
his mind
is released. When it is released, one instantly knows: This mind is
liberated,

and one understands: Extinguished is birth, this Noble Life is all
completed,
done is what should be done, there is no state of being beyond
this...

Source:
The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22:55 III 185
http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then
will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it &
respond!!

Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka.

Friendship is the Greatest ...
Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!!

http://www.What-Buddha-Said.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/What_Buddha_Said
Dhamma-Questions sent to my email are quite Welcome.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*3* From Majjhima Nikaya 22. http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-
Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/022-alagagaddupama-sutta-e1.htm :
?
Bhikkhus, do you see anything permanent, not changing, eterrnal, to
seize. No, venerable sir. Good! I too do not see anything to seize
that which is permanent, not changing, and stands eternity.
Bhikkhus, is there the holding of a self view which does not give
birth to grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress.
No, venerable sir. Good! I too do not see a self view which does not
give birth to grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and
distress. Bhikkhus, is there a settled view which does not give
birth to grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasusre and distress.
No, venerabale sir. Good! I too do not see a settled view which does
not give birth to grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and
distress.
?

*4* not sure if I either said 'four noble truths' or 'four aryan
truths' (or something else?).

*5* Majjhima Nikaya 19:
http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-019-tb0.html

*6* Majjhima Nikaya 61:
http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-061-tb0.html ,
and also at http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-
Nikaya/Majjhima2/061-ambalatthika-rahulovada-e1.htm

ADDITION TO THIS NOTE *5*: notes 9 and 15 from ?That the True Dhamma
Might Last a Long Time?, Readings Selected by King Asoka, selected
and translated by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/asoka.html :

9. On-pitch and off (sama and visama): Throughout ancient cultures,
the terminology of music was used to describe the moral quality of
people and acts. Discordant intervals or poorly-tuned musical
instruments were metaphors for evil; harmonious intervals and well-
tuned instruments were metaphors for good. In Pali, the term sama --
"even" -- described an instrument tuned on-pitch: There is a famous
passage where the Buddha reminds Sona Kolivisa -- who had been over-
exerting himself in the practice -- that a lute sounds appealing
only if the strings are neither too taut or too lax, but 'evenly'
tuned. This image would have special resonances with the Buddha's
teaching on the middle way. It also adds meaning to the term samana -
- monk or contemplative -- which the texts frequently mention as
being derived from sama. The word sama񱡠-- "evenness," the quality
of being in tune -- also means the quality of being a contemplative.
This concept plays an important role in the Instructions to Rahula,
below. The true contemplative is always in tune with what is proper
and good. [Go back]

15. Sama񱡺 the quality of being a contemplative (samana). Both
words are derived from the adjective sama, which means "even" or "on
pitch/in tune." For discussion of how a contemplative is "in tune,"
see n. 9. [Go back]

*7* This is the mantra from the prajnaparamita (?perfection of
wisdom?/?perfect wisdom?) sutra ? TheHeart of the Perfect Wisdom?
said to have been uttered by an Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva. This is
from Mahayana Buddhism, not found in Theravada Buddhism,
this ?prajnaparamita? doctrine? And also, Avalokitersvara
Bodhisattva does not exist in Theravada Buddhism, or does? Here is a
Heart of Perfect Wisdom Sutra version found off the internet, which
I have not looked at to see if it has anything I think that differs
from the version of it I saw in book(s) in the past.
http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/texts/mahayana/009-
heartsutra.htm :

The Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, from the deep course of Prajna
wisdom, saw clearly that all five skandhas were empty, thus sundered
all bonds of suffering.
Sariputra, know then: form does not differ from emptiness, nor does
emptiness differ from form. Form is no other than emptiness,
emptiness no other than form. The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses and consciousness.
Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. None are born or
die, nor are they defiled or immaculate, nor do they wax or wane.
Therefore, where there is emptiness, there is no form, no feeling,
no perception, no impulse, nor is there consciousness. No eye, ear,
nose, tongue, body, or mind. No color, sound, smell, taste, touch,
or object of mind. There is no domain of sight nor even domain of
mind consciousness. There is no ignorance nor is there ceasing of
ignorance. There is no withering, no death, nor is there ceasing of
withering and death. There is no suffering, or cause of suffering,
or cease in suffering, or path to lead from suffering. There is no
cognition, nor even attainment.
So know that the Bodhisattva, indifferent to any kind of attainment
whatsoever but dwelling in Prajna wisdom, is freed of any thought
covering, get rid of the fear bred by it, has overcome what can
upset and in the end reaches utmost Nirvana. All Buddhas of past and
present, and Buddhas of future time, through faith in Prajna wisdom,
come to full and perfect Enlightenment.
Therefore, one should know the Prajna paramita as the mantra of
great knowledge, the miraculous, the utmost, the unequalled mantra,
whose words relieve all suffering. This is highest wisdom, true
beyond all doubt.
Know then and proclaim the Prajna paramita mantra. It spells like
this:
Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha !
( Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, Bodhi, rejoice ! )

---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL POST OF ANSWER OF YESTERDAY:

This is my present answer, consisting of 11 (eleven) parts, in my
mind, but don?t know if there will be added part(s) or deleted part
(s), or if the whole thing will be got rid of by me, in the future
(giving up my answer I have done many times or some times in the
past, I wish to believe; you could look through this Group?s
postings by me and see if that is true). I have now written it out
onto the internet this present answer of mine. Now it?s not a secret
like it was some time ago? All, I wish to believe,
are ?verbalizations?, not just thoughts in my mind. And it was not
built in a day, but gradually, I wish to believe. [Numbers in
asterisks (for example, ?*1*? ) are note numbers]:

1. refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma *1*, Sangha.
2. five precepts, but for ?not to sexual misconduct?, I had
instead ?minimum of not sexual misconduct? (or something like that).
3. verbalizations of not to gamble anymore (gambling like
gambling money in the casino, as one example).
4. not-self,no-self,anatta; not clinging *2*; Bhikkhus, is
there the holding of a self view which does not give birth to grief,
lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. No, venerable sir.
Good! I too do not see a self view which does not give birth to
grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. *3*
5. Majjhima Nikaya 19. *4*
6. metta.
7. compassion.
8. mudita.
9. upekkha.
10. Majjhima Nikaya 61. *5*
11. ?gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha *6*;
prajnaparamita.

That?s the list of 11 (eleven) sets in my mind.

For me to have entered (my way of?) prajnaparamita dwelling, I had
reasoned using the Majjhima Nikaya 61 (#10 in the list) that doing
or trying it is okay? Maybe that was my reasoning, or some other
thinking consisting using the Majjhima Nikaya 61, lead me to
entering (my way of?) prajnaparamita and adding ?prajnaparamita? as
a verbalization, it becoming the next set of verbalizations: #11 in
the list. I am not sure what would have come first, right now as I
am typing this out, though, the entering (my way of?)
prajnaparamita, or the verbalization of words about prajnaparamita
material.

Verbalizations make the thing in question a stronger, anchored,
practice. I still have all 11 sets in my mind, but I am presently
practicing the Majjhima Nikaya 61 (again it; #10 in the set) as the
present practice. It?s the dominant practice for now, until maybe
tomorrow (or some other time) when I might do sitting meditation,
when I would make the Majjhima Nikaya 19 (#5 in the list) as the
present practice instead. To change practices, I utter another
verbalization of the practice I want to do, and my mind anchors onto
that practice as the present practice? For example, if I want to
change it to the Majjhima Nikaya 19 (like when I may do meditiation
in the future, as already noted), I would utter ?Majjhima Nikaya 19?.

From,
Ai (Dinh) Le
8:03 PM, Sunday, October 2, 2005.
Vancouver, BC, Canada.


NOTES:

*1* I am not sure if it was ?Dhamma? or ?Dharma?.

*2* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theravadabuddhism/message/3482 :

Friends:

What causes this Blind Belief in an Unchanging Identity ?

At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this:
Bhikkhus, when what exists, by clinging to what, by adhering to what,
by insisting dogmatically on what, by misinterpreting what, does this
'personality belief', this 'same identity' view: 'I am this &
that...' arise ?
Venerable Sir, our teachings are rooted in the Buddha, who knows &
sees!
When there is form, Bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by attaching to
form,
this identity view: 'I am this form...' arises! Furthermore: When
there is
feeling, perception, mental construction & consciousness, by
clinging to,
by attaching to feeling, perception, mental construction &
consciousness,
this identity view: 'I am this & that mental phenomena...' arises &
remains!
Understanding this, Bhikkhus, a well instructed Noble Disciple
experiences
disgust towards form, disgust towards feeling, disgust towards
perception,
disgust towards mental construction, & disgust towards consciousness
itself!
Experiencing disgust, he becomes disillusioned! Through disillusion
his mind
is released. When it is released, one instantly knows: This mind is
liberated,

and one understands: Extinguished is birth, this Noble Life is all
completed,
done is what should be done, there is no state of being beyond
this...

Source:
The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22:55 III 185
http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then
will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it &
respond!!

Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka.

Friendship is the Greatest ...
Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!!

http://www.What-Buddha-Said.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/What_Buddha_Said
Dhamma-Questions sent to my email are quite Welcome.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*3* From Majjhima Nikaya 22. http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-
Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/022-alagagaddupama-sutta-e1.htm :
?
Bhikkhus, do you see anything permanent, not changing, eterrnal, to
seize. No, venerable sir. Good! I too do not see anything to seize
that which is permanent, not changing, and stands eternity.
Bhikkhus, is there the holding of a self view which does not give
birth to grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress.
No, venerable sir. Good! I too do not see a self view which does not
give birth to grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and
distress. Bhikkhus, is there a settled view which does not give
birth to grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasusre and distress.
No, venerabale sir. Good! I too do not see a settled view which does
not give birth to grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and
distress.
?

*4* Majjhima Nikaya 19:
http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-019-tb0.html

*5* Majjhima Nikaya 61:
http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-061-tb0.html ,
and also at http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-
Nikaya/Majjhima2/061-ambalatthika-rahulovada-e1.htm

ADDITION TO THIS NOTE *5*: notes 9 and 15 from ?That the True Dhamma
Might Last a Long Time?, Readings Selected by King Asoka, selected
and translated by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/asoka.html :

9. On-pitch and off (sama and visama): Throughout ancient cultures,
the terminology of music was used to describe the moral quality of
people and acts. Discordant intervals or poorly-tuned musical
instruments were metaphors for evil; harmonious intervals and well-
tuned instruments were metaphors for good. In Pali, the term sama --
"even" -- described an instrument tuned on-pitch: There is a famous
passage where the Buddha reminds Sona Kolivisa -- who had been over-
exerting himself in the practice -- that a lute sounds appealing
only if the strings are neither too taut or too lax, but 'evenly'
tuned. This image would have special resonances with the Buddha's
teaching on the middle way. It also adds meaning to the term samana -
- monk or contemplative -- which the texts frequently mention as
being derived from sama. The word sama񱡠-- "evenness," the quality
of being in tune -- also means the quality of being a contemplative.
This concept plays an important role in the Instructions to Rahula,
below. The true contemplative is always in tune with what is proper
and good. [Go back]

15. Sama񱡺 the quality of being a contemplative (samana). Both
words are derived from the adjective sama, which means "even" or "on
pitch/in tune." For discussion of how a contemplative is "in tune,"
see n. 9. [Go back]

*6* This is the mantra from the prajnaparamita (?perfection of
wisdom?/?perfect wisdom?) sutra ? TheHeart of the Perfect Wisdom?
said to have been uttered by an Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva. This is
from Mahayana Buddhism, not found in Theravada Buddhism,
this ?prajnaparamita? doctrine? And also, Avalokitersvara
Bodhisattva does not exist in Theravada Buddhism, or does? Here is a
Heart of Perfect Wisdom Sutra version found off the internet, which
I have not looked at to see if it has anything I think that differs
from the version of it I saw in book(s) in the past.
http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/texts/mahayana/009-
heartsutra.htm :

The Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, from the deep course of Prajna
wisdom, saw clearly that all five skandhas were empty, thus sundered
all bonds of suffering.
Sariputra, know then: form does not differ from emptiness, nor does
emptiness differ from form. Form is no other than emptiness,
emptiness no other than form. The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses and consciousness.
Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. None are born or
die, nor are they defiled or immaculate, nor do they wax or wane.
Therefore, where there is emptiness, there is no form, no feeling,
no perception, no impulse, nor is there consciousness. No eye, ear,
nose, tongue, body, or mind. No color, sound, smell, taste, touch,
or object of mind. There is no domain of sight nor even domain of
mind consciousness. There is no ignorance nor is there ceasing of
ignorance. There is no withering, no death, nor is there ceasing of
withering and death. There is no suffering, or cause of suffering,
or cease in suffering, or path to lead from suffering. There is no
cognition, nor even attainment.
So know that the Bodhisattva, indifferent to any kind of attainment
whatsoever but dwelling in Prajna wisdom, is freed of any thought
covering, get rid of the fear bred by it, has overcome what can
upset and in the end reaches utmost Nirvana. All Buddhas of past and
present, and Buddhas of future time, through faith in Prajna wisdom,
come to full and perfect Enlightenment.
Therefore, one should know the Prajna paramita as the mantra of
great knowledge, the miraculous, the utmost, the unequalled mantra,
whose words relieve all suffering. This is highest wisdom, true
beyond all doubt.
Know then and proclaim the Prajna paramita mantra. It spells like
this:
Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha !
( Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, Bodhi, rejoice ! )

*********************************************************************
************
**************** SECOND APPENDIX ARTICLE BELOW *****************
*********************************************************************
************

Help | Home ? Tipitaka ? Sutta Pitaka ? Digha Nikaya ? Context of
this sutta
Digha Nikaya 31
Sigalovada Sutta
The Discourse to Sigala
The Layperson's Code of Discipline
Translated from the Pali by Narada Thera.
For free distribution only.
From Everyman's Ethics: Four Discourses by the Buddha (WH 14),
translated by Narada Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society,
1985). Copyright ?1985 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with
permission.

Thus have I heard:
On one occasion the Exalted One was dwelling in the Bamboo Grove,
the Squirrels' Sanctuary, near Rajagaha.
Now at that time, young Sigala, a householder's son, rising early in
the morning, departing from Rajagaha, with wet clothes and wet hair,
worshipped with joined hands the various quarters ? the East, the
South, the West, the North, the Nadir, and the Zenith.
Then the Exalted One, having robed himself in the forenoon took bowl
and robe, and entered Rajagaha for alms. Now he saw young Sigala
worshipping thus and spoke to him as follows:
"Wherefore do you, young householder, rising early in the morning,
departing from Rajagaha, with wet clothes and wet hair, worship,
with joined hands these various quarters ? the East, the South, the
West, the North, the Nadir, and the Zenith?"
"My father, Lord, while dying, said to me: The six quarters, dear
son, you shall worship. And I, Lord, respecting, revering,
reverencing and honoring my father's word, rise early in the
morning, and leaving Rajagaha, with wet clothes and wet hair,
worship with joined hands, these six quarters."
"It is not thus, young householder, the six quarters should be
worshipped in the discipline of the noble."
"How then, Lord, should the six quarters be worshipped in the
discipline of the noble? It is well, Lord, if the Exalted One would
teach the doctrine to me showing how the six quarters should be
worshipped in the discipline of the noble."
"Well, young householder, listen and bear it well in mind; I shall
speak." ? "Very good, Lord," responded young Sigala.
And the Exalted One spoke as follows:
"Inasmuch, young householder, as the noble disciple (1) has
eradicated the four vices in conduct,1 (2) inasmuch as he commits no
evil action in four ways, (3) inasmuch as he pursues not the six
channels for dissipating wealth, he thus, avoiding these fourteen
evil things, covers the six quarters, and enters the path leading to
victory in both worlds: he is favored in this world and in the world
beyond. Upon the dissolution of the body, after death, he is born in
a happy heavenly realm.
(1) "What are the four vices in conduct that he has eradicated? The
destruction of life, householder, is a vice and so are stealing,
sexual misconduct, and lying. These are the four vices that he has
eradicated."
Thus spoke the Exalted One. And when the Master had thus spoken, he
spoke yet again:
Killing, stealing, lying and adultery,
These four evils the wise never praise.
(2) "In which four ways does one commit no evil action? Led by
desire does one commit evil. Led by anger does one commit evil. Led
by ignorance does one commit evil. Led by fear does one commit evil.2
"But inasmuch as the noble disciple is not led by desire, anger,
ignorance, and fear, he commits no evil."
Thus spoke the Exalted One. And when the Master had thus spoken, he
spoke yet again:
Whoever through desire, hate or fear,
Or ignorance should transgress the Dhamma,
All his glory fades away
Like the moon during the waning half.
Whoever through desire, hate or fear,
Or ignorance never transgresses the Dhamma,
All his glory ever increases
Like the moon during the waxing half.
(3) "What are the six channels for dissipating wealth which he does
not pursue?
(a) "indulgence in intoxicants which cause infatuation and
heedlessness;
(b) sauntering in streets at unseemly hours;
(c) frequenting theatrical shows;
(d) indulgence in gambling which causes heedlessness;
(e) association with evil companions;
(f) the habit of idleness.
(a) "There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in
indulging in intoxicants which cause infatuation and heedlessness:
(i) loss of wealth,
(ii) increase of quarrels,
(iii) susceptibility to disease,
(iv) earning an evil reputation,
(v) shameless exposure of body,
(vi) weakening of intellect.
(b) "There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in
sauntering in streets at unseemly hours:
(i) he himself is unprotected and unguarded,
(ii) his wife and children are unprotected and unguarded,
(iii) his property is unprotected and unguarded,
(iv) he is suspected of evil deeds,3
(v) he is subject to false rumours,
(vi) he meets with many troubles.
(c) "There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in
frequenting theatrical shows. He is ever thinking:
(i) where is there dancing?
(ii) where is there singing?
(iii) where is there music?
(iv) where is there recitation?
(v) where is there playing with cymbals?
(vi) where is there pot-blowing?4
(d) "There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in
indulging in gambling:
(i) the winner begets hate,
(ii) the loser grieves for lost wealth,
(iii) loss of wealth,
(iv) his word is not relied upon in a court of law,
(v) he is despised by his friends and associates,
(vi) he is not sought after for matrimony; for people would say he
is a gambler and is not fit to look after a wife.
(e) "There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in
associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any
libertine, any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his
friend and companion.
(f) "There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in
being addicted to idleness:
"He does no work, saying:
(i) that it is extremely cold,
(ii) that it is extremely hot,
(iii) that it is too late in the evening,
(iv) that it is too early in the morning,
(v) that he is extremely hungry,
(vi) that he is too full.
"Living in this way, he leaves many duties undone, new wealth he
does not get, and wealth he has acquired dwindles away."
Thus spoke the Exalted One. And when the Master had thus spoken, he
spoke yet again:
"One is a bottle friend; one says, 'friend, friend' only to one's
face; one is a friend and an associate only when it is advantageous.
"Sleeping till sunrise, adultery, irascibility, malevolence, evil
companions, avarice ? these six causes ruin a man.
"The man who has evil comrades and friends is given to evil ways, to
ruin does he fall in both worlds ? here and the next.
"Dice, women, liquor, dancing, singing, sleeping by day, sauntering
at unseemly hours, evil companions, avarice ? these nine5 causes
ruin a man.
"Who plays with dice and drinks intoxicants, goes to women who are
dear unto others as their own lives, associates with the mean and
not with elders ? he declines just as the moon during the waning
half.
"Who is drunk, poor, destitute, still thirsty whilst drinking,
frequents the bars, sinks in debt as a stone in water, swiftly
brings disrepute to his family.
"Who by habit sleeps by day, and keeps late hours, is ever
intoxicated, and is licentious, is not fit to lead a household life.
"Who says it is too hot, too cold, too late, and leaves things
undone, the opportunities for good go past such men.
"But he who does not regard cold or heat any more than a blade of
grass and who does his duties manfully, does not fall away from
happiness."

"These four, young householder, should be understood as foes in the
guise of friends:
(1) he who appropriates a friend's possessions,
(2) he who renders lip-service,
(3) he who flatters,
(4) he who brings ruin.
(1) "In four ways, young householder, should one who appropriates be
understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:
(i) he appropriates his friend's wealth,
(ii) he gives little and asks much,
(iii) he does his duty out of fear,
(iv) he associates for his own advantage.
(2) "In four ways, young householder, should one who renders lip-
service be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:
(i) he makes friendly profession as regards the past,
(ii) he makes friendly profession as regards the future,
(iii) he tries to gain one's favor by empty words,
(iv) when opportunity for service has arisen, he expresses his
inability.
(3) "In four ways, young householder, should one who flatters be
understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:
(i) he approves of his friend's evil deeds,
(ii) he disapproves his friend's good deeds,
(iii) he praises him in his presence,
(iv) he speaks ill of him in his absence.
(4) "In four ways, young householder, should one who brings ruin be
understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:
(i) he is a companion in indulging in intoxicants that cause
infatuation and heedlessness,
(ii) he is a companion in sauntering in streets at unseemly hours,
(iii) he is a companion in frequenting theatrical shows,
(iv) he is a companion in indulging in gambling which causes
heedlessness."
Thus spoke the Exalted One. And when the Master had thus spoken, he
spoke yet again:
The friend who appropriates,
the friend who renders lip-service,
the friend that flatters,
the friend who brings ruin,
these four as enemies the wise behold,
avoid them from afar as paths of peril.
"These four, young householder, should be understood as warm-hearted
friends:
(1) he who is a helpmate,
(2) he who is the same in happiness and sorrow,
(3) he who gives good counsel,
(4) he who sympathises.
(1) "In four ways, young householder, should a helpmate be
understood as a warm-hearted friend:
(i) he guards the heedless,
(ii) he protects the wealth of the heedless,
(iii) he becomes a refuge when you are in danger,
(iv) when there are commitments he provides you with double the
supply needed.
(2) "In four ways, young householder, should one who is the same in
happiness and sorrow be understood as a warm-hearted friend:
(i) he reveals his secrets,
(ii) he conceals one's own secrets,
(iii) in misfortune he does not forsake one,
(iv) his life even he sacrifices for one's sake.
(3) "In four ways, young householder, should one who gives good
counsel be understood as a warm-hearted friend:
(i) he restrains one from doing evil,
(ii) he encourages one to do good,
(iii) he informs one of what is unknown to oneself,
(iv) he points out the path to heaven.
(4) "In four ways, young householder, should one who sympathises be
understood as a warm-hearted friend:
(i) he does not rejoice in one's misfortune,
(ii) he rejoices in one's prosperity,
(iii) he restrains others speaking ill of oneself,
(iv) he praises those who speak well of oneself."
Thus spoke the Exalted One. And when the Master had thus spoken, he
spoke yet again:
The friend who is a helpmate,
the friend in happiness and woe,
the friend who gives good counsel,
the friend who sympathises too ?
these four as friends the wise behold
and cherish them devotedly
as does a mother her own child.

The wise and virtuous shine like a blazing fire.
He who acquires his wealth in harmless ways
like to a bee that honey gathers,6
riches mount up for him
like ant hill's rapid growth.

With wealth acquired this way,
a layman fit for household life,
in portions four divides his wealth:
thus will he friendship win.

One portion for his wants he uses,7
two portions on his business spends,
the fourth for times of need he keeps.

"And how, young householder, does a noble disciple cover the six
quarters?
"The following should be looked upon as the six quarters. The
parents should be looked upon as the East, teachers as the South,
wife and children as the West, friends and associates as the North,
servants and employees as the Nadir, ascetics and brahmans as the
Zenith.8
"In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his
parents as the East:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
(ii) I shall do their duties,
(iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
(iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,
(v) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed
relatives.9
"In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as
the East by their children, show their compassion:
(i) they restrain them from evil,
(ii) they encourage them to do good,
(iii) they train them for a profession,
(iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
(v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.
"In these five ways do children minister to their parents as the
East and the parents show their compassion to their children. Thus
is the East covered by them and made safe and secure.
"In five ways, young householder, a pupil should minister to a
teacher as the South:
(i) by rising from the seat in salutation,
(ii) by attending on him,
(iii) by eagerness to learn,
(iv) by personal service,
(v) by respectful attention while receiving instructions.
"In five ways, young householder, do teachers thus ministered to as
the South by their pupils, show their compassion:
(i) they train them in the best discipline,
(ii) they see that they grasp their lessons well,
(iii) they instruct them in the arts and sciences,
(iv) they introduce them to their friends and associates,
(v) they provide for their safety in every quarter.
"The teachers thus ministered to as the South by their pupils, show
their compassion towards them in these five ways. Thus is the South
covered by them and made safe and secure.
"In five ways, young householder, should a wife as the West be
ministered to by a husband:
(i) by being courteous to her,
(ii) by not despising her,
(iii) by being faithful to her,
(iv) by handing over authority to her,
(v) by providing her with adornments.
"The wife thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her
compassion to her husband in five ways:
(i) she performs her duties well,
(ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants10
(iii) she is faithful,
(iv) she protects what he brings,
(v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.
"In these five ways does the wife show her compassion to her husband
who ministers to her as the West. Thus is the West covered by him
and made safe and secure.
"In five ways, young householder, should a clansman minister to his
friends and associates as the North:
(i) by liberality,
(ii) by courteous speech,
(iii) by being helpful,
(iv) by being impartial,
(v) by sincerity.
"The friends and associates thus ministered to as the North by a
clansman show compassion to him in five ways:
(i) they protect him when he is heedless,
(ii) they protect his property when he is heedless,
(iii) they become a refuge when he is in danger,
(iv) they do not forsake him in his troubles,
(v) they show consideration for his family.
"The friends and associates thus ministered to as the North by a
clansman show their compassion towards him in these five ways. Thus
is the North covered by him and made safe and secure.
"In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees
as the Nadir:
(i) by assigning them work according to their ability,
(ii) by supplying them with food and with wages,
(iii) by tending them in sickness,
(iv) by sharing with them any delicacies,
(v) by granting them leave at times.
"The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir by their
master show their compassion to him in five ways:
(i) they rise before him,
(ii) they go to sleep after him,
(iii) they take only what is given,
(iv) they perform their duties well,
(v) they uphold his good name and fame.
"The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir show
their compassion towards him in these five ways. Thus is the Nadir
covered by him and made safe and secure.
"In five ways, young householder, should a householder minister to
ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith:
(i) by lovable deeds,
(ii) by lovable words,
(iii) by lovable thoughts,
(iv) by keeping open house to them,
(v) by supplying their material needs.
"The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a
householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:
(i) they restrain him from evil,
(ii) they persuade him to do good,
(iii) they love him with a kind heart,
(iv) they make him hear what he has not heard,
(v) they clarify what he has already heard,
(vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state.
"In these six ways do ascetics and brahmans show their compassion
towards a householder who ministers to them as the Zenith. Thus is
the Zenith covered by him and made safe and secure." Thus spoke the
Exalted One. And when the Master had thus spoken, he spoke yet again:
The mother and father are the East,
The Teachers are the South,
Wife and Children are the West,
The friends and associates are the North.

Servants and employees are the Nadir,
The ascetics and brahmans are the Zenith;
Who is fit to lead the household life,
These six quarters he should salute.

Who is wise and virtuous,
Gentle and keen-witted,
Humble and amenable,
Such a one to honor may attain.

Who is energetic and not indolent,
In misfortune unshaken,
Flawless in manner and intelligent,
Such a one to honor may attain.

Who is hospitable, and friendly,
Liberal and unselfish,
A guide, an instructor, a leader,
Such a one to honor may attain.

Generosity, sweet speech,
Helpfulness to others,
Impartiality to all,
As the case demands.

These four winning ways make the world go round,
As the linchpin in a moving car.
If these in the world exist not,
Neither mother nor father will receive,
Respect and honor from their children.

Since these four winning ways
The wise appraise in every way,
To eminence they attain,
And praise they rightly gain.
When the Exalted One had spoken thus, Sigala, the young householder,
said as follows:
"Excellent, Lord, excellent! It is as if, Lord, a man were to set
upright that which was overturned, or were to reveal that which was
hidden, or were to point out the way to one who had gone astray, or
were to hold a lamp amidst the darkness, so that those who have eyes
may see. Even so, has the doctrine been explained in various ways by
the Exalted One.
"I take refuge, Lord, in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. May
the Exalted One receive me as a lay follower; as one who has taken
refuge from this very day to life's end."

Notes
1. kamma-kilesa, lit., 'actions of defilement.'
2. These are the four agati, 'evil courses of action': chanda, dosa,
moha, bhaya.
3. Crimes committed by others.
4. A kind of amusement.
5. The Pali original has here "six causes" as two compound words and
one double-term phrase are counted as units.
6. Dhammapada v. 49: "As a bee, without harming the flower, its
color or scent, flies away, collecting only the honey..."
7. This portion includes what is spent on good works: gifts to
monks, charity, etc.
8. "The symbolism is deliberately chosen: as the day in the East, so
life begins with parents' care; teacher's fees and the South are the
same word: dakkhina; domestic cares follow when the youth becomes
man, as the West holds the later daylight; North is 'beyond'
(uttara), so by help of friends, etc., he gets beyond troubles." ?
(Rhys Davids)
9. This is a sacred custom of the Aryans who never forgot the dead.
This tradition is still faithfully observed by the Buddhists of Sri
Lanka who make ceremonial offerings of alms to the monks on the
eighth day, in the third month, and on each anniversary of the
demise of the parents. Merit of these good actions is offered to the
departed after such ceremony. Moreover after every punna-kamma (good
action), a Buddhist never fails to think of his parents and offer
merit. Such is the loyalty and the gratitude shown to parents as
advised by the Buddha.
10. lit., 'the folk around' (parijana).

Revised: Sunday 2005-09-18
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn-31-nt1.