What Buddha Taught

The Buddha

 

The Buddha, whose name was Siddhartha, and their family name was Gotama, lived in North India in the 6th century B.C. His father, Suddhodana, was the ruler of the kingdom of the Sakyas (in modern Nepal). His mother was Queen Maya. According to the custom of the time, he was married relatively young, at the age of sixteen, to a beautiful and devoted young princess named Yasodhara. The young prince lived in his palace with every luxury at his command. But all of a sudden, confronted with the reality of life and the suffering of humanity, he decided to find the solution to this universal suffering.  At 29, soon after the birth of his only child, Rahula, he left his kingdom and became an ascetic in search of this solution.

         For six years, the ascetic Gotama wandered about the valley of the Ganges, meeting famous religious teachers, studying and following their systems and methods, and submitting himself to rigorous ascetic practices.  They did not satisfy him.  So, he abandoned all traditional religions and their methods and went his own way.  It was thus that one evening, seated under a tree(since then known as the Bodhi- or Bo-tree, “the Tree of Wisdom’) on the bank of the river Neranjara at Buddha-Gaya (nearly in modern Bihar), at the age of 35, Gotama attained Enlightenment, after which he was known as the Buddha, “The Enlightened One’.

           After his Enlightenment, Gotama the Buddha delivered his first sermon to a group of five ascetics, his old colleagues, in the Deer Park at Ispatana (modern Sarnath) near Benares. From that day, for 45 years, he taught all classes of men and women-kings and peasants, Brahmins and outcasts, bankers and beggars, holy men and robbers-without making the slightest distinction between them.  He recognized no differences in caste or social groupings, and the way he preached was open to all men and women who were ready to understand and follow it.

           The Buddha passed away at Kusinara (in modern Uttar Pradesh, India) at  80.

           Today, Buddhism is found in Ceylon, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Tibet, China, Japan, Mongolia, Korea, Formosa, some parts of India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Russia. The world's Buddhist population is over 500 million.

                                            

CHAPTER 1

 

THE BUDDHIST ATTITUDE OF MIND

 

Among the founders of religions, the Buddha (if we are permitted to call him the founder of a religion in the widespread sense of the term) was the only teacher who did not claim to be other than a human being, pure and simple.  Other teachers were either God or his incarnations in different forms or inspired by him.  The Buddha was not only human; he claimed no inspiration from any god or external power either.  He attributed all his realizations and achievements to human endeavour and intelligence.  Only a man can become a Buddha.  Every man has within himself the potentiality of becoming a Buddha if he so wills it and endeavours.  We can call the Buddha a man of excellence.  He was so perfect in his ‘human-ness’ that he came to be regarded later in popular religion almost as ‘super-human.’

           According to Buddhism, man's position is supreme. He is his master; no higher being or power judges his destiny.

           ‘One is one’s refuge; who else could be the refuge?’ said the Buddha.  He admonished his disciples to ‘be a refuge to themselves’ and never to seek refuge in or help from anybody else.  He taught, encouraged and stimulated each person to develop and work out his emancipation, for man can liberate himself from all bondage through effort and intelligence.  The Buddha says: ‘You should do your work, for the Tathagatas only teach the way.  If the Buddha is to be called a ‘saviour,’ it is only in the sense that he discovered and showed the Path to Liberation, Nirvana.  But we must tread the Path ourselves.

            The Buddha allows freedom to his disciples on this principle of individual responsibility.  In the Mahapainibbanasutta, the Buddha says that he never thought of controlling the Sangha9Order of Monks) nor did he want the Sanhs to depend on him.  He said there was no esoteric doctrine in his teaching, nothing hidden in the ‘closed fist of the teacher’ or,  in other words, there was never anything ‘up his sleeve.’

           The freedom of thought allowed by the Buddha is unheard of elsewhere in the history of religions.  This freedom is necessary because, according to the Buddha, man’s emancipation depends on his realization of Truth and not on the benevolent grace of a god or any external power as a reward for his obedient good behaviour.

           The Buddha once visited a small town called Kesaputta in the kingdom of Kosala.  The inhabitants of this town were known by the common name Kalama.  When they heard that the Buddha was in their village, the Kalamas visited him and told him: ‘Sir,  some recluses and Brahmanas visit Kesaputta. They explain and illumine their doctrines and despise, condemn and spurn others’ doctrines.  Then come other recluses and Brahmanas, who explain and illumine only their doctrines and despise, condemn and spurn others’ doctrines.  But, for us, Sir, we always have doubt and perplexity as to who among these venerable recluses and brahmans spoke the truth and who spoke falsehood.’

           Then the Buddha gave them this advice, unique in the history of religions: ‘Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a doubtful matter.  Now, look at you, Kalamas; do not be led by reports, tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: ‘This is our teacher.’  But, O Kalamas, when you know that certain things are unwholesome, wrong, and bad, give them up...And when you know that certain things are wholesome and good, accept and follow them.’

           The Buddha went even further. He told the bhikkhus that a disciple should examine even the Tathagata (buddha) himself so that he (the disciple) might be fully convinced of the actual value of the teacher he followed.

           According to the Buddha’s teaching, doubt is one of the five Hindrances to a clear understanding of Truth and spiritual progress.  Doubt, however, is not a ‘sin’ because Buddhism has no articles of faith.  There is no ‘sin’ in Buddhism, as sin is understood in some religions.  The root of all evil is ignorance and false views. Undeniably, It is undeniable that as long as there is doubt, perplexity, and wavering, no progress is possible.  It is also indisputable that there must be doubt if one does not understand or see clearly.  But to progress further, it is essential to see things.  But to progress further, it is necessary to get rid of doubt.  To get rid of doubt, one has to see things.

           There is no point in saying that one should not doubt or believe.  To say ‘I believe’ does not mean you understand and see.  When a student works on a mathematical problem, he comes to a stage beyond which he does not know how to proceed, where he is in doubt and perplexity; as long as he has this doubt, he cannot proceed.  If he wants to proceed, he must resolve this doubt.  And there are ways of determining that doubt.  To say ‘I believe’ or ‘I do not doubt’ will not solve the problem.  To force oneself to believe and accept a thing without understanding is political, not spiritual or intellectual.

           The Buddha was always eager to dispel doubt.  Even just a few minutes before his death, he requested his disciples several times to ask him if they had any doubts about his teaching and not to feel sorry later that they could not clear those doubts.  But the disciples were silent.  What he said then was touching: ‘If it is through respect for the Teacher that you do not ask anything, let even one of you inform his friend’ (for example, let one tell his friend so that the latter may ask the question the other’s behalf).

           The freedom of thought and the tolerance allowed by the Buddha are astonishing to the students of the history of religions.  Once in Nalanda, a prominent and wealthy householder named Upali, a well-known lay disciple of Nigantha Nataputta, was expressly sent by Maavira himself to meet the Buddha and defeat him in an argument on specific points in the theory of karma because the Buddha’s views on the subject were different from those of Mahavira.  Contrary to expectations, Upali, at the end of the discussion, was convinced that the views of the Buddha were correct and his master's were wrong.  So, he begged the Buddha to accept him as one of his lay disciples.  But the Buddha asked him to reconsider it and not be in a hurry, for ‘considering carefully is good for well-known men like you.’  When Upali expressed his desire again, the Buddha requested him to continue to respect and support his old religious teachers as he used to.

           In the third century B.C., the great Buddhist Emperor Asoka of India, following this noble example of tolerance and understanding, honoured and supported all other religions in his vast empire.  In one of his Edicts carved on rock, the original of which one may read even today, the Emperor declared: ‘One should not honour only one’s religion and condemn the religions of others, but one should honour others’ religions for this or that reason.  By so doing, one helps one’s religion to grow and renders service to the religions of others, too.  In acting otherwise, one digs the grave of one’s religion and also harms other religions.  Whosoever honours his religion and condemns other religions does so indeed through devotion to his religion, thinking, “I will glorify my religion.” On the contrary, in so doing, he injures his religion more gravely.  So concord is good: Let all listen and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others.

           We should add here that this spirit of sympathetic understanding should be applied today not only to religious doctrine but also to other matters.

           This spirit of tolerance and understanding has been one of the most cherished ideals of Buddhist culture and civilization from the beginning. That is why there is not a single example of persecution or the shedding of a drop of blood in converting people to Buddhism or in propagating it during its long history of 2568 years. It spread peacefully all over the continent of Asia, having more than 500 million adherents today. Violence in any form, under any pretext whatsoever, is absolutely against the teaching of the Buddha.

           The question has often been asked: Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It does not matter what you call it.  Buddhism remains what it is, whatever label you may put on it.  The label is immaterial.  Even the label ‘Buddhism,’ which we give to the teaching of the Buddha, is of little importance.  The name one gives it is inessential.

           What’s in a name? That which we call a rose,

           By any other name, it would smell as sweet.

In the same way, Truth needs no label: it is neither Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Moslem. It is not the monopoly of anybody. Sectarian labels are a hindrance to the independent understanding of Truth, and they produce harmful prejudices in men’s minds.

This is true not only in intellectual and spiritual matters but also in human relations. When, for instance, we meet a man, we do not regard him as a human being but put a label on him, such as English, French, German, American, or Jew, and regard him with all the prejudices associated with that label in our mind. Yet he may be completely free from those attributes that we have put on him.

People are so fond of discriminative labels that they even put them on human qualities and emotions common to all.  So they talk of different ‘brands’ of charity, for example, of Buddhist charity or Christian charity, and look down upon other ‘brands’ of charity.  But charity cannot be sectarian; it is neither Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Moslem. A mother's love for her child is neither Buddhist nor Christian; it is mother love.  Human qualities and emotions like love, charity, compassion, tolerance, patience, friendship, desire, hatred, ill-will, ignorance, conceit, etc., need no sectarian labels; they belong to no particular religions.

   To the seeker of Truth, where an idea comes from is immaterial—the source and development of an idea matter to the academic. Knowing whether the teaching comes from the Buddha or anyone else is unnecessary to understanding the truth. What is essential is seeing and understanding it. An important story in Nikaya illustrates this.

   The Buddha once spent a night in a potter’s shed. A young hermit had arrived earlier in the same shed. They did not know each other. The Buddha observed the recluse and thought, ‘Pleasant are the ways of this young man. It would be good if I should ask about him.’  So the Buddha asked him, ‘O bhikkhu, in whose name have you left home? Or who is your master? Or whose doctrine do you like?’

‘O friend,’ answered the young man, ‘there is the recluse Gotama, a Sakyan scion, who left the Sakya family to become a hermit.  He is highly reputed abroad for being an Arahant, a Fully-Enlightened One.  In the name of that Blessed One, I have become a recluse.  He is my Master, and I like his doctrine’. ‘Where does that Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One live now?’ ‘In the countries to the north, friend, there is a city called Savatthi.  There, the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, is now living.’ ‘Have you ever seen him, that Blessed One? Would you recognize him if you saw him?’ ‘I have never seen that Blessed One. Nor should I recognize him if I saw him.’  The Buddha realized that it was in his name that this unknown young man had left home and become a hermit.  But without divulging his identity, he said: ‘O bhikkhu, I will teach you the doctrine.  Listen and pay attention.  I will speak.’ ‘Very well, friend,’ said the young man in assent. 

   Then, the Buddha delivered to this young man a most remarkable discourse explaining Truth (the gist of which is given later).  At the end of the discourse, this young hermit, whose name was Pukkusati, realized that the person who spoke to him was the Buddha himself.  So he got up, went before the Buddha, bowed down at the feet of the Master, and apologized to him for calling him ‘friend’ unknowingly.  He then begged the Buddha to ordain him and admit him into the Order of the Sangha.

   The Buddha asked whether he had the alms bowl and the robes ready. (A bhikkhu must have three robes and an alms bow for begging for food.) When Pukkusati replied in the negative, the Buddha said that the Tathagatas would not ordain a person unless the alms bowl and the robes were ready. So Pukkusati went out searching for an alms bowl and robes, but a cow, unfortunately, savaged him and died.

   Later, when this sad news reached the Buddha, he announced that Pukkusati was a wise man who had already seen the Truth and attained the penultimate stage of realizing Nirvana. He was born in a realm where he would become an Arahant and finally pass away, never to return to this world again. 

   From this story, it is pretty clear that when Pukkusati listened to the Buddha and understood his teaching, he did not know who was speaking to him or whose teaching it was.  He saw the Truth. If the medicine is good, the disease will be cured.  It is unnecessary to know who prepared it or where it came from.

   Almost all religions are built on faith –somewhat ‘blind’ faith, it would seem.  But in Buddhism, emphasis is placed on ‘seeing. ' Knowing, understanding, and not on faith or belief.    Sraddha  is usually translated in Buddhist texts as ‘faith’ or ‘belief.’  But Siddha is not ‘faith’ but rather ‘confidence’ born out of conviction.  In popular Buddhism and ordinary usage in the texts, the word Siddha, it must be admitted, has an element of ‘faith’ in that it signifies devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma (Teaching) and the Sangha (The Order).

   According to Asanga, the great Buddhist philosopher of the 4th century A.C., sraddha has three aspects:  full and firm conviction that a thing is, serene joy at good qualities, and aspiration or wish to achieve an object in view.

   However you put it, faith or belief, as understood by most religions, has little to do with Buddhism.

   The question of belief arises when there is no seeing-seeing in every sense of the word.  The moment you see, the question of belief disappears.  If I tell you that I have a gem hidden in the folded palm of my hand, the question of belief arises because you do not see it yourself.  But if I unclench my fist and show you the gem, you see it for yourself, and the question of belief does not arise.  So the phrase in ancient Buddhist texts reads:  ‘Realizing, as one sees a gem (or a myrobalan fruit) in the palm.’

   A disciple of the Buddha named Musila tells another monk: ‘Friend Savittha, without devotion, faith or belief, without liking or inclination, without hearsay or tradition, without considering apparent reasons, without delight in the speculations of opinions, I know and see that the cessation of becoming is Nirvana.

   The Buddha says, ‘O bhikkhus, I say that the destruction of defilement and impurities is (meant) for a person who knows and sees, and not for someone who does not know and does not see.

   It is always a question of knowing and seeing, not believing. The Buddha's teaching is qualified as ebi-paska, inviting you to ‘come and see’ but not to come and think.'

   The expressions used everywhere in Buddhist texts referring to persons who realized Truth are: ‘The dustless and stainless Eye of Truth has arisen.’ ‘He has seen Truth, has crossed over doubt, is without wavering.’ ‘Thus, with right wisdom, he sees it as it is. Concerning his Enlightenment, the Buddha said: ‘The eye was born, knowledge was born. It is always seeing through knowledge or wisdom and not believing through faith.

   This was more and more appreciated at a time when Brahmanic orthodoxy intolerantly insisted on believing and accepting their tradition and authority as the only Truth without question.  One, a group of learned and well-known Brahmins went to see the Buddha and discussed with him.  One of the group, a Brahmin youth of 16 years of age named Kapathika, considered by them all to be an exceptionally brilliant mind, put a question to the Buddha: ‘VenerableGotama, there are the ancient holy scriptures of the Brahmins handed down along the line by the unbroken oral tradition of texts.  About them, Brahmins come to the absolute conclusion: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false.”  Now, what does the Venerable Gotama say about this?’

   The Buddha inquired:  ‘Among Brahmins, is there any single Brahmin who claims that he knows and sees that “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false.”?’

The young man was frank and said, ' No. ‘Then, is there any one single teacher, or a teacher of teachers of Brahmins back to the seventh generation, or even any one of those original authors of those scriptures, who claims that he knows and he sees: ' This alone is Truth, and everything else is false'?

‘No.’

‘Then, it is like a line of blind men, each holding on to the preceding one; the first one does not see, the middle one does not, and the last one does not. Thus, it seems to me that the state of the Brahmins is like that of a line of blind men.’

   Then the Buddha advised on extreme importance to the Brahmins: ‘It’s not proper for a wise man who maintains truth to conclude: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false.”’

Asked by the young Brahmin to explain the idea of maintaining or protecting truth, the Buddha said: ‘A man has faith.  If he says, “This is my faith,” so far, he maintains the truth.  But by that e cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion: This alone is Truth, and everything else is false”.’ In other words, a man may believe what he likes and say,  ‘I believe this.’  So far, he respects truth.  But because of his belief or faith, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false.  The Buddha says: ‘To be attached to one thing (to a specific view) and to look down upon other things (views) as inferior-this the wise men call a fetter.

Once the Buddha explained the doctrine of cause and effect to his disciples, they said they saw it and understood it clearly.  Then the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, even this view, which is so pure and so clear, if you cling to it, if you rub it, if you treasure it, if you are attached to it, then you do not understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, which is for crossing over, and not for getting hold of.

Elsewhere, the Buddha explains this famous simile in which his teaching is compared to a raft for crossing over, not for getting hold of and carrying on one’s back: ‘O bhikkhus, a man is on a journey.  He comes to a vast stretch of water.  On this side, the shore is dangerous, but on there, it is safe and without danger.  No boat goes to the other shore, which is safe and without danger, nor is there any bridge for crossing over.  He says: “This sea of water is vast, and the shore on this side is full of danger, but on the other shore, it is safe and without danger.  No boat goes to the other side, nor is there a bridge for crossing over.  It would be good, therefore, if I would gather grass, wood, branches and leaves to make a raft and, with the help of the raft, cross over safely to the other side, exerting myself with my hands and feet.  Then that man, O bhikkhus, gathers grass, wood, branches and leaves and makes a raft, and with the help of that raft, crosses over safely to the other side, exerting himself with his hands and feet.  Having crossed over and got to the other side, he thinks: ‘This raft was of great help to me.  With its aid, I have crossed safely to this side, exerting myself with my hands and feet.  It would be good to carry this raft on my head or back wherever I go”.  ‘What do you think, O bhikkhus? If he acted this way, would that man be acting properly about the raft? “No, Sir.”  In which way would he be acting properly about the raft? Having crossed and gone over to the other side, suppose that man should think: “This raft was a great help to me. With its aid, I have crossed safely to this side, exerting myself with my hands and feet.  It would be good if I beached this raft on the shore, moored it, left it afloat, and  went  wherever possible.” Acting this way, would that man act appropriately about that raft?

Harmful prejudices in men’s minds.

This is true not only in intellectual and spiritual matters but also in human relations. When, for instance, we meet a man, we do not regard him as a human being but put a label on him, such as English, French, German, American, or Jew, and believe him with all the prejudices associated with that label in our mind. Yet he may be completely free from those attributes that we have put on him.

People are so fond of discriminative labels that they even put them on human qualities and emotions common to all.  So they talk of different ‘brands’ of charity, for example, of Buddhist charity or Christian charity, and look down upon other ‘brands’ of charity.  But charity cannot be sectarian; it is neither Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Moslem. A mother's love for her child is neither Buddhist nor Christian; it is mother love.  Human qualities and emotions like love, charity, compassion, tolerance, patience, friendship, desire, hatred, ill-will, ignorance, conceit, etc., need no sectarian labels; they belong to no particular religions.

To the seeker of Truth, where an idea comes from is immaterial—the source and development of an idea matter to the academic. Knowing whether the teaching comes from the Buddha or anyone else is unnecessary to understanding the truth. What is essential is seeing and understanding it. An important story in Nikaya illustrates this.

   The Buddha once spent a night in a potter’s shed. A young hermit had arrived earlier in the same shed. They did not know each other. The Buddha observed the recluse and thought, ‘Pleasant are the ways of this young man. It would be good if I should ask about him.’  So the Buddha asked him, ‘O bhikkhu, in whose name have you left home? Or who is your master? Or whose doctrine do you like?’

‘O friend,’ answered the young man, ‘there is the recluse Gotama, a Sakyan scion, who left the Sakya family to become a hermit.  There is high repute abroad of him that he is an Arahant, a Fully-Enlightened One.  In the name of that Blessed One, I have become a recluse.  He is my Master, and I like his doctrine’. ‘Where does that Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One live now?’ ‘In the countries to the north, friend, there is a city called Savatthi.  There, the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, is now living.’ ‘Have you ever seen him, that Blessed One? Would you recognize him if you saw him?’ ‘I have never seen that Blessed One. Nor should I recognize him if I saw him.’  The Buddha realized that it was in his name that this unknown young man had left home and become a hermit.  But without divulging his identity, he said: ‘O bhikkhu, I will teach you the doctrine.  Listen and pay attention.  I will speak.’ ‘Very well, friend,’ said the young man in assent. 

   Then, the Buddha delivered to this young man a most remarkable discourse explaining Truth (the gist of which is given later).  At the end of the discourse, this young hermit, whose name was Pukkusati, realized that the person who spoke to him was the Buddha himself.  So he got up, went before the Buddha, bowed down at the feet of the Master, and apologized to him for calling him ‘friend’ unknowingly.  He then begged the Buddha to ordain him and admit him into the Order of the Sangha.

   The Buddha asked whether he had the alms bowl and the robes ready. (A bhikkhu must have three robes and an alms bow for begging for food.) When Pukkusati replied in the negative, the Buddha said that the Tathagatas would not ordain a person unless the alms bowl and the robes were ready. So Pukkusati went out in search of an alms bowl and robes, but a cow, unfortunately, savaged him and died.

   Later, when this sad news reached the Buddha, he announced that Pukkusati was a wise man who had already seen the Truth and attained the penultimate stage of realizing Nirvana. He was born in a realm where he would become an Arahant and finally pass away, never to return to this world again. 

   From this story, it is pretty clear that when Pukkusati listened to the Buddha and understood his teaching, he did not know who was speaking to him or whose teaching it was.  He saw the Truth. If the medicine is good, the disease will be cured.  It is unnecessary to know who prepared it or where it came from.

   Almost all religions are built on faith –somewhat ‘blind’ faith.  But in Buddhism, emphasis is placed on ‘seeing. ' Knowing, understanding, and not on faith, or belief.    Sraddha  is usually translated in Buddhist texts as ‘faith’ or ‘belief.’  But saddha is not ‘faith’ but rather ‘confidence’ born out of conviction.  In popular Buddhism and ordinary usage in the texts, the word saddha, it must be admitted, has an element of ‘faith’ in that it signifies devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma (Teaching) and the Sangha (The Order).

   According to Asanga, the great Buddhist philosopher of the 4th century A.C., sraddha has three aspects:  full and firm conviction that a thing is, serene joy at good qualities, and aspiration or wish to achieve an object in view.

   However you put it, faith or belief, as understood by most religions, has little to do with Buddhism.

   The question of belief arises when there is no seeing-seeing in every sense of the word.  The moment you see, the question of belief disappears.  If I tell you that I have a gem hidden in the folded palm of my hand, the question of belief arises because you do not see it yourself.  But if I unclench my fist and show you the gem, you see it for yourself, and the question of belief does not arise.  So the phrase in ancient Buddhist texts reads:  ‘Realizing, as one sees a gem (or a myrobalan fruit) in the palm.’

   A disciple of the Buddha named Musila tells another monk: ‘Friend Savittha, without devotion, faith or belief, without liking or inclination, without hearsay or tradition, without considering apparent reasons, without delight in the speculations of opinions, I know and see that the cessation of becoming is Nirvana.

   The Buddha says, ‘O bhikkhus, I say that the destruction of defilement and impurities is (meant) for a person who knows and sees, and not for someone who does not know and does not see.

   It is always a question of knowing and seeing, not believing.  The teaching of the Buddha is qualified as ebi-paska, inviting you to ‘come and see’ but not to come and believe.

   The expressions used everywhere in Buddhist texts referring to persons who realized Truth are: ‘The dustless and stainless Eye of Truth has arisen.’ ‘He has seen Truth, has crossed over doubt, is without wavering.’ ‘Thus, with right wisdom, he sees it as it is. Concerning his Enlightenment, the Buddha said: ‘The eye was born, knowledge was born. It is always seeing through knowledge or wisdom and not believing through faith.

   This was more and more appreciated at a time when Brahmanic orthodoxy intolerantly insisted on believing and accepting their tradition and authority as the only Truth without question.  One, a group of learned and well-known Brahmins went to see the Buddha and discussed with him.  One of the group, a Brahmin youth of 16 years of age named Kapathika, considered by them all to be an exceptionally brilliant mind, put a question to the Buddha: ‘VenerableGotama, there are the ancient holy scriptures of the Brahmins handed down along the line by the unbroken oral tradition of texts.  About them, Brahmins come to the absolute conclusion: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false.”  Now, what does the Venerable Gotama say about this?’

   The Buddha inquired:  ‘Among Brahmins, is there any single Brahmin who claims that he knows and sees that “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false.”?’

The young man was frank and said, ' No. ‘Then, is there any one single teacher, or a teacher of teachers of Brahmins back to the seventh generation, or even any one of those original authors of those scriptures, who claims that he knows and he sees: ' This alone is Truth, and everything else is false'?

‘No.’

‘Then, it is like a line of blind men, each holding on to the preceding one; the first one does not see, the middle one does not, and the last one does not. Thus, it seems to me that the state of the Brahmins is like that of a line of blind men.’

  Then the Buddha advised on extreme importance to the group of Brahmins: ‘It’s not proper for a wise man who maintains truth to conclude: “This alone is Truth, and everything else is false.”’

Asked by the young Brahmin to explain the idea of maintaining or protecting truth, the Buddha said: ‘A man has faith.  If he says, “This is my faith,” so far, he maintains the truth.  But by that e cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion: This alone is Truth, and everything else is false”.’ In other words, a man may believe what he likes and say,  ‘I believe this.’  So far, he respects truth.  But because of his belief or faith, he should not say that what he believes is alone the Truth, and everything else is false.  The Buddha says: ‘To be attached to one thing (to a particular view) and to look down upon other things (views) as inferior-this the wise men call a fetter.

Once, the Buddha explained the doctrine of cause and effect to his disciples, and they said that they saw it and understood it clearly.  Then the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, even this view, which is so pure and so clear, if you cling to it, if you rub it, if you treasure it, if you are attached to it, then you do not understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, which is for crossing over, and not for getting hold of.

Elsewhere, the Buddha explains this famous simile in which his teaching is compared to a raft for crossing over, not for getting hold of and carrying on one’s back: ‘O bhikkhus, a man is on a journey.  He comes to a vast stretch of water.  On this side, the shore is dangerous, but on there, it is safe and without danger.  No boat goes to the other shore, which is safe and without danger, nor is there any bridge for crossing over.  He says: “This sea of water is vast, and the shore on this side is full of danger, but on the other shore, it is safe and without danger.  No boat goes to the other side, nor is there a bridge for crossing over.  It would be good, therefore, if I would gather grass, wood, branches and leaves to make a raft and, with the help of the raft, cross over safely to the other side, exerting myself with my hands and feet.  Then that man, O bhikkhus, gathers grass, wood, branches and leaves and makes a raft, and with the help of that raft, crosses over safely to the other side, exerting himself with his hands and feet.  Having crossed over and got to the other side, he thinks: ‘This raft was of great help to me.  With its aid, I have crossed safely to this side, exerting myself with my hands and feet.  It would be good to carry this raft on my head or back wherever I go”.  ‘What do you think, O bhikkhus? If he acted this way, would that man be acting properly about the raft? “No, Sir.”  In which way would he be acting properly about the raft? Having crossed and gone over to the other side, suppose that man should think: “This raft was a great help to me. With its aid, I have crossed safely to this side, exerting myself with my hands and feet.  It would be good if I beached this raft on the shore, moored it, left it afloat, and went  wherever possible.”/  Acting this way, would that man act appropriately about that raft?

‘In the same manner, O bhikkhus, I have taught a doctrine similar to a raft: It is for crossing over and not for carrying (lit. Getting hold of). You, O bhikkhus, who understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, should give up even good things; how much more than should you give up evil things?

This parable shows that the Buddha’s teaching is meant to lead man to safety, peace, happiness, tranquillity, and attaining Nirvana. The whole doctrine taught by the Buddha leads to this end. He did not say things to satisfy intellectual curiosity. He was a practical teacher and taught only those things that would bring peace and happiness to man.

The Buddha once stayed 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 hand 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   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 much more. And why have I not told you (those things)? Because that is not useful—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 purely speculative and create imaginary problems. He considered them a ‘wilderness of opinions.’ It seems that some of his disciples did not appreciate this attitude. For example, one of them, Malunkyaputta, asked 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 not eternal? Is the universe finite, or is it infinite? Is the soul the same as the body, or is the soul one thing and the body another? 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 exist?  The Blessed One does not explain these problems 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, I will continue to follow the holy life under him.  I will leave the Order and leave if he does not explain them.  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 straightforward to say, “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 poisoned arrow, wounds a man, 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 Kshatriya (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 which village, 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 arrow, 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 and what I have not explained as unexplained.  What are the things that I have not explained?  I have not explained whether the universe is eternal(those opinions). Why, Malunkyaputta, have I not explained them?  Because it is not applicable, it is not fundamentally connected with the spiritual holy life nor conducive to aversion, detachment, cessation, tranquillity, deep penetration, full realization, or Nirvana.  That is why I have not told you about them.

‘Then, what, Malunkyaputta, have I explained? I have explained dukkha, its arising, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation. Why, Malunkyaputta, have I explained them? Because they are helpful, fundamentally connected with the spiritual holy life, and conducive to aversion, detachment, cessation, tranquillity, deep penetration, full realization, and Nirvana. Therefore, I have explained them.

Let us now examine the Four Noble Truths 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 Truths, which he expounded in his 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.  However, there are innumerable places in the early Buddhist scriptures where they are explained repeatedly, with greater detail, and in different ways.  Suppose we study the Four Noble Truths with the help of these references and explanations. In that case, we get a pretty good and accurate account of the essential teaching of 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

           Almost all scholars generally translate the First Noble Truth (Dukkha-ariyasacca) 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.  Because of this limited, free, accessible translation and its superficial interpretation, many people have been misled into regard Buddhism as 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 the world.  It looks at things objectively (yathabbutam).  It does not falsely lull you into living in a fool’s paradise nor frighten and agonize you with all kinds of imaginary fears and sins.  It tells you precisely and objectively what you are and the world around you and shows you how 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 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.  However, a third physician diagnoses the symptoms correctly, understands the illness's cause and nature, sees clearly that it can be cured, and courageously administers a course of treatment, thus saving his patient.  The Buddha is like the last physician.  He is the wise and scientific doctor for the world's ills (Bhiskka or Bhaisajya-guru).

           Indeed, the Pali word dukkha (or Sanskrit dukkha) in ordinary usage means ‘suffering,’ ‘pain,’ ‘sorrow’ or ‘misery,’ as opposed to the word sukha meaning ‘happiness,’ ‘comfort’ or ‘ease.’  However, 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 broader senses.  It is admitted that the term dukkha in the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of ‘suffering.’ Still, it also includes more profound ideas such as ‘imperfection,’ ‘impermanence,’ ‘emptiness,’ and ‘insubstantial.’ Therefore, Finding one word to embrace the concept of dukkha as the First Noble Truth is challenging. So, it is better to leave it untranslated than to give an inadequate and wrong idea 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 laypeople and monks.  In the Anguttara-Nikaya, one of the five original Collections in Pali containing the Buddha’s discourses, there is a list of happiness (Sukhani), such as the happiness of family life and the happiness of the life of a hermit, 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 anicca tam dukkham).

           The Buddha was realistic and objective.  He says one should understand three things about life and the enjoyment of sense-pleasures: 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 repeatedly, and you derive pleasure and satisfaction from that person.  This is enjoyment.  It is a fact of experience.  But this enjoyment is not permanent, just as that person and all his (or her) attractions are not permanent either.  When the situation changes, when you cannot see that person when you are deprived of this enjoyment, you become sad, may become unreasonable and unbalanced, or 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 and liberation.  These three things are true about all enjoyment in life.

           From this, it is evident that it is no question of pessimism or optimism but that we must take account of the pleasures of life and its pains and sorrows and freedom from them to understand life entirely and objectively.  Only then is true liberation possible.  Regarding this question, the Buddha says: ‘O bhikkhus, if any recluses or Brahmanas do not understand objectively in this way that the enjoyment of sense-pleasures is enjoyment, that their unsatisfactoriness is unsatisfactoriness, that liberation from them is liberation, then it is not possible that they will certainly understand the desire for sense pleasures completely, or that they will be able to instruct another person to that end, or that the person following their instruction will completely understand the desire for sense-pleasures.  But, O bhikkhus, if any recluses or Brahmanas understand objectively in this way that the enjoyment of sense-pleasures is enjoyment, that their unsatisfactoriness is unsatisfactoriness, that liberation from them is liberation, then it is possible that they will certainly understand the desire for sense-pleasures completely, and that they will be able to instruct another person to that end, and that person following their instruction will completely understand the desire for sense-pleasures.’

           The conception of dukkha may be viewed from three aspects: 1 dukkha as ordinary suffering, 22 dukkha as produced by change and three dukkha as conditioned states.

           All kinds of suffering in life—birth, old age, sickness, death, association with unpleasant persons and conditions, separation from beloved ones and pleasant conditions, not getting what one desires, grief, lamentation, and distress—are all forms of physical and mental suffering that are universally accepted as suffering or pain and are included in dukkha as ordinary suffering.

           A happy feeling, a happy condition in life, is not permanent, not everlasting.  It changes sooner or later.  When it changes, it produces pain, suffering, and unhappiness.  This alteration is included in dukkha as suffering produced by change.

           The two forms of suffering mentioned above are easy to understand. No one will dispute them. This aspect of the First Noble Truth is more popularly known because it is easy to understand. It is a common experience in our daily lives.

           But the third form of dukkha as conditioned states is the most important philosophical aspect of the First Noble Truth, and it requires some analytical explanation of what we consider as a ‘being,’ as an ‘individual,’ or as ‘I,’

           According to Buddhist philosophy, what we call a ‘being,’ an ‘individual,’ or ‘I’ is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies, which may be divided into five groups or aggregates.  The Buddha says: ‘In short, these five aggregates of attachment are dukkha.’  Elsewhere, he distinctly defines dukkha as the five aggregates: ‘O bhikkhus, what is dukkha? It should be said that it is the five aggregates of attachment.  It should be clearly understood that dukkha and the five aggregates are not two different things; they are dukkha.  We will understand this point better when we know the five aggregates constituting the so-called ‘being.’ Now, what are these five?

 

The five Aggregates

The first is the Aggregate of Matter.  In this term, ‘Aggregate of Matter’ includes the traditional Four Great Elements, namely, solidity, fluidity, heat and motion, and the Derivatives of the Four Great Elements.  The term ‘derivatives of Four Great Elements’ includes our five material sense-organs, i.e., the faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body, and their corresponding objects in the external world, i.e., visible form, sound, odour, taste, and tangible things, and also some thoughts or ideas or conceptions which are in the sphere of mind-objects.  Thus, the whole realm of matter, internal and external, is included in the Aggregate of Matter.

           The second is the Aggregate of Sensations.  In this group are included all our sensations, pleasant or unpleasant or neutral, experienced through the contact of physical and mental organs with the external world.  They are of six kinds: the sensations experienced through the contact of the eye with visible forms, ear with sounds, nose with odour, tongue with taste, body with tangible objects, and mind (which is the sixth faculty in Buddhist Philosophy) with mind-objects or thoughts or ideas.  All our physical and mental sensations are included in this group.

           A word about what is meant by the term ‘Mind’ in Buddhist philosophy may be helpful here.  It should clearly be understood that the mind is not spirit as opposed to matter.  It should always be remembered that Buddhism does not recognize a spirit opposed to matter, as is accepted by most other philosophies and religions.  The mind is only a faculty or organ like the eye or the ear.   It can be controlled and developed like any other faculty, and the Buddha often speaks of the value of maintaining and disciplining these six faculties.  The difference between the eyes and the mind as faculties is that the former senses the world of colours and visible forms. In contrast, the latter senses the world of colours and visible forms, while the latter senses the world of ideas, thoughts and mental objects.  We experience different fields of the world with other senses.  We cannot hear colours, but we can see them.  Nor can we see sounds, but we can listen to them thus with our five physical sense organs-eye, ear, nose, tongue, body experience only the world of visible forms, sounds, odours, tastes and tangible objects.  But these represent only a part of the world, not the whole.  What of ideas and thoughts? They are also a part of the world.  But they cannot be sensed; the faculty of the eye, ear, nose, tongue or body cannot conceive them.  Yet they can be created by another faculty, which is the mind.  Now, ideas and thoughts are not independent of the world experienced by these five physical sense faculties.  They depend on and are conditioned by bodily experiences.  Hence, a person born blind cannot have ideas of colour except through the analogy of sounds or other things experienced through his other faculties.  Ideas and thoughts which form a part of the world are thus produced and conditioned by physical experiences and are conceived by the mind.  Hence, the mind is considered a sense faculty or organ, like the eye or the ear.

           The third is the Aggregate of Perceptions. Like sensations, perceptions are of six kinds: about six internal faculties and the corresponding six external objects. Like sensations, they are produced through the contact of our six faculties with the external world. It is perceptions that recognize objects, whether physical or mental.

           The fourth is the Aggregate of Mental Formations.  All good and bad volitional activities are included in this group.  What is generally known as karma comes under this group.  The Buddha’s definition of karma should be remembered here: ‘O bhikkus, it is volition that I call karma.  Having willed, one acts through body, speech and mind.  Volition is ‘mental construction, mental activity.  Its function is to direct the mind in the sphere of good, bad or neutral activities.  Just like sensations and perceptions, volition is of six kinds, connected with the six internal faculties and the corresponding six objects (both physical and mental) in the external world.  Sensations and perceptions are not deliberate actions.  They do not produce karmic effects.  It is only voluntary actions such as attention, will, determination, confidence, concentration, wisdom, energy, desire, aversion or hate, ignorance, conceit, idea of self, etc.  That can produce karmic effects.  There are 52 such mental activities which constitute the Aggregate of Mental Formations. 

           The fifth is the Aggregate of Consciousness.  Consciousness is a reaction or response which has one of the six faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind) as its basis and one of the six corresponding external phenomena (visible form, sound, odour, taste, tangible things and mind-objects, i.e., an idea or thought) as its object.  For instance, visual consciousness has the eye as its basis and a visible form as its object.  Mental consciousness (mano-vinnana) has the mind (manas) as its basis and a cognitive object, i.e., an idea or thought (dhamma) as its object.  So, consciousness is connected with other faculties.  Thus, like sensation perception and volition, consciousness is also of six kinds: about six internal faculties and six corresponding external objects.

           It should be clearly understood that consciousness does not recognize an object.  It is only a sort of awareness-awareness of the presence of an object.  When the eye comes in contact with a colour, for instance, blue, visual consciousness arises, which is awareness of the presence of a colour, but it does not recognize that it is blue.  There is no recognition at this stage.  Perception (the third Aggregate discussed above) acknowledges that it is blue.  The term ‘visual consciousness’ is a philosophical expression denoting the same idea conveyed by the ordinary word ‘seeing.’  Seeing does not mean recognizing.  So are the other forms of consciousness.

           It must be repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy, there is no permanent, unchanging spirit that can be considered ‘Self,’  ‘Soul,’ or ‘Ego,’ as opposed to matter, and that consciousness should not be taken as ‘spirit’ in opposition to matter. This point must be emphasized because the wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a permanent substance throughout life has persisted from the earliest to the present.

           One of Buddha’s disciples, Sati, held that the Master taught: ‘It is the same consciousness that transmigrates and wanders about.’ The Buddha asked him what he meant by ‘consciousness.’  Sati’s reply is classical: ‘It is that which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there.’

           ‘To whomever, you stupid one,’ remonstrated the Master, ‘have you heard me expounding the doctrine in this manner? Haven’t I in many ways explained consciousness as arising out of conditions: that there is no arising of consciousness without conditions.’  Then the Buddha went on to explain consciousness in detail: ‘Consciousness is named according to whatever condition through which it arises: on account of the eye and visible forms arises a consciousness, and it is called visual consciousness; on account of the ear and sounds arises a consciousness, and it is called auditory consciousness; on account of the nose and odours arises a consciousness, and it is called olfactory consciousness; on account of the tongue and tastes arises a consciousness, and it is called gustatory consciousness; on account of the body and tangible objects arises a consciousness, and it is called tactile consciousness; on account of the mind and mind-objects (ideas and thoughts) arises a consciousness, and it is called mental consciousness.’

           Then, the Buddha explained it further by an illustration: A fire is named according to the material on account of which it burns.  A fire may burn on account of wood, and it is called a wood fire.  It may burn on account of straw, and then it is called stra-fire.  So, consciousness is named according to the condition through which it arises.

           Dwelling on this point, Buddhaghosa, the great commentator, explains: ‘...a fire that burns on account of wood burns only when there is a supply, but dies down in that very place when it (the supply) is no longer there because then the condition has changed, ut (the fire) does not cross over to splinters, etc., and become a splinter-fire and so on; even so the consciousness that arises on account of the eye and visible forms arises in that gate or sense organ (i.e., in the eye), only when there is the condition of the eye, visible forms, light and attention, but ceases then and there when it (the condition) is no more there, because then the condition has changed, but (the consciousness) does not cross over to the ear, etc., and become auditory consciousness and so on...’

           The Buddha declared unequivocally that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception, and mental formations and that consciousness cannot exist independently of them. He says: ‘Consciousness may exist having matter as its means, matter as its object, matter as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness may exist having sensation as its means...or perception as its means...or mental formations as its means, mental formations as its object, mental formations as its support, and seeking to delight it my grow, increase and develop.

           ‘If a man said, ' I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.’

           Very briefly, these are the five Aggregates.  What we call a ‘being,’ an ‘individual,’ or ‘I’ is only a convenient name or a label given to the combinations of these five groups.  They are all impermanent, all constantly changing.  ‘Whatever is impermanent is dukkha’.  This is the true meaning of the Buddha’s words: ‘In brief, the five Aggregates of Attachment are dukkha.’  They are not the same for two consecutive moments.  Here, A is not equal to A.  They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing. 

           ‘O Brahmana, it is just like a mountain river, flowing far and swift, taking everything along with it; there is no moment, no instant, no second when it stops flowing, but it continues.  So Brahmana is human life, like a mountain river.  As the Buddha told Ratthapala: ‘The world is in continuous flux and is impermanent.’

           One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of causes and effects.  There is no unchanging substance in them.  Nothing behind them can, in reality, be called ‘I.’  Everyone will agree that neither matter, sensation, perception, or any of those mental activities nor consciousness can be called ‘I.’  But when these five physical and mental aggregates, which are interdependent, work together as a physio-psychological machine, we get the idea of ‘I.’  But this is only a false idea, a mental formation, which is one of those 52 mental formations of the fourth Aggregate we have just discussed, namely, the concept of self.

           These five Aggregates together, which we popularly call a ‘being,’ are dukkha itself.  There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’ behind these five aggregates who experience dukkha.  As Buddhaghosa says:

           Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found:

           The deeds are, but no doer is found.’

           There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement.  It is incorrect to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself.  Life and movement are not two different things.  In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought.  Thought itself is the thinker.  If you remove the thought, no thinker will be found.  Here, we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view opposes the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’

           Now, a question may be raised as to whether life has a beginning.  According to the Buddha’s teaching, the beginning of the lifestream of living beings is unthinkable.  The believer in the creation of life by God may be astonished at this reply.  But if you were to ask him, ‘What is the beginning of God?’ he would answer without hesitation, ‘God has no beginning,’ and he is not astonished at his reply.  The Buddha says: ‘O bhikkhus, this cycle of continuity is without a visible end, and the first beginning of beings wandering and running round, enveloped in ignorance and bound down by the fetters of thirst (desire, tanha) is not to be perceived.’  Further, referring to ignorance, the leading cause of the continuity of life, the Buddha states: ‘The first beginning of ignorance is not to be perceived in such a way as to postulate that there was no ignorance beyond a certain point.  Thus, it is impossible to say there was no life beyond a certain definite point.

           This, in short, is the meaning of the Noble Truth of Dukkha.  It is essential to understand this First Noble Truth clearly because, as the Buddha says, ‘he who sees dukkha also sees the arising of dukkha, also sees the cessation of dukkha, and also sees the path leading to the cessation of dukkha.

           This does not make the life of a Buddhist melancholy sorrowful, as some people wrongly imagine.  On the contrary, a true Buddhist is the happiest of beings.  He has no fears or anxieties.  He is always calm and serene and cannot be upset or dismayed by changes or calamities because he sees things as they are.  The Buddha was never melancholy or gloomy.  His contemporaries described him as ‘ever-smiling.’  In Buddhist painting and sculpture, the Buddha is always represented with a happy, serene, contented, and compassionate countenance.  Never a trace of suffering or agony or pain is to be seen.  Buddhist art and architecture, Buddhist temples

never give the impression of gloom or sorrow but produce an atmosphere of calm and serene joy.

           Although there is suffering in life, a Buddhist should not be gloomy, angry or impatient.  According to Buddhism, one of the principal evils in life is ‘repugnance’ or hatred.  Repugnance is explained as ‘ill will about living beings, suffering and things about suffering.  Its function produces a basis for unhappy states and bad conduct.’  Thus, it is wrong to be impatient with suffering.  Being impatient or angry at suffering does not remove it.  On the contrary, it adds more to one’s troubles and aggravates and exacerbates a disagreeable situation.  What is necessary is not anger or impatience but understanding the question of suffering, how it comes about, and how to get rid of it, and then working accordingly with patience, intelligence, determination, and energy.

           Two ancient Buddhist texts, Theragatha and Therigatha, are full of the joyful utterances of the Buddha’s male and female disciples, who found peace and happiness through his teaching.  The king of Kosala once told the Buddha that, unlike many a disciple of other religious systems who looked haggard, coarse, pale, emaciated and unprepossessing, his disciples were ‘joyful and elated, jubilant and exultant, enjoying the spiritual life, with faculties pleased, free from anxiety, serene, peaceful and living with a gazelle’s mind, i.e., light-hearted.’ The king added that he believed this healthy disposition was because ‘these venerable ones had certainly realized the great and full significance of the Blessed One’s teaching.’

           Buddhism opposes the sad, sorrowful, penitent, and gloomy attitude of mind that hinders the realization of Truth. On the other hand, it is interesting to remember that joy is one of the seven Bojjhamgas or ‘Factors of Enlightenment,’ the essential qualities to be cultivated to realize Nirvana.

CHAPTER 3

THE SECOND NOBLE TRUTH:

SAMUDAYA: “The Arising of Dukkha”

The Second Noble Truth is that of the arising or origin of dukkha. The most popular and well-known definition of the Second Truth, as found in innumerable places in the original texts, runs as follows:

           ‘It is this “thirst” (craving, tanba) which produces re-existence and re-becoming, and which is bound up with passionate greed, and which finds fresh delight now here and now there, namely, thirst for sense-pleasures, thirst for existence and becoming and thirst for non-existence (self-annihilation).

           It is this ‘thirst,’ desire, greed, craving, and manifesting itself in various ways that give rise to all forms of suffering and the continuity of beings.  However, it should not be taken as the first cause, for there is no first cause possible as, according to Buddhism, everything is relative and interdependent.  Even this ‘thirst’ tanda, considered the cause or origin of dukkha, depends on its arising (samudaya) on something else: sensation. Sensation arises depending on contact and goes in the circle known as Conditioned Genesis, which we will discuss later.

S and o tanha, ‘thirst,’ is not the first or the only cause of the arising of dukkha. But it is the most palpable and immediate cause, the ‘principal thing’ and the ‘all-pervading thing.’  Hence, in certain places of the original Pali texts, the definition of samudaya or the origin of dukkha includes other defilements and impurities, in addition to tanha ‘thirst,’ which is always given in the first place.  Within the necessarily limited space of our discussion, it will be sufficient to remember that this ‘thirst’ has at its center the false idea of self-arising out of ignorance.

           Here, the term ’thirst’ includes not only desire for, and attachment to, sense-pleasures, wealth and power but also desire for and attachment to ideas, ideals, views, opinions, theories, conceptions and beliefs.  According to the Buddha’s analysis, all the troubles and strife in the world, from little personal quarrels in families to great wars between nations and countries, arise from this selfish ‘thirst.’ From this point of view, all economic, political and social problems are rooted in this selfish ‘thirst.’  Great politicians who try to settle international disputes and talk of war and peace only in economic and political terms touch the superficialities and never go deep into the real root of the problem. As the Buddha told Rattapala: ‘The world lacks and hankers, and is enslaved to “thirst.”’

           Everyone will admit that all the evils in the world are produced by selfish desire. This is not difficult to understand. However, grasping how this desire, ‘thirst,’ can produce re-existence and become a problem is challenging. Here, we have to discuss the deeper philosophical side of the Second Noble Truth. We must have some idea about the theory of karma and rebirth.

           There are four Nutrients in the sense of ‘cause’ or ‘condition’ necessary for the existence and continuity of beings: 1. Ordinary material food, 2. contact of our sense organs (including mind) with the external world, 3—consciousness and mental volition or will.

           Of these four, the last mentioned ‘mental volition’ is the will to live, exist, re-exist, continue, and become more and more.  It creates the root of existence and continuity, striving forward through good and bad actions.  It is the same as ‘Volition. As the Buddha defined it,  volition is karma.  Referring to ‘Mental volition’ mentioned above, the Buddha says: ‘When one understands the nutriment of mental volition, one understands the three forms of ‘thirst.’  Thus, the terms ‘thirst,’ ‘volition,’ ‘mental volition,’ and ‘karma’ all denote the same thing: they denote the desire, the will to be, to exist, to re-exist, to become more and more, to grow more and more, to accumulate more and more.  This is the cause of the arising of dukkha, which is found within the Aggregate of Mental formations, one of the Five Aggregates constituting a being.

           Here is one of the most essential points in the Buddha’s teaching.  Therefore, we must clearly and carefully mark and remember that the cause, the germ, of the arising of dukkha is within the dukkha itself, not outside. We must remember that the reason, the germ, of the cessation of dukkha, of the destruction of dukkha, is also within dukkha itself and not outside.  This is what the well-known formula often found in original Pali texts means: Yam since samudayadhammam sabbat tam nirodhadhammam ‘Whatever is of the nature of arising, all that is of cessation.  A being, a thing, or a system, if it has within itself the nature of arising, the nature of coming into being, also has within itself the nature, the germ, of its cessation and destruction.  Thus, dukka (Five Aggregates) has within itself the nature of its arising and cessation.  This point will be again discussed in the Third Noble Truth, Nirodha.

           The Pali word karma or the Sanskrit word karma (from the root kr to do) means ‘action,’ ‘doing.’  However, in the Buddhist theory of karma, it has a specific meaning: it means only ‘volitional action,’ not all action. Nor does it mean the result of karma, as many people wrongly and loosely use it.  In Buddhist terminology, karma never means its effect; its effect is known as the ‘fruit’ or the ‘result’ of karma.

           Volition may be good or bad, just as a desire may be good or bad.  So karma may be excellent or bad, relatively.  Good karma produces sound effects, and bad karma produces harmful effects.  ‘Thirst,’ volition, and karma, whether good or bad, have one force as its effect: force to continue in a good or wrong direction.  Whether good or bad, it is relative and within the cycle of continuity.  An Arahant, though he acts, does not accumulate karma because he is accessible from the false idea of self, free from the ‘thirst’ for continuity and becoming free from all other defilements and impurities.  For him, there is no rebirth.

           The theory of karma should not be confused with so-called ‘moral justice’  or ‘reward and punishment.’  Moral justice, or reward and punishment, arises from the conception of a supreme being, a God, who sits in judgment, who is a law and who decides right and wrong.  The term ‘justice’ is ambiguous for humanity.  The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction; it is a natural law which has nothing to do with the death of justice or reward and punishment.  Every volitional action produces its effects or results.  Suppose a good action produces sound effects and a wrong action has terrible effects. In that case, it is not justice, reward, or punishment meted out by anybody or any power sitting in judgment on your action, but this is in virtue of its nature, its law.  This is not difficult to understand.  But what is difficult is that, according to the karma theory, the effects of a deliberate action may continue to manifest themselves even in life after death.  Here, we have to explain what death is according to Buddhism.

           We have seen earlier that a being combines physical and mental forces or energies.  What we call death is the total non-functioning of the physical body.  Do all these forces and energies stop altogether with the non-functioning of the body? Buddhism says ‘No’. Will, volition, desire, and thirst to exist, continue, and become more and more are tremendous forces that move whole lives, whole existences, and even the entire world.  This is the most significant force and the most significant energy source globally.  According to Buddhism, this force does not stop with the non-functioning of the body, which is death, but it continues manifesting itself in another form, producing re-existence, which is called rebirth.

           Another question arises: If there is no permanent, unchanging entity or substance like Self or Soul, what can re-exist or be reborn after death? Before we go on to life after death, let us consider what life is and how it continues now.  What we call life, as we have so often repeated, is the combination of the Five Aggregates, a combination of physical and mental energies.  These constantly change; they do not remain the same for two consecutive moments.  Every moment, they are born, and they die.  ‘When the Aggregates arise, decay and die, O bhikkhu, every moment you are born, decay and die. Thus, even now, during this lifetime, every moment we are born and die, we continue. Suppose we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance like the self or soul. Why can’t we know that those forces themselves can continue without a Self or a soul behind them after the non-functioning of the body?

           When this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, energies do not die with it but continue to take some other shape or form, which we call another life.  A child's physical, mental and intellectual faculties  are tender and weak, but they can produce a full-grown man within them.  Physical and mental energies that constitute the so-called being have within themselves the power to take a new form, grow gradually, and gather force to the full.

           Nothing passes from one moment to the next, as no permanent, unchanging substance exists.  So, quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.  It is a series that continues unbroken but changes every moment.  The series is, really speaking, nothing but movement.  It is like a flame that burns through the night: it is not the same flame, nor is it another.  A child grows up to be a man of sixty.  Indeed, the man of sixty is not the same as the child of sixty years ago, nor is he another person.  Similarly, a person who dies here and is reborn elsewhere is neither the same person nor another.  It is the continuity of the same series.  The difference between death and birth is only a thought-moment: the last thought-moment in this life conditions the first thought-moment in the so-called next life, which is the continuity of the same series.  During this life, too, one thought-moment conditions the next.  So, from the Buddhist point of view, the question of life after death is not a great mystery and a Buddhist is never worried about this problem.

          The continuity cycle continues as long as this ‘thirst’ exists to be and become.  It can stop only when its driving force, this ‘thirst,’ is cut off through wisdom, which sees Reality, Truth, and Nirvana.

CHAPTER 4

THE THIRD NOBLE TRUTH:

NIRODHA: “The Cessation of Dukkha”

 

The Third Noble Truth is that there is emancipation, liberation,  freedom from suffering, and continuity in dukkha.  This is called the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Dukkha, which is Nibbana, more popularly known in its Sanskrit form of Nirvana.

           As we saw earlier, to eliminate dukkha, one must eliminate its main root, ‘thirst.’ Therefore, Nirvana is known as Tanhakkhaya, or ‘Extinction of Thirst’.

           Now you will ask: But what is Nirvana? Volumes have been written in reply to this quite natural and simple question; they have, more and more, only confused the issue rather than clarified it.  The only reasonable reply to the question is that it can never be answered completely and satisfactorily in words because human language is too poor to express the fundamental nature of the Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality, which is Nirvana.  Mass masses of human beings create and use language to express things and ideas experienced by their human sense organs and their mind. A supramundane experience like that of the Absolute Truth is not of such a category.  Therefore, there cannot be words to express that experience, just as the fish had no words in his vocabulary to express the nature of the solid land.  The tortoise told his friend, the fish, that he (the tortoise) had just returned to the lake after a walk on the land. ‘Of course,’ the fish said, ‘You mean swimming.’ The tortoise tried to explain that one walked on it.  But the fish insisted that there could be nothing like it, that it must be liquid like his lake, with waves, and that one must be able to dive and swim there.

           Words represent things and ideas known to us; these symbols do not and cannot convey the true nature of even ordinary things. Language is considered deceptive and misleading in the matter of understanding the Truth. So, the Lankavatara sutra says that ignorant people get stuck in words like an elephant in the mud.

           Nevertheless, we cannot do without language.  But if Nirvana is to be expressed and explained in favourable terms, we will likely immediately grasp an idea associated with those terms, which may be quite the contrary.  Therefore, it is generally expressed negatively, which is perhaps a less dangerous mode.  So it is often referred to by such negative terms as Tanhakkhaya ‘Extinction of Thirst’Asamkhata ‘Uncompound,’ ‘Unconditioned,’ Viraga’Absense of desire,’ Nirodha ‘Cessation,’ Nibbana ‘Blowing out’ or ‘Extinction.’

           Let us consider a few definitions and descriptions of Nirvana as found in the original Pali texts:

           ‘It is the complete  cessation of that very ‘thirst,’ giving it up, renouncing it, emancipation from it, detachment from it.’

           ‘Calming of all conditioned things, giving up all defilements, extinction of “thirst,” detachment, cessation, Nibbana.

           ‘O bhikkhus, what is the Absolute? It is O bhikkhus, the extinction of desire, the extinction of hatred, the extinction of illusion.  This, O bhikkhus, is called the Absolute.

           ‘O Radha, the extinction of “thirst” is Nibbana.

           ‘O bhikkhus, whatever may be things conditioned or unconditioned, among them detachment is the highest. That is to say, freedom from conceit, destruction of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the cutting off of continuity, the extinction of “thirst,”  things may be conditioned or unconditioned;  detachment is the highest among them. That is to say, freedom from conceit, destruction of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the cutting off of continuity, the extinction of “thirst,” detachment, cessation, Nibbana.

           Sariputta, the chief disciple of the Buddha, replied to a direct question, ‘What is Nibbana?’ posed by a Parivrajaka. The Buddha's definition of Asamkhata (above) is identical:  “The extinction of desire, the extinction of hatred, the extinction of illusion.

           ‘The abandoning and destruction of desire and craving for these Five Aggregates of Attachment: the cessation of dukkha.

           ‘’The cessation of Continuity and becoming is Nibbana.

           And further, referring to Nirvana, the Buddha says:

           ‘O bhikkhus, there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned.  Were there not the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned, there would be no escape for the born, grown, and conditioned, so there is an escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.

           ‘Here, the four elements of solidity, fluidity, heat, and motion have no place; the notions of length and breadth, the subtle and the gross, good and evil, name and form are altogether destroyed: neither this world nor the other, neither coming, going, or standing, neither death nor birth nor sense-objects are to be found.

           Because Nirvana is thus expressed in negative terms, many have the wrong notion that it is harmful and expresses self-annihilation. Nirvana has no annihilation of self because there is no self to annihilate. If at all, it is the destruction of the illusion, of the false idea of self.

           It is incorrect to say that Nirvana is negative or positive. The ideas of ‘’negative' and' ‘positive’ are relative and within the realm of duality. These terms cannot be applied to Nirvana, Absolute Truth, beyond duality and relativity.

           A negative word does not necessarily indicate a negative state.  The Pali of the Sanskrit word for health is arogya, a negative term which  means ‘absence or illness.’  But arogya (health) does not represent a negative state.  The word ‘Immortal’ (or its Sanskrit equivalent Amrta or Pali Amata), a synonym for Nirvana, is negative but does not denote a negative state.  The negation of negative values is not harmful.  One of the well-known synonyms for Nirvana is ‘Freedom.’ Nobody would say that freedom is negative. But even freedom has a negative side: freedom is always liberation from obstructive, evil, and hostile.  But freedom is not harmful.  So Nirvana, Mutti or Vimutti, and Absolute freedom is freedom from all evil, craving, hatred and ignorance, freedom from all terms of duality, relativity, time and space.

           We may understand Nirvana as Absolute Truth from the Bhatuvibhanga-sutta of the Majjhima-nikkaya. The Buddha delivered this critical discourse to Pukkusati (already mentioned), whom the Master found to be intelligent and earnest in the quiet of the night in a potter’s shed.  The essence of the relevant portions of the sutta is as follows:

           A man comprises six elements: solidity, fluidity, heat, motion, space and consciousness.  He analyses them and finds none is ‘mine,’ ‘me,’ or ‘myself.’  He understands how consciousness appears and disappears and how pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations appear and disappear.  Through this knowledge, his mind becomes detached.  Then, he finds pure stability within him, which he can direct toward attaining any high spiritual state, and he knows that this pure stability will last for an extended period.  But then he thinks:

           ‘If I focus this purified and cleansed equanimity on the Sphere of Infinite Space and develop a mind conforming to it, that is a mental creation. Suppose I focus this purified and cleansed equanimity on the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness...on the Sphere of Nothingness... or the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-perception and develop a mind conforming to it. In that case, that is a mental creation.’ Then, he neither mentally creates nor wills continuity and becoming or annihilation.  As he does not construct or does not will continuity and becoming or destruction, he does not cling to anything in the world; as he does not cling, he is not anxious; as he is not anxious, he is wholly calmed within (fully blown out within pacttam yeva parinibbayati) And he knows: ‘Finished is birth, lived is pure life, what should be done is done, nothing more is left to be done.

           When he experiences a pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral sensation, he knows that it is impermanent,  does not bind him, and is not experienced with passion. Whatever the sensation, he experiences it without being bound to it. He knows that all those sensations will be alleviated with the body's dissolution, just as the lamp's flame goes out when oil and wick give out.

           ‘Therefore, O bhikkhu, a person so endowed is endowed with the absolute wisdom, for the knowledge of the extinction of all dukkha is the absolute noble wisdom.

           ‘This his deliverance, founded on Truth, is unshakable. O bhikkhu that unreality is false; that which is reality, Nibbana, is Truth. Therefore, O bhikkhu, a person so endowed, I am endowed with this Absolute Truth. For, the Abolute Noble Truth is Nibbaa, which is Reality.’

           Elsewhere, the Buddha unequivocally uses Truth instead of Nibbana: ‘I will teach you the Truth and Path leading to the Truth. Here, Truth means Nirvana.

           Now, what is Absolute Truth? According to Buddhism, the Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul or Atman within or without.  This is the Absolute Truth.  Truth is never negative, though a popular expression of a harmful truth exists.  The realization of this Truth, i.e., to see things as they are without illusion or ignorance, is the extinction of craving ‘thirst’ and the cessation of dukkha, which is Nirvana.  It is exciting and valuable to remember the Mahayana view of Nirvana as not different from Samara.  The same thing is true in Samara or Nirvana, depending on how you perceive it subjectively or objectively.  This Mahayana view was probably developed out of the ideas found in the original Theravada Pali texts, to which we have just referred in our brief discussion.

           It is incorrect to think that Nirvana is the natural result of the extinction of craving.  Nirvana is not the result of anything.  If it is a result, it is an effect produced by a cause.  It would be samkhata ‘produced’ and ‘conditioned.’  Nirvana is neither cause nor effect.  It is beyond cause and effect.  Truth is not a result nor an effect.  It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, or mental state, such as dhyana or samadhi.  Truth is. Nirvana is. The only thing you can do is see it and realize it.  There is a path leading to the realization of Nirvana. But Nirvana is not the result of this path.  You may get to the mountain along a path, but the hill is not the path's result or effect.  You may see a light, but the light is not the result of your eyesight.

           People often ask: What is there after Nirvana? This question cannot arise because Nirvana is the Ultimate Truth.  If it is Ultimate, there can be nothing after it.  If there is anything after Nirvana, then that will be the Ultimate Truth and not Nirvana. Radha's monk put this question to the Buddha differently: ‘For what purpose (or end) is Nirvana?’ This question presupposes something after Nirvana when it populates some purpose or end.  So the Buddha answered: ‘O Rada, this question could not catch its limit (i.e., it is beside the point).  One lives the holy life with Nirvana as its final plunge (into the Absolute Truth), its goal, and its ultimate end.’

           Some popular inaccurately phrased expressions like ‘The Buddha entered into Nirvana or Parinirvana after his death’ have given rise to many imaginary speculations about Nirvana.  The moment you hear the phrase that ‘the Buddha entered into Nirvana or Parinirvana, you take Nirvana to be a state, or a realm, or a position in which there is some sort of existence, and try to imagine it in terms of the sense of the word ‘existence’ as it is known to you.  This popular expression ‘entered into Nirvana’ has no equivalent in the original texts.  There is no such thing as ‘entering into Nirvana after death.’ There is a word parinibbuto used to denote the death of the Buddha or an Arahant who has realized Nirvana, but it does not mean ‘entering into Nirvana.’ Parinibbuto means ‘fully passed away,’ ‘fully blown out’’ or ‘fully extinct’ because the Buddha or Arahant has no re-existence after his death.

           Another question arises: What happens to the Buddha or an Arahant after his death, painirvana? This comes under the category of unanswered questions. Even when the Buddha spoke about this, he indicated that no words in our vocabulary could express what happens to an Arahant after his death.  In reply to a Parivrajaka named Vaccha, the Buddha said that terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in the case of an Arahant because those things-matter, sensation, perception, mental activities, consciousness with which terms like ‘born’ and ‘not born’ are associated, are destroyed and uprooted, never to rise again after his death.

           An Arahant after his death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is over

there is no Self or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are finished.  Here, it should be clearly and distinctly understood, without any confusion, that what is compared to a flame or a fire gone out is not Nirvana, but the ‘being’ composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvana.  This point must be emphasized because many people, even some great scholars, have misinterpreted this simile as referring to Nirvana.  Nirvana is never compared to a fire or a lamp gone out.

           Another popular question is: If there is no Self or Atman, who realizes Nirvana? Before we go on to Nirvana, let us ask: Who thinks now if there is no Self? We have seen earlier that it is the thought that feels, that there is no thinker behind the idea.  In the same way, it is wisdom, realization, that realizes. There is no other self behind the realization.  In the discussion of the origin of dukkha, we saw that whatever it may be, whether being, thing, or system, it is of the nature of arising; it has within itself the nature, the germ, its cessation, its destruction.  Now dukkha, samsara, the cycle of continuity, is of the nature of arising; it must also be of the nature of cessation.  Dukkha arises because of ‘thirst,’ it ceases because of wisdom. As we saw earlier, ‘Thirst’ and wisdom are within the Five Aggregates.

           Thus, the germ of their arising as well as that of their cessation are both within the Five Aggregates.  Buddha's well-known statement is the real meaning: ‘Withn this fathom-long sentient body itself, I postulate the world, the arising of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world.’  This means that all the Four Noble Truths are found within the Five Aggregates, i.e., within ourselves. (Here, the word ‘world’ is used in place of dukkha).  This also means that no external power produces the rise and cessation of dukkha.

           When wisdom is developed and cultivated according to the Fourth Noble Truth (the next to be taken up), it sees the secret of life, the reality of things.  When the secret is discovered, when the Truth is seen, all the forces which feverishly produce the continuity of samsara in illusion become calm and incapable of making any more karma-formations because there is no more illusion, no more ‘thirst’ for continuity.  It is like a mental disease which is cured when the cause or the secret of the disorder is discovered and seen by the patient.

           In almost all religions, the summon bonus can be attained only after death.  But Nirvana can be realized in this very life; it is unnecessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it.

           He who has realized the Truth, Nirvana, is the happiest being in the world.  He is free from all ‘complexes’ and obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others.  His mental health is perfect.  He does not repent of the past or brood over the future.  He lives entirely in the present.  Therefore, he appreciates and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections.  He is joyful, exultant, enjoying a pure life, his faculties pleased, free from anxiety, and serene and peaceful.  He is free from selfish desire, hatred, ignorance, conceit, pride, and all such ‘defilements,’ he is pure and gentle, full of universal love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, understanding and tolerance.  His service to others is purest, for he has no thought of self.  He gains nothing and accumulates nothing, not even anything spiritual, because he is accessible from the illusion of Self and the ‘thirst’ for becoming.

           Nirvana is beyond all terms of duality and relativity.  It is beyond our conceptions of good and evil, right and wrong, existence and non-existence.  Even the word ‘happiness’ used to describe Nirvana has an entirely different sense here.  Sariputta once said: ‘O friend, Nirvana is happiness! Nirvana is happiness!’ Then Udayi asked: ‘But, friend Sariputta, what happiness can it be without sensation-*on?’ Sariputta’s reply was highly philosophical and beyond ordinary comprehension: ‘That there is no sensation itself is happiness.’

     .’      Nirvana is beyond logic and reasoning.  However much we may engage, often as a vain intellectual pastime, in highly speculative discussions regarding Nirvana or Ultimate Truth or Reality, we shall never understand it that way.  A child in kindergarten should not quarrel about the theory of relativity.  Instead, if he follows his studies patiently and diligently, one day, he may understand it.  Nirvana is ‘to be realized by the wise within themselves.’  Suppose we follow the Path patiently and diligently, train and purify ourselves earnestly, and attain the necessary spiritual development. In that case, we may one day realize it within ourselves without taxing ourselves with puzzling and high-sounding words.

           Let us, therefore, now turn to the Path which leads to the realization of Nirvana.

CHAPTER 5

THE FOURTH NOBLE TRUTH

MAGGA: “The Path

 

The Fourth Noble Truth is that of the Way leading to the Cessation of Dukkha.  This is known as the ‘Middle Path’ because it avoids two extremes: one extreme being the search for happiness through the pleasures of the sense, which is ‘low, common, unprofitable and the way of the ordinary people’; the other being the search for happiness through self-mortification in different forms of asceticism, which is ‘painful, unworthy and unprofitable.’ Having first tried these two extremes and found them useless, the Buddha discovered through personal experience the Middle Path, ‘which gives vision and knowledge, which leads to Calm, Insight, Enlightenment, Nirvana.’ This Middle Path is generally referred to as the Noble Eightfold Path because it is composed of eight categories or divisions: namely,

 

1.      Right Understanding

2.      Right Thought

3.      Right Speech

4.      Right Action

5.      Right Livelihood

6.      Right Effort

7.      Right Mindfulness

8.      Right Concentration

Practically, the Buddha's whole teaching, to which he devoted himself for 45 years, deals in some way or other with this Path. He explained it in different ways and words to different people, according to their development stage and capacity to understand and follow him. But the essence of those many thousand discourses scattered in the Buddhist Scriptures is found in the Noble Eightfold Path.

It should not be thought that the eight categories or divisions of the Path should be followed and practised one after the other in the numerical order given in the usual list above. But they are to be developed more or less simultaneously, as far as possible, according to each individual's capacity. They are linked together, and each helps cultivate the others.

These eight factors aim at promoting and perfecting the three essentials of Buddhist training and discipline,  namely: (a) Ethical Conduct (Sila), (b) Mental Discipline (Samadhi) and (c) Wisdom.  It will, therefore, be more helpful for a coherent and better understanding of the eight divisions of the Path if we group them and explain them according to these three heads.

Ethical Conduct (Sila) is built on the vast conception of universal love and compassion for all living beings, based on the Buddha’s teaching. It is regrettable that many scholars forget this great ideal of the Buddha’s teaching and indulge in only dry philosophical and metaphysical divagations when they talk and write about Buddhism.  The Buddha taught ‘for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world.’

According to Buddhism, for a man to be perfect, he should develop two qualities: compassion on one side and wisdom on the other. Here, compassion represents love, charity, kindness, tolerance and such noble qualities on the emotional side or qualities of the heart. At the same time, wisdom would stand for the intellectual side or the qualities of the mind.  If one develops only the emotional, neglecting the intellectual, one may become a good-hearted fool; to create only the philosophical side, neglecting the emotional may turn one into a hard-hearted intellect without feeling for others.  Therefore, to be perfect, one has to develop both equally.  That is the aim of the Buddhist way of life: wisdom and compassion are inseparably linked together, as we shall see later.

In Ethical Conduct (Sila), based on love and compassion, there are three factors of the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood (Nos. 3, 4, and 5 in the list).

Right speech means abstention (1) from telling lies, (2) from backbiting and slander and talk that may bring about hatred, enmity, disunity and disharmony among individuals or groups of people, (3) from harsh, rude, impolite, malicious and abusive language, and (4) from idle, useless and foolish babble and gossip.  When one abstains from these forms of wrong and harmful speech, one naturally has to speak the truth and use friendly and benevolent words that are pleasant, gentle, meaningful, and valuable.  One should not speak carelessly: speech should be at the right time and place. One should keep' noble silence if one cannot say something worthwhile.’

Right Action aims to promote moral, honourable, and peaceful conduct. It admonishes us to abstain from destroying life, stealing, dishonest dealings, and illegitimate sexual intercourse and to help others lead peaceful and honourable lives in the right way.

Right Livelihood means that one should abstain from making one’s living through a profession that brings harm to others, such as trading in arms and lethal weapons, intoxicating drinks, poisons, killing animals, cheating, etc., and should live by a profession which is honourable, blameless and innocent of harm to others.  One can see here that Buddhism is vehemently opposed to any war when it lays down that trade in arms and lethal weapons is an evil and unjust means of livelihood.

These three factors (Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood) of the Eightfold Path constitute Ethical Conduct.  Buddhist ethical and moral conduct promotes a happy and harmonious life for the individual and society. This moral conduct is considered the indispensable foundation for all higher spiritual attainments. No spiritual development is possible without this ethical basis.

Next comes Mental Discipline, which includes three other factors of the Eightfold Path: Right Effort, Right Mindfulness (Attentiveness), and Right Concentration (Nos. 6, 7, and 8 in the list).

Right Effort is the energetic will (1)to prevent evil and unwholesome states of mind from arising, (2) to get rid of such evil and unwholesome states that have already arisen within a man, and  (1)to prevent evil and unwholesome states of mind from arising, (2) to get rid of such evil and unwholesome states that have already arisen within a man, (3) to produce, to cause to arise, good and wholesome states of mind not yet arisen, and (4) to develop and bring to perfection the good and wholesome states of mind already present in a man.

Right Mindfulness (or Attentiveness) is to be diligently aware, mindful and attentive about (1) the activities of the body, (2) sensations or feelings, (3) the activities of the mind and (4) ideas, thoughts, conceptions and things.

The practice of concentration on breathing is one of the well-known exercises connected with the body for mental development.  There are several other ways of developing attentiveness about the body as modes of meditation.

One should be aware of all emotions and sensations, pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral, and how they appear and disappear within oneself.

Concerning the activities of the mind, one should be aware of whether one’s mind is lustful or not, given to hatred or not, deluded or not, distracted or concentrated, etc. In this way, one should be aware of all mind movements and how they arise and disappear.

One should know the nature of ideas, thoughts, conceptions, and things, how they appear and disappear, how they are developed,  suppressed and destroyed, and so on.

The Satipatthana-sutta (Setting up Mindfulness) treats these four forms of mental culture or meditation in detail.

The third and last factor of Mental Discipline is Right Concentration, leading to the four stages of Dhyana: passionate desire and specific unwholesome thoughts like sensuous lust, ill-will, languor, worry, restlessness, and skeptical doubt are discarded, and feelings of joy and happiness are maintained, along with certain mental activities.  In the second stage, all intellectual activities are suppressed, tranquillity and ‘one-pointlessness’ of mind developed, and the feelings of joy and happiness remain.  In the third stage, the sense of pleasure, an active sensation, also disappears, while the disposition of joy remains in addition to mindful equanimity.  In the fourth stage of Dhyana, all sensations, even happiness and unhappiness, joy and sorrow, disappear, with only pure equanimity and awareness remaining.

Thus, the mind is trained, disciplined, and developed through Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.

The remaining two factors, namely Right Thought and Right Understanding, constitute Wisdom.

Right Thought denotes the thoughts of selfless renunciation or detachment, thoughts of love and the outs of non-violence, which are extended to all beings. It is exciting and vital to note here that thoughts of selfless detachment, love and non-violence are grouped on the side of wisdom.  This clearly shows that actual knowledge is endowed with these noble qualities and that all thoughts of selfish desire, ill-will, hatred and violence result from a lack of wisdom in all spheres of life, whether individual, social, or political.

Proper Understanding is understanding things as they are, and the Four Noble Truths explain things.  Therefore, proper understanding is ultimately reduced to understanding the Four Noble Truths. This understanding is the highest wisdom, and it sees the Ultimate Reality.  According to Buddhism, there are two sorts of understanding: What we generally call understanding is knowledge,   an accumulated memory, and an intellectual grasping of a subject according to specific given data. This is called ‘knowing accordingly’. It is not very deep. Accurate deep understanding is called ‘penetration,’ seeing a thing in its true nature without name and label. This penetration is possible only when the mind is free from all impurities and is fully developed through meditation.

From this brief account of the Path, one may see that it is a way of life practiced and developed by each individual.  It is self-discipline in body, word, mind, self-development and self-purification. It has nothing to do with belief, prayer, worship or ceremony.  In that sense, it has nothing which may popularly be called ‘religious.’ It leads to realizing the ultimate reality: complete freedom, happiness, and peace through moral, spiritual, and intellectual perfection.

In Buddhist countries, there are simple and beautiful customs and ceremonies on religious occasions. They have little to do with the absolute Path, but they have their value in satisfying certain religious emotions and the needs of the less advanced and helping them gradually along the Path.

About the Four Noble Truths, we have four functions to perform:

The First Noble Truth is Dukkha, the nature of life, its suffering, its sorrows and joys, its imperfection and unsatisfactoriness, its impermanence and insubstantial.  Our function is to understand it as a fact, clearly and thoroughly.

The Second Noble Truth is the Origin of Dukkha: desire, ‘thirst,’ accompanied by all other passions, defilement and impurities.  A mere understanding of this fact is not sufficient. Here, our function is to discard, eliminate, destroy, and eradicate it.

The Third Noble Truth is the Cessation of Dukkha, Nirvana, the Absolute Truth, the Ultimate Reality.  Our function here is to realize it.

The Fourth Noble Truth is the Path leading to the realization of Nirvana.  A mere knowledge of the Path, however complete, will not do. In this case, our function is to follow and keep to it.

CHAPTER 6

THE DOCTRINE OF NO-SOUL: ANATTA

 

What, in general, is suggested by Soul, Self, Ego, or to use the Sanskrit expression Atman is that in man, there is a permanent, everlasting and absolute entity, which is the unchanging substance behind the changing phenomenal world.  According to some religions, each individual has a separate soul, which is created by God, and which, finally, after death, lives eternally either in hell or heaven, its destiny depending on the judgment of its creator.  According to others, it goes through many lives until it is completely purified and finally united with God or Brahman, the Universal Soul of Atman, from which it originally emanated. This soul or self in man is the thinker of thoughts, feeler of sensations, and receiver of rewards and punishments for all its actions, good and bad.  Such a conception is called the idea of self.

Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman; according to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief that has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of ‘me ‘ and ‘mine,’ selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilement, impurities and problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world, from personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, this false view can be traced to all the evil in the world.

Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection, man has created God, on whom he depends for his protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on his parents.  For self-preservation, man has conceived the idea of an immortal soul or atman who will live eternally.  Man needs these two things to console himself in his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire.  Hence, he clings to them deeply and fanatically.

The Buddha’s teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire but aims to enlighten man by removing and destroying them, striking at their very root. According to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections garbed in intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology. These ideas are so deep-rooted in man and so near and dear to him that he does not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any teaching against them.

The Buddha knew this exceptionally well.  He said his teaching was ‘against the current,’ against man’s selfish desires. Just four weeks after his Enlightenment, seated under a banyan tree, he thought: ‘I have realized this Truth which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand...comprehensible only by the wise...Men overpowered by passions and surrounded by a mass of darkness cannot see this Truth, Which is against the current, which is lofty, deep, subtle and hard to comprehend.’

With these thoughts in his mind, the Buddha hesitated for a moment, wondering whether it would not be in vain if he tried to explain to the world the truth he had just realized.  Then he compared the world to a lotus pond: In a lotus pond, there are some lotuses still under water; there are others which have risen only up to the water level; there are still others which have risen only up to the water level; there are others which have risen only up to the water level; there are still others which stand above water and are untouched by it. In the same way, in this world, there are men at different levels of development. Some would understand the Truth. So, the Buddha decided to teach it.

The doctrine of Anatta or No-Soul is the natural result of, or the corollary to, the analysis of the Five Aggregates and the teaching of Conditioned Genesis.

We have seen earlier, in the discussion of the First Noble Truth, that what we call a being or an individual is composed of the Five Aggregates and that when these are analyzed and examined, there is nothing behind them which can be taken as ‘I,’ Atman, or Self, or any unchanging abiding substance. That is the analytical method.  The same result is arrived at through the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis, which is the synthetic method, and according to this, nothing in the world is absolute.  Everything is conditioned, relative, and interdependent. This is the Buddhist theory of relativity.

Before we go into the question of Anatta proper, it is helpful to have a brief idea of the Conditioned Genesis.  The principle of this doctrine is given in a short formula of four lines:

 

When this is, that is

This arising that arises

When this is not, that is not

This ceasing ceases

 

Based on this principle of conditionality, relativity, and interdependence, the existence and continuity of life and its cessation are explained in a detailed formula called Paticca-samuppada ‘Conditioned Genesis,’ which consists of twelve factors.

 

1.      Through ignorance, deliberate actions or karma formations are conditioned.

2.      Through volitional actions is conditioned consciousness.

3.      Through consciousness, mental and physical phenomena are conditioned.

4.      Through mental and physical phenomena are conditioned the six faculties (i.e. five physical sense-organs and mind)

5.      Through the six faculties is conditioned (sensorial and mental) contact.

6.      Through (sensorial and mental) contact is conditioned sensation.

7.      Through sensation is conditioned desire, ‘thirst.’

8.      Through desire (‘thirst’) is conditioned clinging.

9.      Through clinging, the process of becoming is conditioned.

10.   Through the process of becoming is conditioned birth.

11.   Through birth are conditioned (12) decay, death, lamentation, pain, etc.

 

This is how life arises, exists and continues. If we take this formula in reverse order, we come to the cessation of the proforma in reverse order; we come to the cessation of the process: Through the complete cessation of ignorance, volitional activities or karma formations cease; through the cessation of voluntary activities, consciousness ceases; ...through the cessation of birth, decay, death, sorrow, etc., cease.

It should be remembered that each of these factors is conditioned. Therefore, they are all relative and interdependent; hence, no first cause is accepted by Buddhism, as we have seen earlier. Conditioned Genesis should be considered a circle, not a chain.

The question of Free Will has occupied an important place in Western thought and philosophy. However, according to Conditioned Genesis, this question cannot arise in Buddhist philosophy.  How can Will alone be free if his existence is relative, conditioned and interdependent? Like, included in the fourth Aggregate, is conditioned like any other thought. So-called ‘freedom’ itself in this world is not free.  That, too, is conditioned and relative.  There is, of course, such a conditioned and relative ‘Free Will,’ but not unconditioned and absolute.  There can be nothing free in this world, physical or mental, as everything is conditioned and relative.  If free will implies a will independent of conditions and effects, such a thing does not exist.  How can a will, or anything for that matter, arise without conditions, away from cause and effect, when the whole of life, the whole of existence, is conditioned and relative? Here again, the idea of free will is connected with the ideas of God, soul, justice, reward, and punishment. Not only is so-called free will not free, but even the concept of Free Will is not free from conditions.

According to the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis and the analysis of being into Five Aggregates, the idea of an abiding, immortal substance in man or outside, whether it is called Atman, No-Soul or No-Self.

To avoid confusion, it should be mentioned here that there are two kinds of truths: conventional truth and ultimate reality.  When we use such expressions in our daily life as ‘I,’ ‘you,’ ‘being,’ ‘individual,’ etc., we do not lie because there is no self or being as such, but we speak a truth conforming to the world's convention.  But the ultimate truth is that there is no ‘I’ or ‘being’ in reality. As the Mahayana-sutralankara says, ‘A person should be mentioned as existing only in designation (i.e., conventionally there is a being), but not in reality (or substance dravya).

‘The negation of an imperishable Atman is the common characteristic of all dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the Great Vehicle, and there is, therefore, no reason to assume that Buddhist tradition, which is in complete agreement on this point, has deviated from the Buddha’s original teaching.

It is, therefore, curious that, recently, there should have been a vain attempt by a few scholars to smuggle the idea of self into the teaching of the Buddha, which was quite contrary to the spirit of Buddhism.  These scholars respect, admire, and venerate the Buddha and his teachings.  They look up to Buddhism. But they cannot imagine that the Buddha, whom they consider the most precise and profound thinker, could have denied the existence of an Atman or Self, which they need so much.  They unconsciously seek the support of the Buddha for this need for eternal existence course, not in a petty individual self with small, but in the big Self with a capital S.

It is better to say frankly that one believes in an Atman or Self. One may even say that the Buddha was wrong in denying the existence of an Atman. But certainly, as far as we can see from the extant original texts, it will not do for anyone to try to introduce an idea the Buddha never accepted into Buddhism.

Religions that believe in God and Soul make no secret of these two ideas; on the contrary, they proclaim them constantly and repeatedly in the most eloquent terms. If the Buddha had accepted these two ideas, which are so important in all religions, he would have declared them publicly, as he had spoken about other things. He would not have left them hidden to be discovered only 25 centuries after his death.

People become nervous at the idea that the Buddha’s teaching of Anatta will destroy the self they imagine they have. The Buddha was not unaware of this.

A bhikkhu once asked him: ‘Sir, is there a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found?’

‘Yes, bhikkhu, there is,’ answered the Buddha. ‘A man has the following view: “The universe is that Atman, I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity.” He hears the Tathagata or a disciple of his, preaching the doctrine aiming at destroying all speculative views...aiming at the extinction of “thirst,” aiming at detachment, cessation, Nirvana.  Then that man thinks: “I will be annihilated, I will be destroyed, I will be no more.” So he mourns, worries himself, laments, weeps, beats his best, and becomes bewildered.  Thus, O bhikkhu, there is a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found. ㅇ

Elsewhere, the Buddha says: ‘O bhikkhus, this idea that I may not be, I may not have, is frightening to the uninstructed world.’

Those who want to find a ‘Self’ in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness and says that none of these things is self. But he does not say there is no self apart from these aggregates in man or anywhere else.

This position is untenable for two reasons:

One is that, according to the Buddha’s teaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates and nothing more. Nowhere has he said there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being.

The second reason is that the Buddha categorically, unequivocally, and in more than one place denied the existence of Atman, Soul, Self, or Ego within man, without, or anywhere else in the universe. Let us take some examples.

Three verses in the Dhammapada are significant and essential to the Buddha’s teaching. They are nos. 5, 6, and 7 of chapter XX.

The first two verses say:

‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ and ‘All conditioned things are dukkha.’

The third verse says:

‘All dhammas are without self’.

It should be carefully observed that the word samskara, ' conditioned things,' is used in the first two verses. But the word dhamma is used in its place in the third verse. Why did the third verse not use the phrase samskara, ‘conditioned things,’ as the previous two verses, and why did it use the term dhamma instead? Here lies the crux of the whole matter.

The term samskara denotes the Five Aggregates, all conditioned, interdependent, relative things and physical and mental states.  If the third verse said: ‘All samskara (conditioned things) are without self,’ then one might think that, although conditioned things are without self, there may be a Self outside conditioned things, outside the Five Aggregates.  To avoid misunderstanding, the term dhamma is used in the third verse.

The term dhamma is much widerbroader than samkhara. There is no term in Buddhist terminology broader than dhamma.  It includes the conditioned things and states and the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvana.  There is nothing in the universe or outside, good or bad, conditioned or non-conditioned, relative or absolute, which is not included in this term.  Therefore, it is pretty clear that according to this statement: “All dhammas are without Self’, there is no Self, no Atman, not only in the Five Aggregates but nowhere else outside them or apart from them.

According to the Theravada teaching, this means that there is no self either in the individual or in dhammas.  The Mahayana Buddhist philosophy maintains epreciselythe same poition, without the slightest difference, on this point, emphasizing dharma-nairatmya as well as on pudgala-nairatmya.

In the Alagaddupama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikaya, addressing his disciples, the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory, in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation.

If there had been any soul theory that the Buddha had accepted, he would undoubtedly have explained it here because he asked the bhikkhus to take that soul theory, which did not produce suffering.  But in the Buddha’s view, there is no such soul theory, and any soul theory, whatever it may be, however subtle and sublime, is false and imaginary, creating all kinds of problems, producing in its train grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, tribulation and trouble.

Continuing the discourse, the Buddha said in the same sutta: ‘O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything about self can truly and  be found, this speculative view: “The universe is that Atman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, everlasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity”-is it not wholly and completely foolish?’

Here, the Buddha explicitly states that an Atman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that such a thing exists.

Those who seek a self in the Buddha’s teaching quote a few examples which they first translate wrongly and then misinterpret. One is the well-known line Atta hi attano natho from the Dhammapada, translated as ‘Self is the lord of self,’ and then interpreted to mean that the big Self is the lord of the small self.

First of all, this translation is incorrect.  Atta here does not mean self in the sense of soul. In Pali, the word atta is generally used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun, except in a few cases where it specifically and philosophically refers to soul theory, as we have seen above. But in general usage, as in the XII chapter in the Dhammapada where this line occurs, and in many other places, it is used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun meaning ‘myself,’ ‘yourself,’ ‘himself,’ ‘one,’ ‘oneself,’ etc.

Next, Natho does not mean ‘lord,’ but ‘refuge,’ ‘support,’ ‘help,’ and ‘protection.’  Therefore, Atta hi attano natho means ‘One is one’s refuge’ or ‘One is one’s help’ or ‘support’. It has nothing to do with any metaphysical soul or self.  It simply means you have to rely on yourself, not others.

Another example of the attempt to introduce the idea of self into the Buddha’s teaching is in the well-known words Attadipa viharatha and attasarana anannasarana, which are taken out of context in the Mahaparinibbana-sutta.  This phrase means: ‘Dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves your refuge, and not anyone else as your refuge.’ Those who wish to see a self in Buddhism interpret the words attadipa and attasarana, ‘taking self as a lamp,’ or ‘taking self as a refuge.’

We cannot understand the meaning and significance of the Buddha's advice to Ananda unless we consider the background and context in which these words were spoken.

The Buddha was at the time staying at a village called Beluva. It was just three months before his death, Parinirvana.  At this time, he was eighty years old and was suffering from a severe illness, almost dying. But he thought it was not proper for him to die without breaking it to his disciples, who were near and dear to him. So, with courage and determination, he bore all his pains, got the better of his illness, and recovered. But his health was still poor. After his recovery, he was seated in the shade outside his residence one day.  Ananda, the most devoted attendant of the Buddha, went to his beloved Master, sat near him, and said: ‘Sir, I have looked after the health of the Blessed One; I have looked after him in his illness. But at the sight of the illness of the Blessed One, the horizon became dim to me, and my faculties were no longer clear. Yet there was one little consolation; I thought the Blessed One would not pass away until he had left instructions touching the Order of the Sangha.’

Then the Buddha, full of compassion and human feelings, gently spoke to his devoted and beloved attendant: ‘Ananda, what does the Order of the Sangha expect from me? I have taught the Dhamma (Truth) without distinguishing between exoteric and esoteric.  About the truth, the Tathagata has nothing like the closed fist of a teacher.  Surely, Ananda, if anyone thinks he will lead the Sangha and that the Sangha should depend on him, let him follow his instructions. But the Tathagata has no such idea. Why should he then leave instructions concerning the Sangha? I am now eighty years old, Ananda. As a worn-out cart has to be kept going by repairs, it seems that the body of the Tathagata can only be kept going by repairs.  Therefore, Ananda, dwell making yourselves your island, making yourselves, not anyone else, your refuge; making the Dhamma your island, the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else your refuge.

What the Buddha wanted to convey to Ananda is quite clear. The latter was sad and depressed. He thought that they would all be lonely, helpless, without a refuge, without a leader after their great Teacher’s death. So the Buddha gave him consolation, courage, and confidence, saying they should depend on themselves and the Dhamma he taught, not on anyone else. Here, the question of a metaphysical Atman, or Self, is entirely beside the point.

Further, the Buddha explained to Ananda how one could be one’s island or refuge and make the Dhamma one’s island or refuge through the cultivation of mindfulness or awareness of the body, sensations, mind and mind-objects (the four Satipatthanas). There is no talk at all here about an Atman or Self.

Another reference, oft-quoted, is used by those who try to find Atman in Buddha’s teaching.  The Buddha was once seated under a tree in a forest on the way to Uruvela from Benares. On that day, thirty young friends went on a picnic with their young wives in the same forest. One of the princes, who was unmarried, brought a prostitute with him.  While the others were amusing themselves, she purloined some objects of value and disappeared.  In their search for her in the forest, they saw the Buddha seated under a tree and asked whether he had seen a woman. He enquired what was the matter.  When they explained, the Buddha asked them: ‘What do you think, young men? Which is better for you? To search after a woman or to search after yourself?

Again, it is a simple and natural question, and there is no justification for introducing far-fetched ideas of a metaphysical Atman or Self into the business.  They answered that it was better for them to search after themselves.  The Buddha then asked them to sit down and explain the Dhamma to them. In the available account, in the original text of what he preached to them, no word is mentioned about an Atman.

Much has been written on the Buddha’s silence when a certain Parivrajaka named Vacchagotta asked him whether there was an Atman. The story is as follows: Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:

‘Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman?

The Buddha is silent.

‘Then Venerable Gotama, is ther no Atman?

Again, the Buddha is silent.

Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.

After the Parivrajaka had left, Ananda asked the Buddha why he had not answered Vacchagotta’s question. The Buddha explains his opinions:

‘Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta the Wanderer, " Is there a self?” If I had answered, “There is a self,” then Ananda would be siding with those recluses and Brahmanas who hold the eternalist theory.

‘And, Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: “Is there no self?” if I had answered: “There is no self,” then that would be siding with those recluses and Brahmanas who hold the annihilationist theory.

‘Again, Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta, “Is there a self?” If I had answered, “There is a self,” would it be by my knowledge that all dhammas are without self?

‘Surely not, Sir.’

‘And again, Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: “Is there no self?”, if I had answered: “There is no self,” then that would have been a greater confusion to the already confused Vacchagotta.  For he would have thought: Formerly indeed I had an Atman (self), but now I haven’t got one.’

It should now be quite clear why the Buddha was silent. However, it will still be clear if we consider the whole background and the way the Buddha treated questions and questioners, which is altogether ignored by those who have discussed this problem.

The Buddha was not a computing machine giving answers to whatever questions were put to him by anyone without consideration. He was a practical teacher, full of compassion and wisdom. He did not answer questions to show his knowledge and intelligence but to help the questioner on the way to realization. He always spoke to people, considering their development standards, tendencies, mental make-up, character, and capacity to understand a question.

According to the Buddha, there are four ways of treating questions: (1) Some should be answered directly; (2) others should be answered by way of analyzing them; (3) counter-questions should answer others; (4) and lastly, there are questions which should be put aside.

There may be several ways of putting aside a question. One is to say that a particular question is not answered or explained, as the Buddha had told this very same Vacchagotta on more than one occasion when those famous questions, whether the universe is eternal or not, etc., were put to him. In the same way, he had replied to Malunkyaputta and others. But he could not say the same thing about whether there is an Atman (Self) because he had always discussed and explained it.  He could not say ‘there is self’ because it is contrary to his knowledge that ‘all dhammas are without self.’ Then he did not want to say ‘there is no self’ because that would unnecessarily, without any purpose, have confused and disturbed poor Vacchagotta, who was already confused on a similar question, as he had admitted earlier. He was not yet in a position to understand the idea of Anatta. Therefore, to put aside this question by silence was the wisest thing in this particular case.

We must not forget that the Buddha had known Vacchagotta quite well for a long time. This was not the first time this inquiring Wanderer had come to see him. The wise and compassionate teacher gave much thought to this and extensively considered this confused seeker. There are many references in the Pali texts to this same Vacchagotta the Wanderer, who goes around quite often to see the Buddha and his disciples and asks the same kind of question again and again, evidently very worried and almost obsessed with these problems. The Buddha’s silence seems to have had more effect on Vacchagotta than any eloquent answer or discussion.

Some people take ‘self’ to mean what is generally known as ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness.’ But the Buddha says a man should take his physical body as self rather than mind, thought, or consciousness because the former seems more solid. After all, mind, thought, or consciousness changes constantly day and night, even faster than ever. The former seems more solid than the latter, and the mind, thought, or consciousness changes continuously, day and night, in the body.

The vague feeling ‘I AM’ creates the idea of self that has no corresponding reality, and to see this truth is to realize Nirvana, which is not very easy. In the Nikaya, there is an enlightening conversation between a bhikkhu named Khelmaka and a group of bhikkhus.

These bhikkhus ask Khemaka whether he sees any self or anything about a self in the five Aggregates. Khemaka replies, ‘No’. Then the bhikkhus say that, if so, he should be an Arahant free from all impurities. But Khemamka confesses that though he does not find in the Five Aggregates a self, or anything about a self, ‘I am not an Arahant free from all impurities. O friends, about the Five Aggregates Attachment, I have a feeling “I AM,” but I do not see “This is I AM.”’ Then Khemaka explains that what he calls ‘I AM’ is neither matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, consciousness, nor anything without them.  But he felt ‘I AM’ about the Five Aggregates and thought he could not see clearly ‘This is I AM.’

He says it is like the smell of a flower: it is neither the scent of the petals nor the colour nor the pollen but the smell of the flower.

Khemaka further explains that even a person who has attained the early stages of realization still retains this feeling of ‘I AM.’ But later on, when he progresses further, this feeling of ‘I AM’ altogether disappears, just as the chemical smell of a freshly washed cloth disappears after a time when it is kept in a box.

This discussion was so helpful and enlightening to them that at the end of it, the text says, all of them, including Khemaka himself, became Arahants free from all impurities, thus finally getting rid of ‘I AM.’

According to the Buddha’s teaching, it is as wrong to hold the opinion ‘I have no self’ (which is the annihilationist theory) as to hold the opinion ‘I have self’ (which is the eternalist theory), because both are fetters, both arising out of the false idea ‘I AM.’ The correct position about the question Anatta is not to take hold of any opinions or views but to see things objectively as they are without mental projections, to see that what we call ‘I’ or ‘being’ is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole of existence.

Naturally, a question arises: If there is no Atman or Self, who gets the results of karma (actions)? No one can answer this question better than the Buddha himself. When a bhikkhu raised this question, the Buddha said, ‘I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere.

The Buddha’s teaching on Anatta, No-Soul, or No-Self should not be considered harmful or annihilistic. Like Nirvana, it is Truth and reality, and Reality cannot be negative. It is the false belief in a non-existing imaginary self that is negative. The teaching of Anatta dispels the darkness of false beliefs and produces the light of wisdom. It is not negative: as Asanga aptly says, ‘There is the fact of No-selfness.’

CHAPTER 7

 'MEDITATION' OR MENTAL CULTURE: BHAVANA

 

The Buddha said: 'O bhikkhus, there are two kinds of illness. What are those two? Physical illness and mental illness. There seem to be people who enjoy freedom from physical disease for a year or two, even for a hundred years or more. But, O bhikkhus, rare in this world are those who enjoy freedom from mental illness even for one moment, except those who are free from mental defilements.

The Buddha's teaching, particularly his way of 'meditation,' aims to produce perfect mental health, equilibrium and tranquillity.  Unfortunately, hardly any other section of the Buddha's teaching is so much misunderstood as 'meditation,' both by Buddhists and non-Buddhists. The moment the word 'meditation' is mentioned, one thinks of an escape from the daily activities of life, assuming a particular posture, like a statue in some cave or cell in a monastery, in some remote place cut off from society, and musing on or being absorbed in, some mystic or mysterious thought or trance. True Buddha's teaching on this subject was so wrong, or so little understood, that in later times, the way of 'meditation' deteriorated and degenerated into a kind of ritual or ceremony almost technical in its routine.

Most people are interested in meditation or yoga to gain spiritual or mystic powers, like the 'third eye,' which others do not possess. Some time ago, a Buddhist nun in India was trying to develop the power to see through her ears while she still possessed the 'power' of perfect eyesight! This kind of idea is nothing but 'spiritual perversion.' It is always a question of desire, a 'thirst' for power.

           The word meditation is an inferior substitute for the original term bhavana, which means 'culture' or 'development,' i.e., properly speaking, it is the mental culture in the complete sense of the term. It aims at cleansing the mind of impurities and disturbances, such as lustful desires, hatred, ill-will, sloth, worries and restlessness, and skeptical doubts, and cultivating such qualities as concentration, awareness, intelligence, will, energy, analytical faculty, confidence, joy, tranquillity, leading finally to the attainment of highest wisdom which sees the nature of things as they are and realizes the Ultimate Truth, Nirvana.

, 

    There are two forms of meditation. One is the development of mental concentration (samatha or samadhi), of one-pointedness of mind, by various methods prescribed in the texts, leading up to the highest mystic states such as ‘the Sphere of Nothingness’ or ‘the Sphere of Neither0Perceptions nor Non-Perception’. According to the Buddha, all these mystic states are mind-created, mind-produced, and conditioned.  They have nothing to do with Reality, Truth, or Nirvana. This form of meditation existed before the Buddha. Hence, it is not purely Buddhist, but it is not excluded from the field of Buddhist meditation.  However, it is not essential to realize Nirvana. Before his Enlightenment, the Buddha studied these yogic practices under different teachers and attained the highest mystic states. However, he was not satisfied with them because they did not give complete liberation; they did not give insight into the Ultimate Reality.  He considered these mystic states only as ‘happy living in this existence, ' ' peaceful living,’ and nothing more.

           He, therefore, discovered the other form of ‘meditation’ known as vipassana, ‘Insight’ into the nature of things, leading to the complete liberation of mind and the realization of the Ultimate Truth, Nirvana. This is essentially Buddhist meditation, Buddhist mental culture. It is an analytical method based on mindfulness, awareness, vigilance, and observation.

           It is impossible to do justice to such a vast subject in a few pages. However, an attempt is made here to give a very brief and rough idea of the true Buddhist ‘meditation,’ mental culture or mental development, practically.

           The most crucial discourse ever given by the Buddha on mental development (‘meditation’) is called the Satipatthana-sutta ‘The Setting up of Mindfulness’ (No. 22 of the Digha-nikaya, or No. 10 of the Majjhima-nikaya). This discourse is so highly revered in a tradition that it is regularly recited in Buddhist monasteries and  Buddhist homes with family members sitting around and listening with deep devotion. Very often, bhikkhus recite this sutta by the bedside of a dying man to purify his last thoughts.

           The ways of ‘’meditation’ given in this discourse are not cut off from life, nor do they avoid life; on the contrary, they are all connected with our life, our daily activities, our sorrows and joys, our words and thoughts, and our moral and intellectual occupations.

           The discourse is divided into four main sections: the first deals with our body, the second with our feelings and sensations, the third with the mind, and the fourth with various moral and intellectual subjects.

           It should be remembered that whatever the form of ‘meditation,’ the essential thing is mindfulness or awareness, attention or observation.

           One of the most well-known, popular and practical examples of ‘mediation’ connected with the body is ‘The Mindfulness or Awareness of in–and–out breathing.’ For this ‘meditation’ only, a particular and definite posture is prescribed in the text.  For other forms of ‘meditation’ in this sutta, you may sit, stand, walk, or lie down as you like. But, one should sit to cultivate mindfulness of in-and-out breathing; according to the text, ‘cross-legged is not practical and easy for people of all countries, particularly Westerners. Therefore, those who find it difficult to sit cross-legged may sit on a chair, ‘keeping the body erect and mindfulness alert.’ For this exercise, the meditation must sit erect but not stiff, with his hands placed comfortably on his lap. Thus seated, you may close your eyes or gaze at the tip of your nose, as it may be convenient.

           You breathe in and out all day and night but are never mindful; you never concentrate on it for a second. Now, you are going to do just this.  Breathe in and out as usual, without any effort or strain. Now, bring your mind to concentrate on breathing in and breathing out; let your mind be aware and vigilant of your breathing, sometimes not. This does not matter at all. Breathe normally and naturally. The only thing is that when you take deep breaths, you should be aware that they are deep breaths, and so on. In other words, your mind should concentrate entirely on your breathing so that you know its movements and changes. Forget all other things, such as your surroundings and environment; do not raise your eyes and look at anything. Try to do this for five or ten minutes.

           In the beginning, you will find it extremely difficult to bring your mind to concentrate on your breathing. You will be astonished at how your mind runs away. It does not stay. You begin to think of various things.  You hear sounds outside. Your mind is disturbed and distracted. You may be dismayed and disappointed.  But if you continue to practise this exercise twice daily, morning and evening, for about five or ten minutes, you will gradually begin to concentrate your mind on your breathing. After a certain period, you will experience just that split second when your mind is entirely focused on breathing, you will not hear sounds nearby, and no external world exists. This slight moment is such a tremendous experience for you, full of joy, happiness and tranquillity, that you would like to continue. But you still cannot. Yet if you continue practising this regularly, you may repeat the experience repeatedly for more extended periods. That is when you lose yourself entirely in your mindfulness of breathing. As long as you are conscious of yourself, you can never concentrate on anything.

           This exercise of mindfulness of breathing, one of the most straightforward practices, is meant to develop concentration, leading to very high mystic attainments. Besides, concentration is essential for any deep understanding, penetration, or insight into the nature of things, including realizing Nirvana.

           Apart from all this, this breathing exercise gives you immediate results. It is suitable for your physical health, relaxation, sound sleep, and efficiency in your daily work. It makes you calm and tranquil. Even when you are nervous or excited, if you practise this for a few minutes, you will immediately become quiet and at peace. You feel as if you have awakened after a good rest.

           Another very important, practical, and valuable form of ‘meditation’ (mental development) is to be aware and mindful of whatever you do, physically or verbally, during the daily routine of work in your life, private, public or professional. Whether you walk, stand, sit, lie down, or sleep, whether you stretch or bend your limbs, whether you look around, whether you put on your clothes, whether you talk or keep silent, whether you eat or drink, even whether you speak or keep silence, whether you eat or drink, even whether you answer the calls of nature-in these and other activities, you should be fully aware and mindful of the act you perform at the moment. That is to say, you should live in the present moment, in the present action. This does not mean that you should not think of the past or the future; on the contrary, you should think of them about the present moment, the present action, and when and where they are relevant.

           People do not generally live in their actions in the present moment. They live in the past or the future. Though they seem to be doing something now here, they live somewhere else in their thoughts, imaginary problems and worries, usually in memories or desires and speculations about the future. Therefore, they do not live in nor enjoy what they do now. So they do not live in, nor do they want, what they do at the moment. So, they are unhappy and dissatisfied with the present moment and the work at hand, and naturally, they cannot give themselves complete control over what they appear to be doing.

           Sometimes, you see a man in a restaurant reading while eating. It's a ubiquitous sight. He gives you the impression of being a very busy man, with no time even for eating. You wonder whether he eats or reads. One may say that he does both. He does neither; he enjoys neither. He is strained and disturbed in his mind and does not want what he does now. He does not live in the present moment but unconsciously and foolishly tries to escape from life. (This does not mean, however, that one should not talk with a friend while having lunch or dinner.)

           You cannot escape life; however, you may try. As long as you live, whether in a town or a cave, you must face and live it. Real life is the present moment, the memories of the past, which is dead and gone, nor the dreams of the future, which is not yet born. One who lives in the present moment lives the real life and is happiest.

           When asked why his disciples, who lived a simple and quiet life with only one meal a day, were so radiant, the Buddha replied: ‘They do not repent the past, nor do they brood over the future.  They live in the present. Therefore, they are radiant. Bu brooding over the future and regretting the past; fools dry up like green reeds cut down (in the sun).

           Mindfulness, or awareness, does not mean that you should think and be conscious of ‘I am doing this’ or ‘I am doing that.’ No. Just the contrary. The moment you think, ‘I am doing this,’ you become self-conscious, and then you do not live in action, but you live in the idea ‘I am,’ and consequently, your work is spoilt. You should forget yourself completely and lose yourself in what you do. When a speaker becomes self-conscious and thinks, ‘I am addressing an audience, ' his speech is disturbed, and his trend of thought is broken. But when he forgets himself in his remarks and subject, he is at his best; he speaks well and explains things clearly.  All great work- artistic, poetic, intellectual or spiritual- is produced when its creators are wholly lost in their actions, forget themselves altogether and are free from self-consciousness.

           This mindfulness or awareness about our activities, taught by the Buddha, is to live in the present moment and the present action. (This is also the Zen way, based primarily on this teaching.) In this form of meditation, you don’t have to perform any particular action to develop mindfulness; you only have to be mindful and aware of whatever you may do. You don’t have to spend one second of your precious time on this particular ‘meditation’: you only have to cultivate mindfulness and awareness daily about all daily activities.  The two meditation forms discussed above are connected to our bodies.

           Then, there is a way of practising mental development (‘meditation’) regarding all our sensations or feelings, whether happy, unhappy, or sorrowful. In this state, your mind is cloudy, hazy, and not clear; it is depressed. Sometimes, you do not even see why you have that unhappy feeling. First, you should learn not to be sad about your feelings and not worry about your worries. But try to see clearly why there is a sensation or a feeling of unhappiness, fear, or sorrow. Try to examine how it arises, its cause, how it disappears, and its cessation. Try to examine it as if you are observing it from outside, without any subjective reaction, as a scientist observes some object. Here, too, you should not look at it as ‘my feeling’ or ‘my sensation’ subjectively but only look at it as ‘a feeling’ or ‘ a sensation’ objectively. It would be best to forget the false idea of ‘I again.’ When you see its nature, how it arises and disappears, your mind grows dispassionate towards that sensation and becomes detached and free. It is the same for all sensations or feelings.

   Now, let us discuss the form of ‘meditation’ about our minds. You should be fully aware that every mind is passionate or detached whenever it is overpowered by hatred, ill-will, or jealousy, or is full of love or compassion, whenever it is deluded or has a clear and correct understanding, and so on. We must admit that we are often afraid or ashamed to look at our minds. So we prefer to avoid it. One should be bold and sincere and look at one’s mind as one looks at one’s face in a mirror.

           Here, there is no attitude of criticizing, judging, or discriminating between right and wrong or good and evil. It is simply observing, watching, and examining. You are not a judge but a scientist. When you see your mind clearly and its true nature, you become dispassionate about its emotions, sentiments, and states. Thus, you become detached and free to see things as they are.

           Let us take one example. Say you are outraged, overpowered by anger, ill-will, and hatred. It is curious and paradoxical that the man who is in rage is not aware, not mindful that he is angry. The moment he becomes aware and conscious of that state of his mind, the moment he sees his anger, it becomes, as if it were, shy and ashamed and begins to subside. You should examine its nature, how it arises, how it disappears. Again, it should be remembered that you should not think ‘I am angry’ or ‘My anger.’ You should only be aware and mindful of the state of an angry mind. You are only observing and examining an angry mind objectively. This should be the attitude about all sentiments, emotions, and states of mind.

           Then, there is a form of ‘meditation’ on ethical, spiritual and intellectual subjects. All our studies, reading, discussions, conversations and deliberations on such subjects are included in this ‘meditation.’ Reading this book and thinking deeply about the subjects discussed is a form of meditation. We have seen earlier that the conversation between Khemaka and the group of monks was a form of meditation that led to Nirvana's realization.

           So, according to this form of meditation, you may study, think, and deliberate on the Five Hindrances (Nivarana), namely:

1.       Lustful desires

2.      Ill-will, hatred or anger

3.      Torpor and Languar

4.      Restlessness and worry

5.      Sceptical doubts

These five are considered hindrances to any clear understanding and, in fact, to any progress. When they overpower one and do not know how to get rid of them, one cannot understand right and wrong or good and evil.

           One may also ‘meditate’ on the Seven Factors of Enlightenment. They are:

1.      Mindfulness, i.e., being aware and mindful in all activities and movements, both physical and mental, as we discussed above.

2.      Investigation and research into the various problems of doctrine. All our religious, ethical and philosophical studies, reading, research, discussions, conversation, and even attending lectures relating to doctrinal subjects are included.

3.      Energy, to work with determination till the end.

4.      Joy is contrary to the mind's pessimistic, gloomy, or sad attitude.

5.      Relaxation of both body and mind. One should not be stiff physically or mentally.

6.      Concentration, as discussed above.

7.      Equanimity, i.e., being able to face life in all its vicissitudes with the calm of mind, tranquillity, and without disturbance.

A genuine wish, will, or inclination is essential in cultivating these qualities. The texts describe many other material and spiritual conditions conducive to the development of each quality.

     One may also ‘meditate’ on subjects such as the Five Aggregates, which investigate ‘What is a being?’ or ‘What is it that is called I?’ or on the Four Noble Truths, as discussed above. Study and investigation of those subjects constitute this fourth form of meditation, which leads to realizing the Ultimate Truth.

     Apart from those we have discussed here, there are many other subjects of meditation, traditionally forty in number, among which mention should be made mainly of the four Sublime States: (1) extending unlimited, universal love and good-will to all living beings without any discrimination, ‘just as a mother loves her only child’; (2) compassion for all living beings who are suffering, in trouble and affliction; (3) sympathetic joy in others’ success, welfare and happiness and (4) stability in all vicissitudes of life.

 

CHAPTER 8

WHAT THE BUDDHA TAUGHT AND

THW WORLD TODAY

 

Some believe that Buddhism is so lofty and sublime a system that it cannot be practised by ordinary men and women in our mundane world and that one has to retire from it to a monastery or some quiet place if one desires to be a true Buddhist.

     This is a sad misconception, due evidently to a lack of understanding of the teaching of the Buddha. People run to such hasty and wrong conclusions due to their hearing or reading casually something about Buddhism written by someone who, as he has not understood the subject in all its aspects, gives only a partial and lopsided view of it. The Buddha’s teaching is meant for monks in monasteries and ordinary men and women living at home with their families. The Noble Eightfold Path, the Buddhist way of life, is intended for all, without distinction of any kind.

     Most people cannot turn monks or retire to caves or forests. However noble and pure Buddhism may be, it would be useless to the masses of humanity if they could not follow it in their daily life in the world of today. But if you understand the spirit of Buddhism correctly (and not only its letter), you can surely follow and practise it while living the life of an ordinary man.

     Some may find it easier and more convenient to accept Buddhism if they live in a remote place, cut off from the society of others. Others may find that kind of retirement dulls and depresses their whole being, both physically and mentally, and may not be conducive to developing their spiritual and intellectual life.

     True renunciation does not mean running away physically from the world. Sariputta, the chief disciple of the Buddha, said that one man might live in a forest devoting himself to ascetic practices but might be full of impure thoughts and ‘defilements’; another might live in a village or a town, practising no ascetic discipline, but his mind might be pure, and free from ‘defilements.’ Sariputta said that the one who lives a pure life in the village or town is far superior to and more significant than the one who lives in the forest.

     The common belief that one must retire from life to follow the Buddha’s teachings is a misconception. It is an unconscious defence against practising it. There are numerous references in Buddhist literature to men and women living ordinary, everyday family lives who successfully practised what the Buddha taught and realized Nirvana. Vacchagotta the Wanderer (whom we met earlier in the chapter on Anatta) once asked the Buddha straight forward whether laymen and women were leading the family life who followed his teachings successfully and attained high spiritual states. The Buddha categorically stated that there were not one or two, not a hundred or two hundred or five hundred. Still, many more laypeople and women leading the family life followed his teachings successfully and attained high spiritual states.

     It may be agreeable for certain people to live a retired life in a quiet place away from noise and disturbance. But it is certainly more praiseworthy and courageous to practise Buddhism, living among your fellow beings, helping and serving them. It may be helpful in some cases for a man to live in retirement for a time to improve his mind and character, as preliminary moral, spiritual and intellectual training, to be strong enough to come out later and help others. But if a man lives all his life in solitude, thinking only of his happiness and ‘salvation,’ without caring for his fellows, this is not in keeping with the Buddha’s teaching, which is based on love, compassion, and service to others.

     One might now ask: If a man can follow Buddhism while living the life of an ordinary layperson, why was the Sangha, the Order of monks, established by the Buddha? The Order provides an opportunity for those willing to devote their lives to their own spiritual and intellectual development and the service of others. An ordinary layperson with a family cannot be expected to devote his whole life to the service of others. In contrast, a monk with no family responsibilities or otherworldly ties can devote his entire life ‘for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many’ according to the Buddha’s advice. That is how, throughout history, the Buddhist monastery became a spiritual center of learning and culture.

     The Sigala-sutta shows how highly the Buddha regards the layman’s life, family, and social relations.

     A young man named Sigala used to worship the six cardinal points of the heavens- east, south, west, north nadir and zenithin- obeying and observing the last advice given to him by his dying father. The Buddha told the young man that the six directions were different in the ‘noble discipline’ of his teaching. According to his ‘noble discipline,’ the six directions were: east: parents; south: teachers; west: wife and children; north: friends, relatives and neighbours; nadir: servants, workers and employees; zenith: religious men.

     ‘One should worship these six directions,’ said the Buddha. Here, the word ‘worship’ is very significant, for one worships something sacred, something worthy of honour and respect. Buddhism treats these six family and social groups mentioned above as sacred and deserving of respect and worship. But how is one to ‘worship’ them? The Buddha says that one could ‘worship’ them only by performing one’s duties towards them. These duties are explained in his discourse to Sigala.

     First, Parents are sacred to their children. The Buddha says: ‘Parents are called Brahma’. Brahma denotes the highest and most holy conception in Indian thought, and the Buddha includes parents. So, in good Buddhist families, children literally ‘worship’ their parents every day, morning and evening. They have to perform specific duties towards their parents according to the ‘noble discipline’: they should look after their parents in their old age; should do whatever they have to do on their behalf; should maintain the honour of the family and continue the family tradition; should protect the wealth earned by their parents; and perform their funeral rites after their death. Parents, in turn, have specific responsibilities towards their children: they should keep their children away from evil courses,  engage them in good and profitable activities,  give them a good education,  marry them into good families, and hand over the property to them in due course.

     Second: The relation between teacher and pupil: A pupil should respect and obey his teacher, attend to his needs, if any, and study earnestly. The teacher, in his turn, should train and shape his pupil properly, teach him well, introduce him to his friends, and try to procure him security or employment when his education is over.

     Thirt: The relation between husband and wife: love between husband and wife is considered almost religious or sacred. It is called Isadora-Brahmacaiya, ‘sacred family life.’ The significance of Brahma should also be noted: the highest respect is given to this relationship. Wives and husbands should be faithful, respectful and devoted to each other, and they have specific duties towards each other: the husband should always honour his wife and never be wanting in respect to her; he should love her and be faithful to her; should secure her position and comfort; and should please her by presenting her with clothing and jewellery. (The fact that the Buddha did not forget to mention even such a thing as the gifts a husband should give his wife shows how understanding and sympathetic his humane feelings towards ordinary human emotions were.) The wife, in her turn, should supervise and look after household affairs; entertain guests, visitors, friends, relatives and employees; love and be faithful to her husband; protect his earnings; and be clever and energetic in all activities.

     Fourth: The relation between friends, relatives, and neighbours: They should be hospitable and charitable to one another, speak pleasantly and agreeably, work for each other’s welfare, be on equal terms with one another, not quarrel among themselves, help each other in need, and not forsake each other in difficulty.

     Fifth: The relation between master and servant: the master or the employer has several obligations towards his servant or employee: work should be assigned according to ability and capacity; adequate wages should be paid; medical needs should be provided; occasional donations or bonuses should be granted. The servant or employee, in his turn, should be diligent and not lazy; honest and obedient and not cheat his master; he should be earnest in his work.

     Sixth: The relation between the religious and the laity: Lay people should love and respect the spiritual's material needs; the religious, with a loving heart, should impart knowledge and learn to the laity and lead them along the excellent path away from evil.

     We see then that the lay life, with its family and social relations, is included in the ‘noble discipline’ and is within the framework of the Buddhist way of life, as the Buddha envisaged it.

     So, in the Samyutta-Nikaya, one of the oldest Pali texts, Sakka, the king of the gods, declares that he worships not only the monks who live a virtuous, holy life but also ‘lay disciples who perform meritorious deeds, who are virtuous, and who maintain their families righteously.

     If one desires to become a Buddhist, there is no initiation ceremony (or baptism) that one has to undergo. (But to become a bhikkhu, a member of the Order of the Sangha, one has to undergo a long process of disciplinary training and education.) If one understands the Buddha’s teaching and is convinced that his teaching is the right path and if one tries to follow it, then one is a Buddhist. But according to the unbroken age-old tradition in Buddhist countries, one is considered a Buddhist if one takes the Buddha, the Dhamma (the Teaching) and the Sangha (the Order of Monks) – generally called ‘the Triple-Gem’ –as one’s refuges, and undertakes to observe the Five Precepts – the minimum moral obligations of a lay Buddhist 1. Not to destroy life, two not to steal, three not to commit adultery, four not to tell lies, five not to take intoxicating drinks-reciting the formulas given in the ancient texts. On religious occasions, Buddhists in congregations usually recite these formulas, following the lead of a Buddhist monk.

     There are no external rites or ceremonies which a Buddhist has to perform. Buddhism is a way of life, and what is essential is following the Noble Eightfold Path. Of course, these are simple and beautiful ceremonies on religious occasions in all Buddhist countries. There are shrines with statues of the Buddha, stupas or dagabas and Bo-trees in monasteries where Buddhists worship, offer flowers, light lamps, and burn incense. This should not be likened to prayer in theistic religions; it is only a way of paying homage to the memory of the Master who showed the way. Though inessential, these traditional observances have their value in satisfying the religious emotions and needs of those less advanced intellectually and spiritually and helping them gradually along the Path.

     Those who think that Buddhism is interested only in lofty ideals and high moral and philosophical thought and that it ignores the social and economic welfare of people are wrong. The Buddha was interested in men's happiness. To him, happiness was impossible without leading a pure life based on moral and spiritual principles. But he knew leading such a life was hard, and it was in unfavourable material and social conditions.

     Buddhism does not consider material welfare as an end; it is only a means to a higher and nobler end. But it is an indispensable means of achieving a higher purpose for man’s happiness. So Buddhism recognizes the need for certain minimum material conditions favourable to the spiritual success of monks engaged in meditation in some solitary place.

     The Buddha did not take life out of the context of its social and economic background; he looked at it as a whole, in all its social, financial and political aspects. His teachings on ethical, spiritual and philosophical problems are pretty well known. However, little is known about his teachings on social, economic, and political matters, particularly in the West. Yet numerous discourses deal with these scattered throughout the ancient Buddhist texts. Let us take only a few examples.

     The Cakkavattisihanada-sutta of the Digha-Nikaya clearly states that poverty is the cause of immorality and crimes such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty, etc. Kings in ancient times, like governments today, tried to suppress crime through punishment. The kutadanta-sutta of the same Nikaya explains how futile this is. It says that this method can never be successful. Instead, the Buddha suggests that to eradicate crime, the economic condition of the people should be improved: grain and other facilities for agriculture should be provided for farmers and cultivators; capital should be offered to traders and those engaged in business; adequate wages should be paid to those who are employed. When people are thus provided with opportunities to earn a sufficient income, they will be contented and have no fear or anxiety. Consequently, the country will be peaceful and free from crime.

     Because of this, the Buddha told lay people how important it is to improve their economic condition. This does not mean he approved of hoarding wealth with desire and attachment, which is against his fundamental teaching, nor did he approve of every way of earning one’s livelihood. As we saw earlier, there are specific trades like the production and sale of armaments, which he condemns as evil means of livelihood.

     Dighajanu once visited the Buddha and said, ‘Venerable Sir, we are ordinary laymen, leading a family life with a wife and children. Would the Blessed One teach us some doctrines conducive to our happiness in this world and hereafter? '

     The Buddha tells him that there are four things which are conducive to a man’s happiness in this world: First, he should be skilled, efficient, earnest, and energetic in whatever profession he is engaged in, and he should know it well; second: he should protect his income, which he has thus earned righteously, with the sweat of his brow; (This refers to safeguard wealth from thieves, etc. All these ideas should be considered against the background of the period) third: he should have good friends who are faithful, learned, virtuous, liberal and intelligent, who will help him along the right path away from evil; fourth: he should spend reasonably, in proportion to his income, neither too much nor too little, i.e., he should not hoard wealth avariciously, nor should he be extravagant-in other words he should live within his means.

     Then the Buddha expounds the four virtues conducive to a layman’s happiness hereafter: 1 Saddha: he should have faith and confidence in moral, spiritual and intellectual values; 2 Sila: he should abstain from destroying and harming life, from stealing and cheating, from adultery, from falsehood, and intoxicating drinks; 3 Caga: he should practise charity, generosity, without attachment and craving for his wealth; 4 Panna: he should develop wisdom which leads to the destruction of suffering, to the realization of Nirvana.

     Sometimes, the Buddha even went into detail about saving and spending money, as when he told the young man Sigala that he should devote one-fourth of his income to his daily expenses, invest half in his business, and put aside one-fourth for emergencies.

     Once, the Buddha told Anathapindika, the great banker and one of his most devoted lay disciples, who founded the celebrated Jetavana monastery at Savatthi for him, that a layman who leads an ordinary family life has four kinds of happiness. The first happiness is to enjoy economic security or sufficient wealth acquired by just righteous deeds; the third is to be free from debt; the fourth is to live a faultless and pure life without committing evil in thought, word or deed. It must be noted here that three of these kinds are economical. The Buddha finally reminded the banker that economic and material happiness is ‘not worth one-sixteenth part’ of the spiritual happiness arising from a faultless and good life.

     From the few examples given above, one can see that the Buddha considered economic welfare a requisite for human happiness but did not recognize progress as accurate and true if it was only material, devoid of a spiritual and moral foundation. While encouraging material progress, Buddhism always stresses the development of ethical and spiritual character for a happy, peaceful, and contented society.

     The Buddha was just clear on politics, on war and peace. It is too well known to be repeated here that Buddhism advocates and preaches non-violence and peace as its universal message and does not approve of any violence or destruction of life. According to Buddhism, there is nothing that can be called a ‘just war’-which is only a false term coined and put into circulation to justify and excuse hatred, cruelty, violence and massacre. Who decides what is just or unjust? The mighty and the victorious are ‘just,’ and your war is always ‘unjust.’ Our war is always ‘just,’ and yours is always ‘unjust.’ Buddhism does not accept this position.

     The Buddha not only taught nonviolence and peace, but he even went to the field of battle and intervened personally, preventing war, as in the case of the dispute between the Sakyas and the Koliyas, who were prepared to fight over the question of the waters of the Rohini. His words once prevented King Ajatasattu from attacking the kingdom of the Vajjis.

     In the days of the Buddha, as today, some rulers governed their countries unjustly. People were oppressed and exploited, tortured and persecuted, excessive taxes were imposed, and cruel punishments were inflicted. These inhumanities deeply moved the Buddha. The Dhammapadatthakatha records that he directed his attention to the problem of good government. His views should be appreciated against his time's social, economic and political background. He showed how a whole country could become corrupt, degenerate, and unhappy when the heads of its government, the king, the ministers, and administrative officers, become corrupt and unjust. For a country to be happy, it must have a just government. The way this form of just government could be realized is explained by the Buddha in his teaching of the ‘Ten Duties of the King,’ as given in the Jataka text.

     Of course, the term ‘king’ of old should be replaced today by ‘Government.’ “The Ten Duties of the King’, therefore, apply today to all those who constitute the government, such as the head of the state, ministers, political leaders, legislative and administrative officers, etc.

     The first of the “Ten Duties of the King" is liberality, generosity, and charity. The ruler should not crave and attach to wealth and property but give it away for the welfare of the people.

     Second: A high moral character. He should never destroy life, cheat, steal and exploit others, commit adultery, utter falsehood, and take intoxicating drinks. That is, he must at least observe the Five Precepts of the layman.

     Third: Sacrificing everything for the good of the people, he must be prepared to give up all personal comfort, name and fame, and even his life in the people's interest.

     Fourth: Honesty and integrity. He must be free from fear or favour in discharging his duties, sincere in his intentions, and not deceive the public.

     Fifth: Kindness and gentleness. He must possess a genial temperament.

     Sixth: Austerity in habits. He must lead a simple life and should not indulge in a life of luxury. He must have self-control.

     Seventh: Freedom from hatred, ill-will, enmity. He should bear no grudge against anybody.

     Eighth: Nonviolence means that he should not only harm anybody but also promote peace by avoiding and preventing war and everything involving violence and the destruction of life.

     Ninth: Patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding. He must bear hardships, difficulties and insults without losing his temper.

     Tenth: Non-opposition, non-obstruction. He should not oppose the people's will or obstruct any measures conducive to their welfare. In other words, he should rule in harmony with his people.

If a country is ruled by men and endowed with such qualities, it is needless to say that the country must be happy. But this was not a Utopia, for there were kings in the past, like Asoka of India, who had established kingdoms based on these ideas.

     The world today lives in constant fear, suspicion, and tension. Science has produced weapons capable of unimaginable destruction. Brandishing these new instruments of death, great powers threaten and challenge one another, boasting shamelessly that one could cause more destruction and misery in the world than the other.

     They have gone along this path of madness to such a point that, now, if they take one more step forward in that direction, the result will be nothing but mutual annihilation along with the destruction of humanity.

    Humans, fearing the circumstances of their own making, seek an escape and a resolution. However, the only proper solution lies in the teachings of Buddha—his advocacy for non-violence and peace, love and compassion, tolerance and understanding, truth and wisdom, and respect for all life, free from selfishness, hatred, and violence.

     The Buddha says, ' Never is hatred appeased by hatred, but it is appeased by kindness. This is an eternal truth.’

     ‘One should win anger through kindness, wickedness through goodness, selfishness through charity, and falsehood through truthfulness.

     There can be no peace or happiness for man as long as he desires and thirsts after conquering and subjugating his neighbour. As the Buddha says: “The victor breeds hatred, and the defeated lies down in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful.’ The only conquest that brings peace and happiness is self-conquest. One may conquer millions in battle, but he who conquers himself, only one, is the greatest of conquerors.’

     You will say this is all beautiful, noble and sublime but impractical. Is it practical to hate one another? To kill one another? To live in eternal fear and suspicion like wild animals in a jungle? Is this more practical and comfortable? Did hatred ever appease hatred? Did evil ever win over evil? But there are examples, at least in individual cases, where hatred is appeased by love and kindness, and evil is won over by goodness. You will say that this may be true and practicable in individual cases but that it never works in national and international affairs. People are hypnotized, psychologically puzzled, blinded and deceived by the political and propaganda usage of such terms as ‘national,’ ‘international,’ or ‘state.’ What is a nation but a vast conglomeration of individuals? A country or a state does not act; the individual acts. What the individual thinks and does is what the nation or the state thinks and does. What applies to the individual applies to the country or the state. If hatred can be appeased by love and kindness on the individual scale, surely it can be realized on the national and international scale, too. Even in the case of a single person, to meet hatred with kindness, one must have tremendous courage, boldness, faith and confidence in moral force. May it not be even more so about international affairs? If by the expression ‘ not practical’ you mean ‘not easy,’ you are right. It is not easy. Yet, it should be tried. You may say it is risky to try it. Indeed, it cannot be more dangerous than trying a nuclear war.

It is a consolation and inspiration to think today that at least there was one great ruler, well-known in history, who had the courage, the confidence and the vision to apply this teaching of non-violence, peace and love to the administration of a vast empire, in both internal and external affairs-Asoka, the great Buddhist emperor of India-‘the Beloved of the gods’ as he was called.

At first, he followed the example of his father (Bindusara) and grandfather (Chandragupta) and wished to complete the conquest of the Indian peninsula. He invaded and conquered Kalinga and annexed it. Many hundreds of thousands were killed, wounded, tortured and taken prisoner in this war. Later, when he became a Buddhist, Budda's teachings completely changed and transformed him. In one of his famous Edicts, inscribed on rock (Rock Edict XIII, as it is now called), the original of which one may read even today, referring to the conquest of Kalinga, the Emperor publicly expressed his ‘repentance.’ He said how ‘extremely painful’ it was for him to think of that carnage. He publicly declared that he would never draw his sword again for any conquest, but that he ‘wishes all living beings non-violence, self-control, the practice of serenity and mildness. This is considered the chief conquest by the Beloved of the gods (i.e., Asoka), namely the conquest by piety (dhamma-vijaya). ‘Not only did he renounce war himself, but he also expressed his desire that ‘my sons and grandsons will not think of a new conquest as worth achieving...let them think of that conquest only which is the conquest by piety. That is good for this world and the world beyond.’

This is the only example in humanity's history of a victorious conqueror at the zenith of his power still possessing the strength to continue his territorial conquests, yet renouncing war and violence and turning to peace and non-violence.

Here is a lesson for the world today. The ruler of an empire publicly turned his back on war and violence and embraced the message of peace and non-violence. No historical evidence shows that any neighbouring king took advantage of Asoka’s piety to attack him militarily or that there was any revolt or rebellion within his empire during his lifetime. On the contrary, there was peace throughout the land, and even countries outside his empire seemed to accept his benign leadership.

To talk of maintaining peace through the balance of power or the threat of nuclear deterrents is foolish. The might of armaments can only produce fear and not peace. It is impossible to achieve genuine and lasting peace through fear. Through fear can come only hatred, ill will, and hostility, suppressed perhaps for the time being but ready to erupt and become violent at any moment. Genuine peace can prevail only in an atmosphere of metta and amity, free from fear, suspicion and danger.

Buddhism aims at creating a society where the fateful struggle for power is renounced, where calm and peace revail away from conquest and defeat, where the persecution of the innocent is vehemently denounced, and where one who conquers oneself is more respected than those who conquer millions by military and economic warfare; where hatred is conquered by kindness, and evil by goodness; where enmity, jealousy, ill-will and greed do not infect men’s minds; where compassion is the driving force of action; where all, including the least of living things, are treated with fairness, consideration and love; where life in peace and harmony, in a world of material contentment, is directed towards the highest and noblest aim, the realization of the Ultimate Truth, Nirvana.

 

SELECTED TEXTS

 

A word of explanation may help the modern reader to understand and appreciate the style of the original Pali texts selected for translation here.

           Three months after the Buddha’s Parinirvana (death), a Council of the disciples closely associated with him was held, at which all his teaching, discourses and rules of discipline, as they were remembered, were recited, approved as authentic and classified into five Collections, called Nikayas, which constitute the Tipitaka (Triple Canon). These Collections were entrusted to the various Theras or Elders and their pupillary succession for oral transmission for the benefit of future generations.

           Regular and systematic recitation is necessary to perpetuate an unbroken and authentic oral transmission. It must be noted that this recitation was not the act of a single individual alone but of a group. This mode of collective recitation was meant to keep the texts intact, free from change, modification or interpolation. If one group member forgot a word, another would remember it, or if one modified, added or omitted a word or a phrase, another would correct him. It was hoped that nothing could be changed, modified, added or omitted in this way. Texts handed down through an unbroken oral tradition of this kind were considered more reliable and authentic than any record of the teachings set down by a single individual alone many years after the death of their promulgator. The teachings of the Buddha were committed to writing for the first time at a Council in the first century B.C., which was held in Ceylon four centuries after his death. Up to that time, the whole Tipitaka had been handed down from generation to generation in this unbroken oral tradition.

           The original texts are in Pali, a soft, melodious, smooth-flowing language. Their frequent repetitions and the use of categories help memorization, which is necessary for the continuity of oral tradition, and also gives them poetic beauty and charm. They use poetic rhythms and have all the grace of poetry. The recitation of these texts in the original Pali in the calm atmosphere of a tropical grove or a monastery still produces beautiful, harmonious and serene effects. The sonorous Pali words, their grandeur, and the well-known cadence of repetitions produce the effect, even for someone who does not know their meaning, of a solemn chant in an unknown tongue. Recitation of this kind, with its conventional melodic line, was so peaceful and moving that some narratives related that the deities in the woods were sometimes fascinated and attracted by it.

           In the following selections from the original Canon, the repetitions are rendered in full only in some places to give the reader an idea of their style. In other areas, they are indicated by dots. I have tried to render the original Pali as closely as possible in English without offending either the sense and tone of the Buddha’s words or modern English usage.

 

SETTING IN MOTION THE WHEEL OF TRUTH

 

(the First Sermon of the Buddha)

 

Thus have I heard. The Blessed One once lived near Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There, he addressed the group of five bhikkhus: ‘Bhikkus, these two extremes ought not to be practised by one who has gone forth from the household life. What are the two? There is devotion to the indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, typical, the way of ordinary people, unworthy and unprofitable, and there is devotion to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy and unprofitable.

           ‘Avoiding both these extremes, the Tathagata has realized the Middle Path: it gives vision, it provides knowledge, and it leads to calm, to insight, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. And what is that Middle Path...? It is simply the Noble Eightfold Path, namely, right view, proper thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. This is the Middle Path realized by the Tathagata, which gives vision, provides knowledge, and leads to calm, insight, and enlightenment for Nibbana.

           ‘The Noble Truth of suffering is this: Birth is suffering; aging is suffering; sickness is suffering; death is suffering sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the unpleasant is suffering; dissociation from the pleasant is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering-in brief, the five aggregates of attachment are suffering.

           ‘The Noble Truth of the origin of suffering is this: It is this thirst (craving) that produces re-existence and re-becoming, bound up with passionate greed. It finds fresh delight here and now: thirst for sense pleasures, existence and becoming, and non-existence (self-annihilation).

           ‘The Noble Truth of the Cessation of suffering is this: It is the complete cessation of that thirst, giving up, renouncing it, emancipating oneself from it, detaching oneself from it.

           ‘The Noble Truth of the Path leading to the Cessation of suffering is this: It is simply the Noble Eightfold Path, namely, right view, proper thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

 ‘” This is the Noble Truth of Suffering (Dukkha)”: such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light, that arose in me about things not heard before. “This suffering, as a noble truth, should be fully understood”: such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me about things not heard before. “This suffering, as a noble truth, has been fully understood”: such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me about things not heard before.

          ‘” This is the Noble Truth of the Origin of suffering”: such was the vision...”This Origin of suffering, as a noble truth, should be abandoned”: such was the vision, ...” This Origin of suffering, as a noble truth, has been abandoned”: such was the vision, ... about things not heard before.

           “This is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering”: such was the vision.” As a noble truth, this Cessation of suffering should be realized” such was the vision.” As a noble truth, this Cessation of suffering has been realized,” such was the vision—about things not heard before.

           ‘” This is the Noble Truth of the Path leading to the Cessation of suffering”: such was the vision...” As a noble truth, this path leading to the Cessation of suffering should be followed (cultivated).” such was the vision...”This Path leading to the Cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, has been followed (cultivated)”: such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light, that arose in me about things not heard before.

           ‘As long as my vision of actual knowledge was not fully clear in these three aspects, in these twelve ways, regarding the Four Noble Truths, I did not claim to have realized the perfect Enlightenment that is supreme in the world with its gods, with its Maras and Brahmas, in this world with its recluses and Brahmanas, with its princes and men. But when my vision of actual knowledge was evident in these three aspects, in these twelve ways, regarding the Four Noble Truths, then I claimed to have realized the perfect Enlightenment that is supreme in the world with its gods, its Maras and Brahmas, in this world with its recluses and Brahmanas, with its princes and men. And a vision of actual knowledge arose in me thus: My heart’s deliverance is unassailable. This is the last birth. Now, there is no more rebecoming (rebirth).

           The Blessed One said this. The group of five bhikkhus was glad, and they rejoiced at his words.

 

THE FIRE SERMON

 

Thus have I heard. The Blessed One once lived at Gayasisa in Gaya with a thousand bhikkhus. There, he addressed the bhikkhus: ‘Bhikkhus, all is burning. And what is all that is burning?

‘Bhikkhus, the eye is burning, the visible impression is burning, visual consciousness is burning, the visual impression is burning, also whatever sensation, pleasant or painful or neither-painful nor-pleasant, arises on account of the visual appearance, that too is burning and burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, the fire of hate, and the fire of delusion, I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, sorrows, lamentations, pains, griefs, and despairs.

           ‘The ear is burning, sounds are burning, auditory consciousness is burning, the auditory impression is burning, and whatever sensation, pleasant or painful or neither painful nor pleasant, arises because of the aural impression, that too is burning, and burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust.

           ‘The nose is burning, odours are burning, olfactory consciousness is burning, and the olfactory impression is burning. Also, whatever sensation, pleasant or painful or neither painful nor pleasant, arises because of the olfactory impression, that too is burning and burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust.

           ‘The tongue is burning; flavours are burning, gustative consciousness is burning, and the gustative impression is burning. Also, whatever sensation, pleasant or painful or neither painful nor unpleasant, arises because of the gustative impression, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust...

           ‘The body is burning, tangible things are burning, tactile consciousness is burning, tactile impression is burning. Also, whatever sensation, pleasant or painful or neither painful nor pleasant, arises because of the tactile sensation, which is burning, and burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust.

           ‘The mind is burning, mental objects (ideas, etc.) are burning, mental consciousness is burning, mental impression is burning, also whatever sensation, pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, arises on account of the cognitive impression, that too is burning and burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, the fire of hate, and the fire of delusion, I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, sorrows, lamentations, pains, griefs, and despairs.

           ‘Bhikkhus, a learned and noble disciple, who sees (things) thus, becomes dispassionate about the eye, becomes dispassionate about visible forms, becomes dispassionate about the visual consciousness, becomes dispassionate about the visual impression, also whatever sensation, pleasant or painful or neither-nful-nor-pleasant, arises on account of the visual appearance, about that to her becomes dispassionate. He becomes dispassionate about the ear and sounds. He becomes dispassionate about the nose... about odours...He becomes dispassionate about the tongue... about flavours...He becomes dispassionate about the body... about tangible things...He becomes dispassionate about the mind, becomes dispassionate about mental objects (idea, etc.), becomes dispassionate about mental consciousness, becomes dispassionate about mental impression, also whatever sensation, pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, arises on account of mental impression, about that too he becomes dispassionate.

           ‘Being dispassionate, he becomes detached; through detachment, he is liberated. When liberated, he knows that he is liberated. And he knows: Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived, what has to be done is done, there is no more left  on this account.’

           This the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they rejoiced at his words.

           While this exposition was being delivered, the minds of those thousand bhikkhus were liberated from impurities without attachment.

 

UNIVERSAL LOVE

 

He who is skilled in good and who wishes to attain that state of Calm should act (thus):

           He should be able, upright, perfectly upright, compliant, gentle, and humble.

           Contented, easily supported, with few duties, of simple livelihood, controlled in senses, discreet, not bold, he should not be greedily attached to families.

           He should not commit slight wrongs so that men might censure him otherwise. (Then he should cultivate his thoughts thus.

           May all beings be happy and secure; may their minds be contented.

           Whatever living beings there may be-feeble or strong, long (or tall), stout or medium, short, minor, or significant, seen or unseen, those dwelling far or near, those who are born and those who are yet to be born-may all beings, without exception, be happy-minded!

           Let no one deceive another or despise any person in any place. In anger or ill will, let no one wish harm to another.

           Just as a mother would protect her only child even at the risk of her own life, even so, let one cultivate a boundless heart towards all beings.

           Let one’s thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world above, below and across without any obstruction, hatred, or hostility.

           Whether one stands, walks, sits or lies down, as long as one is awake, one should maintain this mindfulness. This, they say, is the Sublime State in this life.

           By not falling into wrong views, being virtuous, and being endowed with insight, one gives up attachment to sense-desires. Verily, such a man does not return to enter a womb again.

 

BLESSINGS

 

Thus have I heard:

           The Blessed One once lived at the monastery of Anathapindika in Jeta’s Grove near Savatthi.  When the night was far advanced, a particular deity, whose surpassing splendour illuminated the entire Jeta Grove, came into the presence of the Blessed One and, drawing near, respectfully saluted Him and stood on one side. Standing thus, he addressed the Blessed One in vers:

          ‘Many deities and men, yearning for happiness, have pondered on Blessings. Pray, tell me the Highest Blessing!’

           This is the Highest Blessing, not to associate with fools, with the wise, and to honour those worthy of honour.

           To reside in a suitable locality, to have done meritorious actions in the past, and to set oneself on the right course is the Highest Blessing.

           Vast learning (skill in) handicraft, a highly trained discipline, and pleasant speech- this is the Highest Blessing.

           Supporting one’s father and mother, cherishing wife and children, and having peaceful occupations are the Highest Blessings.

           Liberality, righteous conduct,  helping relatives, and blameless actions are the Highest blessings.

          The highest blessing is to cease and abstain from evil, to refrain from intoxicating drinks, and to be diligent in virtue.

           Reverence, humility, contentment, gratitude, and the reasonable hearing of the Dhamma are the Highest Blessings.

           Patience, obedience, seeing the Samana (holy men), and (taking part in) religious discussions at proper times are the Highest Blessings.

           Self-control, Holy life, perception of the Noble Truths, and realizing Nibbana are the Highest Blessings.

           If a man’s mind is sorrowless, stainless, and secure and does not shake when touched by worldly vicissitudes, this is the Highest Blessing.

           Those who are thus acting are everywhere unconquered, attaining happiness everywhere. These are the Highest Blessings.

 

GETTING RID OF ALL CARES AND TROUBLES

 

Thus have I heard. The Blessed One once lived at the monastery of Anathapindika in Jeta’s grove near Savathi. There, he addressed the bhikkhus, saying: ‘Bhikkhus,’ and they replied to him: ‘Venerable Sir.’ The Blessed One spoke as follows:

‘Bhikkhus, I will expound how to restrain all cares and troubles. Listen and reflect well; I shall speak to you.’ ‘Yes, Venerable Sir,’ they said in response to the Blessed One.

 

He then spoke as follows:

‘Bhikkhus, I say that the destruction (getting rid) of cares and troubles is (possible) for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and does not see. What must a person know and see so that the destruction (getting rid) of cares and troubles is possible? (These are) wise reflection and unwise reflection. For a person who reflects unwisely, there arise cares and troubles which have not yet arisen, and (in addition) those which have already arisen increase. But for him who reflects wisely, cares and problems that have not yet arisen do not arise, and (in addition) those that have already arisen disappear.

           ‘Bhikkhus, one there are cares and troubles which are to be got rid of by insight; 2 there are cares and troubles which are to be got rid of by restraint; 3 there are cares and troubles which are to be got rid of by use; 4 there are cares and troubles which are to be got rid of by avoidance; 5 there are cares and troubles which are to be got rid of by avoidance; 6 there are cares and troubles which are to be got rid of by dispersal; 7 there are cares and troubles which are to be got rid of by culture.

(1)‘Bhikkhus, what are the cares and troubles which are to be got rid of by insight? Bhikkhus, the uninstructed ordinary man, who does not see the Noble Ones, who is unversed in the Teachings of the Noble Ones, who are untrained in the Teachings of the Noble Ones, who does not see good men, who are unversed in the Teachings of good men, who is unskilled in the Teachings of good men, do not understand what things should be reflected on and what things should not be reflected on. Not knowing what should be reflected on and should not be reflected on, he reflects on things that should be reflected on.

           ‘Now, Bhikkhus, what things should not be reflected on but on which he reflects? If, in a person, reflecting on certain things, there arises the defilement of sense-pleasure which has not yet arisen, and (in addition), the heresy of sense-pleasure which has already arisen in him increases, the heresy of (the desire for) existence and for becoming ... the defilement of ignorance which has not yet arisen arises and (in addition), the heresy of ignorance which has already arisen in him increases, then these are the things that should not be reflected on, but on which he reflects.

           Bhikkhus, what things should be reflected on but that he does not reflect on? If, in a person, reflecting on certain things, the heresy of sense-pleasure which has not yet arisen does not arise, and (in addition), the heresy of sense-pleasure which has already arisen in him disappears, the defilement of (the desire for) existence and for becoming...the defilement of ignorance which has not yet arisen does not occur, and (in addition), the heresy of ignorance which has already arisen in him disappears, these are the things that should be reflected on, but on which he does not reflect.