What the Buddha Taught 4
From this it is evident that it is no question of pessimism or optimism, but that we must take accout of the pleasures of life as well as of its pains and sorrows, and also of freedom from them, in order to understand life completely 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 themselves 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 themselves 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 3 dukkha as conditioned states.
All kinds of suffering in life like birth, old age, sickness, death, association with unpleasant persons and conditions, separation for beloved ones and pleasant conditions, not getting what one desires, grief, lamentation, distress-all such forms of physical and mental suffering, which are universally accepted as suffering or pain, 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, unhappiness. This vicissitude is included in dukkha as suffering produced by change.
It is easy to understnad the two forms of suffering mentioned above. No one will dispute them. This aspect of the First Noble Truth is more popularly kown because it is easy to understand. It is common experience in our daily life.
But the third form of dukkha as conditioned states is the most important philosophical aspect of the First Noble Truth, and it requies some analytical explanation of what we consider as a ‘being’, as an ‘individual’, or as ‘I’,
What we call a ‘being’, or and ‘individual’, or ‘I’, according to Buddhist philosophy, 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. Here it should be clearly understood that dukkha and the five aggregates are not two different things; the five aggregates themselves are dukkha. We will understand this point better when we have some notion of the five aggregates which constitues the so called ‘being’. Now, what are these five?
The five Agregates
The first is the Aggregate of Matter. In this term ‘Aggregate of Matter’ are included the ttraditional Four Great Elements, namely, solidity, fluidity, heat and motion, and also the Derivatives of the Four Great Elements. In the term ‘erivatives of Four Great Elements’ are included our five materila 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, both 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 useful here. It should clearly be understood that 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 sytems of philosophies and religions. 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 speaks quite often of the value of controlling and disciplining these six caculties. The difference between the ey and the mind as faculties is that the former senses the world of colours and visible forms, while the latter senses the world of colours and visible forms, while the latter senses the world of ideas and thoughts and mental objects. We experience different fields of the world with differenet senses. We cannot hear colours, but we can see them. Nor can we see sounds, but we can hear them. Thus with our ive physical senseorgans-eye, ear, nose, tongue, body-we 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 world. What of ideas and thoughts? They are also a part of the world. But they cannot be sensed, they cannot be conceived by the faculty of the eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. Yet they can be conceived by another faculty, which is mind. Now ideas and thoughts are not independent of the world experienced b these five physical sense faculties. In fact they depend on, and are conditioned by, physical experiences. Hence a person born blind cannot have ideas of colour except through the analogy of sounds or some 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 mind is considered a sense faculty or organ, like the eye or the ear.
The third is the Aggregate of Perceptions. Like sensations, perceptions also are of six kinds, in relation to 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 the perceptions that recognize objects whether physical or mental.
The fourth is the Aggregate of Mental Formations. In this group are included all volitional activities both good and bad. What is generally known as karma comes under this group. The Buddha’s own 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 volitional actions. They do not produce karmic effects. It is only volitional actions such as attention, will determination, confidence, concentration, wisdom, energy, desire, repugnance or hate ignorance, conceit, idea of self etc. That cann 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 for, sound, odouer, 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 mental 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 also is of six kinds, in relation to six internal faculties and corresponding isx external objects.
It should be clearly understood that consciousness does not ecognize 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 simply is awareness of the presence of a colour; but it does not recognize that it is blue. There is no recognition at this stage. It is perception (the third Aggregate discussed above) that recognizes that it is blue. The term ‘visual consciousness’ is a philosophical expression denoting the same idea as is 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 phhilosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’, as opposed to matter, and that consciousness should not be taken as ‘spirit’ in opposition to matter. This point has to be particularly emphasized, because a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Sould that continues as a permanent substance through life, has persisted from the earlies time to the present day.
One of the Buddha’s own disciples, Sati by name, held that the Master taught: ‘it is the same consiousness 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 boyd and tangible objects arises a consiciousness, and it is called tactil 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 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 consiousness and so on...’
The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, and that it 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 delight it my grow, increase and develop.
‘Were a man to say: 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’, or 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 goes on flowing and continuing. 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 disppears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can in reality be called ‘I’. Every one will agree that neither matter, nor sensation, nor perception, nor any one of those mental activities, nor consciousness can reallly be called ‘I’. But when these five physical and mental aggregates which are interdependent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine, we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea, a mental formation, which is nothing but one of those 52 mental formations of the fourth Aggregate which we have just discussed, namely, it is the idea of self.
These five Aggregates together, which we popularly call a ‘being’, are dukkha itself. There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these five aggregates, who experienes dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says:
출처: https://storytellingis.tistory.com/3 [붓다:티스토리]