David Loy has the capability to put very complex issues from very different traditions quite simple and clear... He has profound knowledge about eastern and western traditions... I am really grateful to get the chance to listen to that... Thank you David Loy!
Thought evolution taking its higher level form in order to invent and implement futuristc civilization. No East. No West., One Human Society. Wonderful Session David Loy, Sir.
Thank you. A great synthesis of Buddhism and Post-Modern concerns. It seems important to consider Ashoka's state and, how that state developed when Buddhism had the opportunity to flourish without the necessity of concern with individual rulers capriciousness.
Thanks for this great talk, David. I totally agree with your critique of social activists who neglect their own inner work. That was exactly my own frustration with Adorno many years ago who as brilliant as he was got stuck in criticism by which he created an aporia for himself.
Why so little discussion about this hugely wise and needed talk? Would be interested to know how Loy, who identifies with Zen, would say to Zen "masters" support of Japanese imperialism in the first half of the last century and particularly during the 2nd world war covered in the book" Zen at War".My point being that the attempt to destroy what is deemed to be "evil" can too be done in the name of Buddhism.Which takes us right back to individual morality. I am hugely inspired by Loy's efforts.
As I listen to this in 2023, we are all groaning under the oppressive weight of those starry-eyed people who would like to restructure the world to make it a "better" one. Never forget that the path to hell is paved with good intentions (not to mention driven by resentment). May we be saved from the busy-bodies!
its true but some change of systems is also necessary, because things are not completely "right". Unfortunately maybe because of nature and reality an ideal system might not exist, without a change to human nature (which by evolution happens over long periods of time).
I'm 71. Spent quite a few years reading psychology/psychoanalysis. It helped me develop a strong ego which wasn't sufficient. I'm interested in Zen Buddhism, but I need more help with ego as illusion. Reading your book, Lack and Transcendence. Wish you would have come at it - also - from a scientific perspective/physics, That might make this idea of the Self as illusion more rational for me. I also voted for Trump, as the Anti-Globalist, Anti-Continuous War candidate. I will probably vote for him again because of the Authoritarianism, lack of respect for the First Amendment on the left. I think capitalism, not corporatism is the way to go. But when you were talking about the Stock Market, I wished you would have a dialogue (and we could watch it via video) with someone with expertise in economics. My pension comes from my union's wise investments in the Stock Market. Martin Buber, so far, has been the person who makes the most sense to me: being is in-the-between - his emphasis on I-Thou relating. What I am really looking for these days is a way to understand what death is. Perhaps, you could make a video on that. Where I am now is that your ideas about dualism are interesting. It makes sense to me that our way of thinking does cause suffering. But, so far, I don't know how to take the first steps to getting from here (where I am) to there. I will probably read more of your books, look at more of your videos. What's nice in what I perceive as this chaotic world we live in is to find someone who is talking about the things I am interested in learning more about. Thank you. My website: StopGangStalkingPolice.com.
Sir, please watch the videos on the TH-cam Channel 'Doug's Dharma'. It's probably the BEST Channel on Buddha, his Life and his Original Teachings. There are more than 325 Videos on the Channel. They are AMAZING ! Please watch those videos, if you are Interested in Buddhism ...
Unfortunately, most Buddhists and Buddhist commentators are easily duped by the misleading "social justice" rhetoric coming from globalist organizations. I have yet to find a Buddhist commentator who doesn't align to the superficial and misleading mainstream narratives about things like climate change, covid, Ukraine, 9/11, etc. Time after time, they and their followers have demonstrated a certain naivete which attends the vanity of too much idealizing their own self-image as "nice" people. I call it the "blindness of kindness". People like this want so much to think of themselves as the compassionate type that they dare not investigate official narratives too deeply for subconscious fear of resulting cognitive dissonance. Better to just mask up with that ineffectual face diaper and shame those "sociopaths" who "question the science". Same with respect to the experimental injections being foisted upon us. As the truth becomes more obvious, they sheepishly wish their error be forgotten, swept under a cover of moral amnesty. Hell no! This great and hypocritical ethical failure will not be forgotten! Between Christianities and Buddhisms, my existential and philosophical sympathies lie more with the Buddhist side of things (specifically the middle way between pairs of apparent opposites, the made-up nature of self and other apparent "things", letting go of craving to diminish suffering--but not their inconsistent and backsliding, Vedic-derived metaphysics of rebirth and cosmic moral accounting in which a natural account of how organisms come to be is inverted, nor their life-negating wish for literal cessation). But I have to admit, when it comes to seeing through the lies during the plandemic years, and standing up against tyranny, Christian conservatives have the upper hand.
There is no Buddhism. There is the experience of Awakening everything else is dualistic confabulation of that experience. All so-called Buddhism in every culture is a cultural and intellectual appropriation of the Buddha's Awakening. But that is not bad in any culture as we all can become more insightful about our realities especially once we become awakened, not before.
Gabri Leon. No buddhism? Only awakening? That is silly, because bodhi means awakening, and Buddha is the awakened one. And awakened on what? On dualism? No, but to an advaita, that is, non-dualism. Etc etc... And the cultures and buddhadharma as the products of culture? How is it possible there are cultures yet buddhism as a culture as well does not exist? Silly, I must say, foolishness thru and thru.
personal inner development becomes an issue if a person is not interested or aware of that, and is not making effort in that way. But otherwise, a person has options with changing own views and mind, Buddhist is one information source. Huge institutional faults and flaws seem more difficult for single person to change. It seems difficult with a national institution, but even more so for transnational ones and worldwide systems. So individuals go into apathy and depression, at least where what needs to happen seems to be banding together into strong right and good societies, which have collective influence and power. E.g- a person sees that animals are abused for sake of maximum profit by farming industry globally, but what to do? only option available is to give to activists or charities. This matter is purposefully ignored or denied even by a lot of ordinary individuals.
Even though agreeing with the author that the West needs Buddhism and Buddhism may evolve greatly from this encounter, there is one pillar of this talk I must respectfully disagree with. The historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, has never refrained from commenting and addressing politics and the way rulers ought to act towards the city, realm, and common people, even nature. This can be found in quite a few sources, such as the Sihananda Cakkavatti Sutta and the Sutta Kutadanta, but also in later expressions of Buddhism such as Nagasena's Milinda Panha, and finally from very recent Buddhists such as the Indian Babasaheb Ambedkar, and the Vietnamese Thich Quang Duc, Thich Nhat Hahn, and others.
Western psycho-therapy is primitive compared to Buddhist analysis of the mind. The Buddha carefully laid down the teaching and was also careful to warn against change in the future that would distort the teaching. This distortion is made by unenlightened people who have views marred by hindrances and wrong view. These people, because of culture and education, change Buddhism, even if slightly, so the goal and original meaning becomes other than what the Buddha pointed to. If you are aiming a rocket to mars even a slight mistake in the trajectory will take you, eventually, millions of miles off target. American Buddhism is like that with new age ideas and pop psychology taking its toll. The question is what did the Buddha himself teach, not what did Joe Shmoe teach about Buddhism.
There are a lot of issues with what you have said. First, the Buddha's teachings were not written down until about 300 years after his death. That is a long, long time for things to change. There is a lot of debate about what Jesus actually said and the first Gospels were written down 50 years after his passing. Second, are you saying that the Buddha was omniscient? He himself warned against being viewed as a god. There are no examples of living omniscient beings. I find it very hard to believe that the Buddha was never wrong about anything. If he was more like a scientist than a religious figure, then like any scientist there is no guarantee that everything he said was right. Third, the Buddha lived 2500 years ago in a world very different from our own. There were no democracies, there was no such thing as feminism, the most advanced technology was the written word, etc. Most of what we think of as Buddhist morality is actually an innovation of the past century or so. Fourth, what kind of Buddhism is the 'right' kind? Theravada? It is a product of late 19th and 20th Century reform movements in Southeast Asia in response to the threat of British colonialism and the perceived laxity of practice. Zen? Zen introduced koans and zazen. Tibetan? It introduced or preserved tantra and a lot of shamanic elements. Who is right? Buddhism can't remain frozen in time, even when the idea that it was ever that way is false. It has to change if it is to survive in the modern world, just as it changed to survive in every culture it was transplanted to over millennia.
As you know, nearly every sutra (regardless of when it was written and by whom) claims to capture the words of the Buddha himself. So, "what the Buddha taught" evolved over centuries in a poetic sense. In my opinion, if you want to know what Buddhism is, study the sutras, and the recorded sayings/teachings of the recognized Buddhist masters. A particular teaching is only as "right" as its effect in stimulating a nonverbal intuition in its intended hearers. All of the various strains of Buddhism "work". If you develop a serious interest in Buddhism, the one that is best for you will in a sense pick you.
Also, when Buddhism takes root in a new culture, as it has in the west, it will naturally evolve to suit the new context. This will happen "organically". It should not, and cannot be forced. To, for instance, attempt to subsume Buddhism under the heading of "science" is foolish in the extreme, in my opinion.
Bob Aldo I just think that relying only on what the Buddha said or is supposed to have said is not an example of an evolving tradition. I even think the word "Buddhism" is problematic if we're describing the development of the science of mind or knowledge of mind in the modern world. If we develop means to radically accelerate meditative progress through VR or brainwave entrainment, is that "Buddhism"? Or as neuroscience advances, and we understand more and more about how the brain constructs the idea of a 'self' much like the way Buddhism describes it, is that "Buddhism"?
There is no need to call that Buddhism, or even to give it a name. Buddhism is far more than a collection of meditation techniques. It is an ancient, but continuously evolving, religious culture - or "cultures" (plural). Buddhism includes a truly vast literature, a great many different sects - each with their own histories, approaches, techniques, favored writings, important teachers, traditions, etc. Using some practices taken from Buddhism - but outside its religious context, is probably best not referred to as practicing "Buddhism". Perhaps it would be more appropriately thought of as within the realm of experimental psychology.
This man claims that the western traditions of Constitutional Republic and Democracy were unknown to the earliest Buddhism, but, besides tracing Buddha's lineage back to Mahasamana ( The Great Elected One) , the meaning of " SANGHA" is that of a democratic system and the Indian Repiblics ( Mahajanapadas) of the Buddha"s time are well known . He also favors the Pali or Theravadin form as he fails to equally cite Mahayana or Sanskrit Buddhism
@Dipayan Pyne thnxs for the feedback. The name of the Buddha's ancestor I mention is often etymologized as " The Great ELECTED ONE' and the etymology for SANGHA and how they met up with each other differs not from the local meeting halls so essential to democracies
@Dipayan Pyne I'm sorry I think I've misled you: the Buddha's ancestor didn't have the compound SRAMANA/ SAMANA in his name . It's a very similar spelling that I can't recall. But, I think, his name is translated as " The Great Elect One" etymologically The Buddhist applied the word SANGHA ( MEETING HALL) to his monks and the SANGHA meeting halls well predate the time of The Lord 🙏 In a sense , The Buddha was the Great Republic needed to override the SANGHA consensus. As numerous times he would hold them in check in the vinaya and sometimes he ket their judgement stand
@Dipayan Pyne ok, but next time you will have to learn on your own ! Mahāsammata (Burmese: မဟာသမ္မတမင်း; also spelled Maha Samrat; lit. "the Great Elect"), also known as Khattiya and Rāja, was the first monarch of the world according to Buddhist tradition. To be sure, the SANGHA or MEETING HALLS , are pre Buddhist
Buddha himself has never killed anyone and he doesn't have 99 brothers. You must be a Burmese Christian missionaries. Christian is out of date my friend.
Buddha's teaching , a human greatly when , touch [ cheap ] a danger or , scare , menace , then , assume , the forest ? , a mountain ? , holy garden ? , invade the pagoda ? is a refuge , that not refuge revels , that not topmost supporter , ? assume the thing such has been the supporter already , should don't be free from evil from be distressful whole get ,
This is such a VITAL a message, and so appreciated for the way in which it was presented. Many thanks.
Buddhism as “SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION”….!! Perfect!!
A scary thought indeed! Typical Buddhists are some of the last ones I would want transforming anything.
David Loy has the capability to put very complex issues from very different traditions quite simple and clear... He has profound knowledge about eastern and western traditions... I am really grateful to get the chance to listen to that... Thank you David Loy!
Wonderful, inspiring, coherent, thought provoking. Thanks, David
I like the lighting and camera angles. Much better than most audience videos.
A just-discovered Gem, Fantastic! Thank you David!
Thought evolution taking its higher level form in order to invent and implement futuristc civilization. No East. No West., One Human Society. Wonderful Session David Loy, Sir.
Much appreciation for this insightful sharing! 🙏
Happy Buddha To You David Loy!! Amazing Wisdom! Thank You!
Amazing insight, thank you very much.
Thank you. A great synthesis of Buddhism and Post-Modern concerns. It seems important to consider Ashoka's state and, how that state developed when Buddhism had the opportunity to flourish without the necessity of concern with individual rulers capriciousness.
Thanks for this great talk, David. I totally agree with your critique of social activists who neglect their own inner work. That was exactly my own frustration with Adorno many years ago who as brilliant as he was got stuck in criticism by which he created an aporia for himself.
Why so little discussion about this hugely wise and needed talk? Would be interested to know how Loy, who identifies with Zen, would say to Zen "masters" support of Japanese imperialism in the first half of the last century and particularly during the 2nd world war covered in the book" Zen at War".My point being that the attempt to destroy what is deemed to be "evil" can too be done in the name of Buddhism.Which takes us right back to individual morality. I am hugely inspired by Loy's efforts.
brilliant lecture . Great insights.
Thank you Sir,, clear, fair analytical explanation of Buddhism
insightful. hope david reach wider audience. peace n wholesome happiness to all
Wow, great, thank you for very wise speech
Thanks, it was great
Very insightful.........
As I listen to this in 2023, we are all groaning under the oppressive weight of those starry-eyed people who would like to restructure the world to make it a "better" one. Never forget that the path to hell is paved with good intentions (not to mention driven by resentment). May we be saved from the busy-bodies!
its true but some change of systems is also necessary, because things are not completely "right". Unfortunately maybe because of nature and reality an ideal system might not exist, without a change to human nature (which by evolution happens over long periods of time).
Extreme dualistic and fear-based thinking leads to denial of unwanted impulses and psychological projection of seeing the evil into others.
This is the real Luke Skywalker
I'm 71. Spent quite a few years reading psychology/psychoanalysis. It helped me develop a strong ego which wasn't sufficient. I'm interested in Zen Buddhism, but I need more help with ego as illusion. Reading your book, Lack and Transcendence. Wish you would have come at it - also - from a scientific perspective/physics, That might make this idea of the Self as illusion more rational for me. I also voted for Trump, as the Anti-Globalist, Anti-Continuous War candidate. I will probably vote for him again because of the Authoritarianism, lack of respect for the First Amendment on the left. I think capitalism, not corporatism is the way to go. But when you were talking about the Stock Market, I wished you would have a dialogue (and we could watch it via video) with someone with expertise in economics. My pension comes from my union's wise investments in the Stock Market. Martin Buber, so far, has been the person who makes the most sense to me: being is in-the-between - his emphasis on I-Thou relating. What I am really looking for these days is a way to understand what death is. Perhaps, you could make a video on that. Where I am now is that your ideas about dualism are interesting. It makes sense to me that our way of thinking does cause suffering. But, so far, I don't know how to take the first steps to getting from here (where I am) to there. I will probably read more of your books, look at more of your videos. What's nice in what I perceive as this chaotic world we live in is to find someone who is talking about the things I am interested in learning more about. Thank you. My website: StopGangStalkingPolice.com.
Sir, please watch the videos on the TH-cam Channel 'Doug's Dharma'. It's probably the BEST Channel on Buddha, his Life and his Original Teachings. There are more than 325 Videos on the Channel. They are AMAZING ! Please watch those videos, if you are Interested in Buddhism ...
Unfortunately, most Buddhists and Buddhist commentators are easily duped by the misleading "social justice" rhetoric coming from globalist organizations. I have yet to find a Buddhist commentator who doesn't align to the superficial and misleading mainstream narratives about things like climate change, covid, Ukraine, 9/11, etc. Time after time, they and their followers have demonstrated a certain naivete which attends the vanity of too much idealizing their own self-image as "nice" people. I call it the "blindness of kindness". People like this want so much to think of themselves as the compassionate type that they dare not investigate official narratives too deeply for subconscious fear of resulting cognitive dissonance. Better to just mask up with that ineffectual face diaper and shame those "sociopaths" who "question the science". Same with respect to the experimental injections being foisted upon us. As the truth becomes more obvious, they sheepishly wish their error be forgotten, swept under a cover of moral amnesty. Hell no! This great and hypocritical ethical failure will not be forgotten!
Between Christianities and Buddhisms, my existential and philosophical sympathies lie more with the Buddhist side of things (specifically the middle way between pairs of apparent opposites, the made-up nature of self and other apparent "things", letting go of craving to diminish suffering--but not their inconsistent and backsliding, Vedic-derived metaphysics of rebirth and cosmic moral accounting in which a natural account of how organisms come to be is inverted, nor their life-negating wish for literal cessation). But I have to admit, when it comes to seeing through the lies during the plandemic years, and standing up against tyranny, Christian conservatives have the upper hand.
There is no Buddhism. There is the experience of Awakening everything else is dualistic confabulation of that experience. All so-called Buddhism in every culture is a cultural and intellectual appropriation of the Buddha's Awakening. But that is not bad in any culture as we all can become more insightful about our realities especially once we become awakened, not before.
Gabri Leon. No buddhism? Only awakening? That is silly, because bodhi means awakening, and Buddha is the awakened one. And awakened on what? On dualism? No, but to an advaita, that is, non-dualism. Etc etc... And the cultures and buddhadharma as the products of culture? How is it possible there are cultures yet buddhism as a culture as well does not exist? Silly, I must say, foolishness thru and thru.
personal inner development becomes an issue if a person is not interested or aware of that, and is not making effort in that way. But otherwise, a person has options with changing own views and mind, Buddhist is one information source.
Huge institutional faults and flaws seem more difficult for single person to change. It seems difficult with a national institution, but even more so for transnational ones and worldwide systems. So individuals go into apathy and depression, at least where what needs to happen seems to be banding together into strong right and good societies, which have collective influence and power.
E.g- a person sees that animals are abused for sake of maximum profit by farming industry globally, but what to do? only option available is to give to activists or charities. This matter is purposefully ignored or denied even by a lot of ordinary individuals.
Brazil's president (unnamable thing) should watch this, as should his supporters.
"What was the difference between Bin Laden and George Bush, really? They were mirror of each others, fighting the same Holy War against each other."
Even though agreeing with the author that the West needs Buddhism and Buddhism may evolve greatly from this encounter, there is one pillar of this talk I must respectfully disagree with. The historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, has never refrained from commenting and addressing politics and the way rulers ought to act towards the city, realm, and common people, even nature. This can be found in quite a few sources, such as the Sihananda Cakkavatti Sutta and the Sutta Kutadanta, but also in later expressions of Buddhism such as Nagasena's Milinda Panha, and finally from very recent Buddhists such as the Indian Babasaheb Ambedkar, and the Vietnamese Thich Quang Duc, Thich Nhat Hahn, and others.
Western psycho-therapy is primitive compared to Buddhist analysis of the mind. The Buddha carefully laid down the teaching and was also careful to warn against change in the future that would distort the teaching. This distortion is made by unenlightened people who have views marred by hindrances and wrong view. These people, because of culture and education, change Buddhism, even if slightly, so the goal and original meaning becomes other than what the Buddha pointed to. If you are aiming a rocket to mars even a slight mistake in the trajectory will take you, eventually, millions of miles off target. American Buddhism is like that with new age ideas and pop psychology taking its toll. The question is what did the Buddha himself teach, not what did Joe Shmoe teach about Buddhism.
There are a lot of issues with what you have said. First, the Buddha's teachings were not written down until about 300 years after his death. That is a long, long time for things to change. There is a lot of debate about what Jesus actually said and the first Gospels were written down 50 years after his passing.
Second, are you saying that the Buddha was omniscient? He himself warned against being viewed as a god. There are no examples of living omniscient beings. I find it very hard to believe that the Buddha was never wrong about anything. If he was more like a scientist than a religious figure, then like any scientist there is no guarantee that everything he said was right.
Third, the Buddha lived 2500 years ago in a world very different from our own. There were no democracies, there was no such thing as feminism, the most advanced technology was the written word, etc. Most of what we think of as Buddhist morality is actually an innovation of the past century or so.
Fourth, what kind of Buddhism is the 'right' kind? Theravada? It is a product of late 19th and 20th Century reform movements in Southeast Asia in response to the threat of British colonialism and the perceived laxity of practice. Zen? Zen introduced koans and zazen. Tibetan? It introduced or preserved tantra and a lot of shamanic elements. Who is right?
Buddhism can't remain frozen in time, even when the idea that it was ever that way is false. It has to change if it is to survive in the modern world, just as it changed to survive in every culture it was transplanted to over millennia.
As you know, nearly every sutra (regardless of when it was written and by whom) claims to capture the words of the Buddha himself. So, "what the Buddha taught" evolved over centuries in a poetic sense.
In my opinion, if you want to know what Buddhism is, study the sutras, and the recorded sayings/teachings of the recognized Buddhist masters. A particular teaching is only as "right" as its effect in stimulating a nonverbal intuition in its intended hearers. All of the various strains of Buddhism "work". If you develop a serious interest in Buddhism, the one that is best for you will in a sense pick you.
Also, when Buddhism takes root in a new culture, as it has in the west, it will naturally evolve to suit the new context. This will happen "organically". It should not, and cannot be forced. To, for instance, attempt to subsume Buddhism under the heading of "science" is foolish in the extreme, in my opinion.
Bob Aldo
I just think that relying only on what the Buddha said or is supposed to have said is not an example of an evolving tradition. I even think the word "Buddhism" is problematic if we're describing the development of the science of mind or knowledge of mind in the modern world. If we develop means to radically accelerate meditative progress through VR or brainwave entrainment, is that "Buddhism"? Or as neuroscience advances, and we understand more and more about how the brain constructs the idea of a 'self' much like the way Buddhism describes it, is that "Buddhism"?
There is no need to call that Buddhism, or even to give it a name. Buddhism is far more than a collection of meditation techniques. It is an ancient, but continuously evolving, religious culture - or "cultures" (plural). Buddhism includes a truly vast literature, a great many different sects - each with their own histories, approaches, techniques, favored writings, important teachers, traditions, etc.
Using some practices taken from Buddhism - but outside its religious context, is probably best not referred to as practicing "Buddhism". Perhaps it would be more appropriately thought of as within the realm of experimental psychology.
When a doctrine is institutionalized it becomes corrupt..... Buddhism is not fatalism
This man claims that the western traditions of Constitutional Republic and Democracy were unknown to the earliest Buddhism, but, besides tracing Buddha's lineage back to Mahasamana ( The Great Elected One) , the meaning of " SANGHA" is that of a democratic system and the Indian Repiblics ( Mahajanapadas) of the Buddha"s time are well known . He also favors the Pali or Theravadin form as he fails to equally cite Mahayana or Sanskrit Buddhism
@Dipayan Pyne did someone claim that ancient India had republics?
@Dipayan Pyne thnxs for the feedback. The name of the Buddha's ancestor I mention is often etymologized as " The Great ELECTED ONE' and the etymology for SANGHA and how they met up with each other differs not from the local meeting halls so essential to democracies
@Dipayan Pyne I'm sorry I think I've misled you: the Buddha's ancestor didn't have the compound SRAMANA/ SAMANA in his name . It's a very similar spelling that I can't recall. But, I think, his name is translated as " The Great Elect One" etymologically
The Buddhist applied the word SANGHA ( MEETING HALL) to his monks and the SANGHA meeting halls well predate the time of The Lord 🙏
In a sense , The Buddha was the Great Republic needed to override the SANGHA consensus. As numerous times he would hold them in check in the vinaya and sometimes he ket their judgement stand
@Dipayan Pyne ok, but next time you will have to learn on your own !
Mahāsammata (Burmese: မဟာသမ္မတမင်း; also spelled Maha Samrat; lit. "the Great Elect"), also known as Khattiya and Rāja, was the first monarch of the world according to Buddhist tradition.
To be sure, the SANGHA or MEETING HALLS , are pre Buddhist
@Dipayan Pyne Philadelphia Pennsylvania
Put a time limit on the question ... These people waste all the time for questions with their own opinions on the question ...
Ashoka killed 99 of his brothers to become a king. Then he became buddhist
Buddha himself has never killed anyone and he doesn't have 99 brothers.
You must be a Burmese Christian missionaries.
Christian is out of date my friend.
Zen came from India, taoism had nothing to do with it
Mahayana mixed with Taoism between 200 and 600 AD to became Zen in China
Buddha's teaching , a human greatly when , touch [ cheap ] a danger or , scare , menace , then , assume , the forest ? , a mountain ? , holy garden ? , invade the pagoda ? is a refuge , that not refuge revels , that not topmost supporter , ? assume the thing such has been the supporter already , should don't be free from evil from be distressful whole get ,