300.
Simple Theory for Societal Happiness and Survival (Solution WE), but Collective
Mind of Greed and Ignorance (Problem ME) Refuse to Listen
Nirvana
and Societal Happiness
นิพพาน และ
สันติสุขของสังคม
A
Sermon by Phra Khru Sudhammanat (Luang Pho Somnuek), Abbot of Wat Plak Mai Lai (Kamphaengsaen
Distr., Nakhon Pathom Prov.) delivered to a group of Bhikkhuni (Thai,
Vietnamese and Indonesian) led by Bhikkhuni Dhammananda, Head of Watra
Songdhammakalyani (Nakhon Pathom Prov.), May 30, 2013
คำสอนโดย
พระครูสุธรรมนาถ (หลวงพ่อสมนึก), เจ้าอาวาส วัดปลักไม้ลาย (จ.นครปฐม) ต่อ คณะภิกษุณี
(ไทย เวียดนาม และอินโดนีเซีย) นำโดยพระภิกษุณีธัมมนันทา เจ้าสำนัก
วัตรทรงธรรมกัลยาณี (จ.นครปฐม), ๓๐ พฤษภาคม ๒๕๕๖
(แปลจาก: “ไปฟังเรื่องนิพพาน” โดย
ธัมมสิริ, พุทธสาวิกา (จดหมายบ่าว พสว),
ฉบับที่ ๔๗ กค-กย ๒๕๕๖, หน้า ๑๖-๑๘)
The
word “Nibbana” or “Nirvana” (นิพพาน, นิรวาน) is a
conjugation of two root words: “nira” (นิร) = absence or
no; “vana” (วาน) = binding (เครื่องผูกมัด). Literally, “nirvana” means free from binding,
not connected to, that is, free from the attachment to our being
(ไม่มีเครื่องผูกมัดเรากับที่อยู่).
“I,
WE” is nothing but a pile of 5 “khandha” = aggregates (ขันธ์ ๕: รูป/ “rupa” = matter; เวทนา/
“vedana” = feeling, sensation; สัญญา/ “sanna” =
perception; สังขาร/
“sankhara” = reaction;
วิญญาณ/ “vinnana” consciousness), and of 5 elements (ธาตุ: ดิน/earth; น้ำ/water; ลม/wind; ไฟ/fire; อากาศ/ether). Our momental BEING is “bhava” = State (ภพ, ภว). It is “atta” (อัตตา) = Ego or Identity (ตัวตน).
Nowadays,
people believe that atta is permanent, not changing, and full of ego/identity (ตัวตน). But Buddha explained
that matter, sensation, perception, reaction and consciousness are all
“anatta”, impermanent, unsustainable.
The
State “bhava” is the present moment in front of us, next life, or future. If we have relationship with bhava, thus
bhava exists. If we don’t have
relationship with bhava, our bhava is thus non-existing. The BINDING or NIRVANA is in the middle
between us and bhava.
No
WE, no BHAVA. To attain nirvana is to
be without I/WE, if we can do it. The
problem is whether we can do it.
If
we believe in the existence of ego/identity, such belief makes we feel that we
can’t attain nirvana. But if we believe
that such a belief is false, then we can rethink: ego/identity is impermanent,
unstable, and unsustainable.
What
then is impermanent? Matter, sensation,
perception, reaction and consciousness are non-identity (ไม่มีตัวตน)
that we can extinguish them. Well, we
may or may not be able to do it. But in
theory, and really, they all can be extinguished. How?
Buddha
said that they were born because some deeds enable them to be born/emerge. They were born because there was urge or
desire to be born, i.e., from 3 factors: “kilesha” (กิเลส
= defilement), “karma” (กรรม = deed, action), and “vipaka” (วิบาก = consequences of that deed). But the root causes of all these three
factors are “avijja” (อวิชชา), that is, ignorance of what
is “dukkha” (ทุกข์ = suffering). Our existence today is suffering.
Buddha
explained that if we don’t want to be born again, then don’t create causes
necessitating birth. To be able to
realize birth is undesirable, one must be able to realize the ill-effect of
birth, that it is not good; and must be able to see both the good side and bad
side of birth. Nowadays, people desire
for birth because they can see only the positive side, those that are useful
and happy. But if we can see the harm,
we will cut them off, no more desire for them.
If we realize that the net effect is bad more than good, we will decide
not to be born again, when we realize that this body is no good, full of
suffering. Once we realize this, we will
not be born in such a body of suffering.
Many people misunderstood this teaching, because they misunderstood
atta.
What
is atta? Buddha explained this in Anattalakkhana
Sutra : matter, sensation, perception, reaction and consciousness are not
atta. If they are atta, one will never
get sick, instead one would be permanent and eternal, not becoming anything
else.
Let’s
contemplate on the state of being, not the feeling. For example, you may think that this table
has no feeling therefore no suffering, but can it exist forever? When everything in the world has to undergo
an impermanent state, in the flux of fluctuation and change; that is
suffering. Then where is atta?
When
we understood the meaning of atta, nirvana becomes easier. Now, we know that where ego exists, there is
high probability for the ego to be bound.
If
there is no binding or attachment, can ego exist? If we have ego, we must let go of the ego,
not focusing on dropping the binding.
What it means is that there is no binding, if there is no ego. As long as ego exists, the binding also exists.
Because of false understanding that atta
is real, thus the binding is there, too.
For
example, can we tie a string to the hand of a monkey? We think that a monkey has a hand, but in
fact, a monkey has 4 hands. Then how can
we tie the hands of a monkey? Oh, we
have false understanding.
Similarly,
we know that body and mind are non-substance, not ego/identity (ตัวตน),
then where is the atta to be bound/tied to?
Once we realize this, we are free, leaping out of suffering, away from
the binding, that is, nirvana/nibbana.
Only
with right understanding of nirvana can one apply such theory to dhammic
training to others. Luang Pho then
continued with simple questioning. “Is this hand mine? Is it ME?
Must I take care of it?
Why?”
Buddha
taught, for any bad deeds, be careful, don’t do them. Buddha
then taught, anything good, how you ought to do it so that it proliferates.
Some
people may think or criticize that Buddha’s teaching is not dramatic or
profound. Looking back to Buddha’s time
when there were many prophets preaching their religions, Buddha must be engaged
in debates with Brahmins and diverse scholars of different philosophical thoughts. Buddha would not answer any questions that
could not be perceived in reality, for example, the world is permanent or
impermanent; which prophet is better.
Buddha would ask and answer only those topics that happened in reality
by rephrasing the questions and asking the inquirers back in front of the
public. The process of didactical
questioning, or pedagogical approach, went on until the inquirers thoroughly
investigated their own thoughts by themselves, guided by the re-questioning,
and came to term with them. Such situations
happened to the point that the followers of the inquiring religious leaders
complained that why not their teachers cornered, but yielded to, Buddha. Some of these teachers even attained
enlightenment during such a challenging process.
Luang
Pho then asked, “Since our hands are non-existing, not OURS, can we give them
away?” The answer is, no, because, they
are not belonging to us alone. They
belong to our parents, to our siblings and relatives, to our friends,
neighbors, communities, to our nation, and to the world. Everyone in the world is under the same
situation.
Knowing
that it is not ours, then do we have to take care of it?
If
we borrow a car from our friend, do we need to take care of it?
When
visiting our friend’s home, do we need to be careful not to cause any damage in
his/her house?
Even
things are not ours, we need to be careful.
Buddha issued “sila” (ศีล) for his followers to
observe, to be careful.
Some
taught that all things are zero, a void of vacuum, so no need to pay attention
to anything. But Buddha taught the
middle path: to derive benefit for self and for others, too, i.e., take good
care of yourself, and also look after the welfare of others.
We
bought a car; the car has four wheels. A
robber stole away all the four wheels.
Those wheels belong to the car or to us?
Now
come back to our first question: Does this hand belong to me alone? Since my body is not mine alone, I need to
maintain it well. Even the pets we feed
them, they are our bosses, because they know that we love them, and as their
owners will protect them. For everything
in the world, in one way or the other, we are related to all of them. We must not think that we are the absolute
owners of anything alone. Others, too,
have their share of ownership. For
example, roads, rivers, streams, trees, mountains…we have relationship with
them all. Everyone has mutual ownership,
so what should we do?
Such
discourse is theoretical. If we
understand theory well, we will be able to practice rightly. Then society will be peaceful and happy
because no selfishness but kindness and generosity “metta” to each other.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น