2024. 3. 6. 12:02ㆍ카테고리 없음
The Buddha was once staying in a Simsapa forest in Kosambi (near Allahabad). He took a few leaves into his hand, and asked his disciples: ‘What do you think, O bhikkhus? Which is more? These few leaves in my hnad or the leaves in the forest over here?’
‘Sir, very few are the leaves in the hand of the Blessed One, but indeed the leaves in the Simsapa forest over here are very much more abundant.’
‘Even so, bhikkhus, of what I have known I have told you only a little, what I have not told you is very much more. And why have I not told you (those things)? Beacause that is not usefull...not leading to Nirvana. That is why I have not told you those things.’
It is futile, as some scholars vainly try to do, for us to speculate on what the Buddha knew but did not tell us.
The Buddha was not interested in discussing unnecessary metaphysical questions which are surely speculateive and which create imaginary problems. He considereed them as a ‘wilderness of opinions’. It seems that there were some among his own disciples who did not appreciate this attitude of his. For, we have the example of one of them, Malunkyaputta by name, who put to the Buddha ten well-known classical questions on metaphysical problems and demanded answers.
One day Malunkyaputta got up from his afternoon meditation, went to the Buddha, saluted him, sat on one side and said: ‘Sir, when I was all alone meditating, this thought occurred to me: There are these problems unexplained, put aside and rejected by the Blessed One. Namely, is the universe eternal or is it not eternal, is the universe finite or is it infinite, is soul the same as body or is soul one thing and body another thing, does the Tathagata exist after death, or does he not exist after death, or does he both (at the same time) exist and not exist after death, or does he bot (at the same time) not exist and not, not-exist. These problems the Blessed One does not explain to me. This (attitude) does not please me, I do not appreciate it. I will go to the Blessed One and ask him about this matter. If the Blessed One explains them to me, then I will continue to follow the holy life under him. If he does not explain them, I will leave the Order and go away. If the Blessed One knows that the universe is eternal, let him explain it to me so. If the Blessed One knows that the universe is not eternal, let him say so. If the Blessed One does not know whether the universe is eternal or not, etc., then for a person who does not know, it is straight-forward to way “I do not know , I do not see”.’
The Buddha’s reply to Malunkyaputta should do good to many millions in the world today who are wasting valuable time on such metaphysical questions and unnecessarily disturbing their peace of mind:
‘Did I ever tell you, Malunkayaputta, “Come, Malunkyaputta, lead the holy life under me, I will explain these questions to you?”’
‘No, Sir.’
‘Then, Malunkyaputta, even you, did you tell me: “Sir, I will lead the holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will explain these questions to me”?’
‘No, Sir.’
‘Even now, Malunkyaputta, I do not tell you: “Come and lead the holy life under me, I will explain these questions to you”. And you do not tell me either: “Sir, I will lead the holy life under the Blessed One, and he will explain these questions to me”. Under these circumstances, you foolish one, who refuses whom?
‘Malunkyaputta, if anyone says: “I will not lead the holy life under the Blessed One until he explains these questions,” he may die with these questions unanswered by the Tathagata. Suppose Malunkyaputta, a man is wounded by a poisoned arrow, and his friends and relatives bring him to a surgeon. Suppose the man should then say: “I will not let this arrow be taken out until I know who shot me; whether he is a Ksatriya(of the warrior caste) or a Brahmana (of the priestly caste) or the Vaisya (of the trading and agricultural caste) or a Sudra (of the low caste); what his name and family may be; whether he is tall, short, or of medium stature; whether his complexion is black, brown, or golden; from whichvillage, town or city he comes. I will not let this arrow be taken out until I know the kind of bow with which I was shot; the kind of bowstring used; the type of rrow; what sort of feather was used on the arrow and with what kind of material the point of the arrow was made.” Malunkyaputta, that man would die without knowing any of these things. Even so, Malunkyaputta, if anyone says: “I will not follow the holy life under the Blessed One until he answers these questions such as whether the universe is eternal or not, etc.,”he would die with these questions unanswered by the Tathagata.’
Then the Buddha explains to Malunkyaputta that the holy life does not depend on these views. Whatever opinion one may have about these problems, there is birth, old age, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, distress, “the Cessation of which (i.e. Nirvana) I declare in this very life.”
‘Therefore, Malunkyaputta, bear in mind what I have explained as explained, and what I have not explained as unexplained. What are the things that I have not explained? Whether the universe is eternal or not, et., (those opinions) I have not explained. Why, Malunkyaputta, have I not explained them? Because it is not useful, it is not fundamentally connected with the spiritual holy life, is not conductive to aversion, detachment, cessation, tranquillity, deep penetration, full realization, Nirvana. That is why I have not told you about them.
‘Then, what, Malunkyaputta, have I explained? I have explained dukkha, the arising of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, and the way leading to the cessation of dukkha. Why, Malunkyaputta, have I explained them? Because it is useful, is fundamentally connected with the spiritual holy life, is conducive to aversion, detachment, cessation, tranquillity, deep penetration, full realization, Nirvana. Therefore I have explained them.
Let us now examine the Four Noble Truths which the Buddha told Malunkyaputta he had explained.
CHAPTER 2
THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS
THE FIRST NOBLE TRUTH: DUKKHA
The heart of the Buddha’s teaching lies in the Four Noble Truthswhich he expounded in his very first sermon to his old colleagues, the five ascetics, at Isipatana (modern Sarnath) near Benares. In this sermon, as we have it in the original texts, these four Truths are given briefly. But there are innumerable places in the early Buddhisst scriptures where they are explained again and again, with greater detail and in different ways. If we study the Four Noble Truths with the help of these refereneces and explanations, we get a fairly good and accurate account of the essential teachingsof the Buddha according to the original texts.
The Four Noble Truths are:
1. Dukkha
2. Samudaya, the arising or origin of dukkha,
3. Nirodha, the cessation of dukkha,
4. Magga, the way leading to the cessation of dukkha.
THE FIRST NOBLE TRUTH: DUKKHA
The First Noble Truth (Dukkha-ariyasacca) is generally translated by almost all scholars as “The Noble Truth of Suffering’, and it is interpreted to mean that life according to Buddhism is nothing but suffering and pain. Both translation and interpretation are highly unsatisfactory and misleading. It is because of this limited, fee and easy translation, and its superficial interpretation, that many people have been misled into regarding Buddhism at pessimistic.
First of all, Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a realistic view of life and of the world. It looks at things objectively (yathabbutam). It does not falsely lull you into living in a fool’s paradisse, nor does it frighten and agonize you with all kinds of imaginary fears and sins. It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquillity and happiness.
One physician may gravely exaggerate an illness and give up hope altogether. Another may ignorantly declare that there is no illness and that no treatment is necessary, thus deceiving the patient with a false consolation. You may call the first one pessimistic and the second optimistic. Both are equally dangerous. But a third physician diagnoses the symptoms correctly, understands the cause and the nature of the illness, sees clearly that it can be cured, and courageously administers a course of reatment, thus saving his patient. The Buddha is like the last physician. He is the wise and scientific doctor for the ills of the world (Bhiskka or Bhaisajya-guru).
It is true that the Pali word dukkha (or Sanskrit dukkha) in ordinary usage means ‘suffering’, ‘pain’, ‘sorrow’ or ‘misery’, as oppoed to the word sukha meaning ‘happiness’, ‘comfort’ or ‘ease’. But the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, which represents the Buddha’s view of life and the world, has a deeper philosophical meaning and connotes enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term dukkha in the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of ‘suffering’, but in addition it also includes deeper ideas such a ‘imperfection’, ‘impermanence’, ‘emptiness’, ‘insubstantialit’. It is difficult therefore to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, and so it is better to leave it untranlated, than to give an inadequate and wrong idea of it by conveniently translating it as ‘suffering’ or ‘pain’.
The Buddha does not deny happiness in life when he says there is suffering. On the contrary he admits different forms of happiness, both material and spiritual, for laymen as well as for monks. In the Anguttara-nikaya, one of the five original Collections in Pali containing the Buddha’s discourses, there is a list of happinesss (sukhani), such as the happiness of family life and the happiness of the life of a recluse, the happiness of sense pleasures and the happiness of renunciation, the happiness of attachment and the happiness of detachment, physical happiness and mental happiness etc. But all these are included in dukkha. Even the very pure spiritual states of dhyana (recueillment or trance) attained by the practice of higher meditation, free from even a shadow of suffering in the accepted sense of the word, states which may be described as unmixed happiness, as well as the state of dhyana which is free from sensations both pleasant (sukha) and unpleasant (dukkha) and is only pure equanimity and awareness-even these very high spiritual states are included in dukkha. In one of the suttas of the Majjhima-nikaya, (again one of the five original Collections), after praising the spiritual happiness of these dhyanas, the Buddha says that they are ‘impermanent, dukkha, and subject to change’ (nicca dukkha viparinamadhamma). Notice that the word dukkha is explicitly used. It is dukkha not because there is ‘suffering’ in the ordinary sense of the word, but because ‘whatever is impermanent is dukkha’ (yad aniccam tam dukkham).
The Buddha was realistic and objective. He says, with regard to life and the enjoyment of sense-pleasures, that one should clearly understand three things: attraction or enjoyment, evil consequence or danger or unsatisfactoriness, and freedom or liberation. When you see a pleasant, charming and beautiful person, you like him (or her), you are attracted, you enjoy seeing that person again and again, you derive pleasure and satisfaction from that person. This is enjoyment. It is a fact of experience. But this enjoyment is not permanet, just as that person and all his (or her) attractions are not permanet either. When the situation changes, when you cannot see that person, when you are deprived of this enjoyment, you become sad, you may become unreasonalbe and unbalaced, you may even behave foolishly. This is the evil, unsatisfactory and dangerous side of the picture. This, too, is a fact of experience. Now if you have no attachment to the person, if you are completely detached, that is freedom, liberation. These three things are true with regard to all enjoyment in life.
출처: https://storytellingis.tistory.com/3 [붓다:티스토리]