What the Buddha Taught 2

  To the seeker after Truth it is immaterial from where an idea comes.  The source and development of an idea is a matter for the academic.  In fact, in order to understand Truth, it is not necessary even to know whether the teaching comes from the Buddha, or from anyone else.  What is essential is seeing the thing, understanding it.  There is an important story in the Majjhima-nikaya which illustrates this.

   The Buddha once spent a night in a potter’s shed.  In the same shed there was a young recluse who had arrived there earlier.  They did not know each other.  The Buddha observed the recluse, and thought to himself: ‘Pleasnt 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 doctine 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 recluse.  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 ate the present time?’ ‘In the countries to the north, friend, there is a city called Savatthi.  It is there that the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlgihtened 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 recluse.  But without divulging his own 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).  It was only at the end of the discourse that this young reculuse, 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 him whether he had the alms-bowl and the robes ready. (A bhikkhu must have three robes and the alms-bow for begging 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 was unfortunately savaged by a cow and died.

   Later, when this sad news reached the Buddha, he announced that Pukkusati was a wise man, who had already seen Truth, and attained the penultimate stage in the realization of Nirvana, and that 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 quite 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 Truth. If the medicine is good, the disease will be cured.  It is not necessary to know who prepared it, or where it came from.

   Almost all religions are built on faith –rather ‘blind’ faith it would seem.  But in Buddhism emphasis is laid on ‘seeing’. Knowing, understanding, and not on faith, or belief.  In Buddhist texts there is a word saddha which is usually translated as ‘faith’ or ‘belief’.  But saddha is not ‘faith’ as such, but rather ‘confidence’ born out of conviction.  In popular Buddhism and also in ordinary usage in the texts the word saddha, it must be admitted, has an element of ‘faith’ in the sense 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 momnet 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, them you see it for yourself, and the question of belief does not arise.  So the phrase in ancient Buddhist tests 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.

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

   It is always a question of knowing and seeing, and not that of believing.  The teaching of the Buddha is qualified as ebi-passika, 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. With eference to his own 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 had a long discussion 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 unbroken oral tradition of texts.  With regard to 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 one single Brahmin who claims that he personally 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, 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, te middle one also does not see, the last one also does not see. Thus, it seems to me that the state of the Brahmins is like that of a line of blind men.’

   Then the Buddha gave advice of extreme importance to the group of Brahmins: ‘It’s not proper for a ise man who maintains truth to come to the conclusion: “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 a faith.  If he says “This is my faith”, so far he maintains 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 he may 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 certain 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 fondle 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, and 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 ther 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 to himself: “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 dnager.  No boat goes to the other side, nor is there a bridge for crossing over.  Itwould be good therefore if I would gather grass, wood, branches and leaves to make a raft, ad 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 over to this side, exerting myslef with my hands and feet.  It would be good if I carry this raft on my head or on my back whereever I go”.  ‘What do you think, O bhikkhus, if he acted in this way would that man be acting properly with regard to the raft? “No, Sir”.  In which way then would he be acting properly with regard to the raft? Having crossed and gone over to the other side, suppose that man should think: “This raft was great help to me. With its aid I have crossed safely over to this side, exerting myself with my hands and feet.  It would be good if I beached this raft on the shore, or moored it and left it aloat, and then went on my way wherever it may be”/  Acting in this way would that man act properly with regard to that raft.

‘In the smae 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, Obhikkhus, who understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, should give up even good things; how much more then should you give up evil things.

From this parable it is quite clear that the Buddha’s teaching is meant to carry man to safety, peace, happiness, tranquility, the attainment of Nirvana.  The whole doctrine taught by the Buddha leads to this end.  He did not say things just to satisfy intellectual curiosity.  He was a practical teacher and taught only those things which would bring peace and happiness to man.

출처: https://storytellingis.tistory.com/3 [붓다:티스토리]