When the Buddha gave up on people, "lost causes": lazy, unobservant, dishonest

The Buddha, it is said, has limitless compassion for all beings. Yes. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean he would give himself completely to save others. This is very different from the Christian ideal. The Buddha would not die to "save" all souls. He would probably say that it doesn't work that way.

The Buddha's compassion, Thanissaro said in a talk I heard, was that he went out of his way to teach people. To help them. He didn't owe them. He had his enlightenment. And he knew there would be many troubles in his teaching. We think about all the monks who succeeded, but there were also problem monks, like the Group of Six were constant troublemakers. And the Buddha initially refused to teach at all. But, the Buddha decided it would be worth it after initially thinking that he wouldn't teach.

But his compassion didn't mean he taught everyone. In MN80, he lays out some conditions for his teaching:

“Let an observant person come—one who is not fraudulent, not deceitful, one of an honest nature. I instruct him. I teach him the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, he in no long time knows for himself, sees for himself: ‘So this is how there is the right liberation from bondage, i.e., the bondage of ignorance.’” — MN 80

Let's break down this passage about "lost causes".

First, it's important to note that the Buddha never wrote anyone off permanently. A lost cause can recover. People are not set in stone. If later in life, they fix their habits, the Buddha would probably teach them.

Second, be careful of using this idea of "lost causes" to justify your own bad habits. Look at GAD. Look for constrictedness and tension. Look at what you could do instead of writing someone off. The Buddha is said to have supernormal vision, so he could see people more deeply. And, the Buddha had cut off the roots of his own defilements, so he wasn't prone to things like criticizing others to make himself feel better. Normal people don't have these benefits, so our judgments should be more like notes on post-its rather than dictates carved into stone tablets.

Observant

So, first the Buddha says "Let an observant person come". This means they notice what's going on, as well as they can. This doesn't mean they are perfect yet in vision. But it does mean they have some ability to see and want to see. Namely, if you point out that they are tense or have greed or something is skillful, they can look for and earnestly try to see the tension, greed, or skillfulness.

But it might be hard to see, except in the obvious situations. So, we start with obvious things. Like, if you are filled with hatred for your enemy, does that hurt your enemy or mainly hurt yourself and your mind? This is one of the easy things to see. They may argue that they HAVE to hate the other person. But they can see that it disturbs their mind. But, things like: "getting what you want is dukkha/suffering" is confusing. As is, "from holding others dear comes grief". And a person may not see that yet. That's okay.

It's easy to spot people who are obviously not observant. They don't notice anything.

But what about the "almost cases". I know people with excellent memory, but they aren't observant in the following way: they only see what they want to see. So, if they have in their mind that they are right, they can only see that they are right and anything that happens gets measured against that standard. They can't really see the "insteads". And that person is not trainable.

Similarly, there is the almost case of people are observant only when they feel like it. If they are happy and getting what they want from life, they aren't observant. But when they are missing something, they become observant, probably because they want to fix/change the situation. Cognitively, they are able to observe. But they are selective. Observant eventually needs to mean being observant consistently. Even when you don't feel like it.

As an analogy, a person who drives a car safely has to observe many things continuously. If the cell phone dings and there is a text message, if they look away, that's not observant.

Lying

"one who is not fraudulent, not deceitful, one of an honest nature. " means a person doesn't lie. At a minimum, not lying to the teacher. But, better that they never lie.

The issue isn't a moral one in this case (IMHO), but is a practical one. How do you teach someone who lies? If you ask them if they could try harder, if they say they can't, that can mean one of two things.

1. They are telling the truth, in which case the teacher takes the effort to figure out what is the barrier.

2. They are lying, they could try harder, but they like making excuses. In which case, it's a lost cause, since efforts to fix the barrier will be met by more excuses and lies, too.

Again, the obvious case is if someone lies about everything. But if someone is 99% truthful, but 1% dishonest about very essential things-- that means they can't be taught well.

The Patimokkha makes allowances for lying in that one isn't thrown out for lying. But one has to confess it and it is a big deal. Hence, this doesn't mean that if someone lies, they are banished forever. The Buddha's son, Rahula, lied once in a famous sutta. But, importantly, Rahula didn't lie about lying. And he swore not to do it again. And he kept that promise. (As inferred by his later awakening.)

Observant and not Lying --> Buddha will teach you.

"I instruct him. I teach him the Dhamma."

Not Lazy

"Practicing as instructed," means not lazy and a few other things, like following directions.

How is this condition not met?

Well, in the west, there is the common issue of people "practicing as they feel like". They come with some notion, often that Buddhism should feel good. And then they pick and choose the teachings that feel good. Thanissaro calls this "practicing dhamma in line with our preferences" and contrasts it with what should be done: "practicing the dhamma in line with the dhamma" [link1] [link2] [MN 80]

And people do it the way they feel like because they are lazy. (Or, possibly unobservant.) People are inherently lazy, which has some good biological/evolutionary benefits for conserving energy. But, when learning, lazy is a handicap.

Similar to practicing "as they feel like" is when people practice "when they feel like". Most commonly, people gravitate toward Buddhism when things aren't going right in their life and they want help. But once life gets better, they go back to worshipping pleasure or fun or money or themselves.

It's like a person who likes eating fish, but never really learns how to fish because they are shortsighted. They learn a little bit, and they catch a fish. But then they stop practicing.  Because they have a fish and they go enjoy it. The skill never gets fixed because once they get what they want, they stop practicing. And the skill never sticks.

Another example is with writing. I'm very fond of the phrase that "writing is rewriting". But I never realized how true this was until I started reading about writers and their process. Charles Johnson was the first person I heard say it: that for every 100 pages in a book, he throws out about 1000 pages! So the throw away rate is 90%.

In my own sitting/meditation practice, I'd say that I have an even worse throw away rate. There can be weeks that I make no progress or little progress. And there is often backsliding. But those "throwaway sits" are just part of the practice. Just like the 900 pages thrown away are essential parts of the 100 pages left in the book. 

Our laziness says, "I wish there were a way to just skip the 900 pages". But, in meditation, there often isn't a shortcut. (If there were a shortcut, it is said that the Buddha would have shared it. To not share it would have been cruel.) We need the wasted time of the 900 pages of sitting to get acquainted with our own bad habits and stubbornness.

Similarly, with regard to suttas or dharma talks, I've found that I benefit greatly from re-listening. I've listened to some talks dozens of times. And I get something different out each time. In fact, it's an indicator to me that I am being observant, that I can notice differences in how I am hearing it. 

In Zen, they say: "before enlightenment: chop wood and carry water. after enlightenment: chop wood and carry water". Even though the action is the same, there is a difference in the experience and the awareness and the understanding. THIS IS THE WHOLE PATH! If you want fireworks, go to the circus. If you want fame and glory, go be an actor or a soldier. The whole of Buddhist achievement can be invisible to outsiders: it is internal. So all our typical tools of judging/tuning/noticing/re-evaluating our actions by how they land in the outside world.... those tools don't work here. And so those inner muscles are weak. Another reason we are lazy. Using weak introspection "muscles" is hard!

What impresses me most isn't someone who whizzes through the 8 or 12 steps of a mindfulness book and declares, "done!". Or the people who say "they got it". (I was the worst offender. I used to be very guilty of thinking I had things that I really didn't have).

! What impresses me most are the people who can take one passage, chew on it over and other. Most straightforwardly, read one passage (or chant) every day for a month. And then see how it changes. How their mind changes. How their understanding changes. How their actions change.

And someone who does this repetition shows good evidence that they aren't lazy. In a way repetition is not hard, because it's not complicated. But, for some reason, even something that takes 1 minute a day can be hard to keep up. Holding on to steady repetition is good evidence that a person will practice as instructed.

Why it's important for learning to not be lazy, unobservant, or dishonest.

"he in no long time knows for himself, sees for himself: ‘So this is how there is the right liberation from bondage, i.e., the bondage of ignorance.’”

They make progress. Specifically, they get the knowledge "in their bones", "knows for himself"m and "sees for himself". It's not just something they can recite. It's something they can chew on. Examined from many angles. They can recognize it by touch. It is in their vocabulary.

At some point, harder and more subtle things build on things like metta and awareness and concentration. So, you can't build very high until those are stable. It isn't strictly sequential. As we develop more wisdom, that can help our concentration.  And as we have more discernment, that can sharpen our metta. So the factors help reinforce each other as the structure goes up. But, eventually, you have to have a strong foundation. Shaky knowledge, parroted out, will not get you very far.

There is a similar issue in modern education, which gives good grades for people repeating back what they are taught. They never learn deeply because they often never "know for themselves". And hence, when people try to build more knowledge on this shaky foundation, it's hard. Things don't really hold. And people get angry, reinforcing being unobservant, making excuses and lies, and being lazy. Blame the teacher or complain. They want to move the goalpost.

The goalpost is very clear in Buddhism. The complete end of suffering. The end of greed, anger, and delusion. Don't move the goalpost.

And if you have qualities that make it so you can't even see the goalpost, like being lazy, unobservant, or dishonest, you are a lost cause. And the Buddha will not teach you until you address those things first. All 3 of them.