.jpg)
මුල් සිංහල වීඩියෝව සඳහා Play කරන්න
Transcending the World Part - 01 | Kaccānagotta Suttaṁ | Thiththagalle Anandasiri Thero
Our Blessed One has always pointed out that there is a fundamental problem for this being. What is that problem? It is the personality view (sakkāya diṭṭhi). What is this personality view? You might just know the term sakkāya diṭṭhi as sakkāya diṭṭhi, but there is a separate sutta where I have explained it in detail. The Blessed One has asked, "Bhikkhus, when what exists, by clinging to what, by adhering to what, does the personality view (sakkāya diṭṭhi) arise?"
So, how does the personality view arise? The Blessed One himself answers this. When the monks who were asked this question replied, "Venerable Sir, the Blessed One is the root of this Dhamma, please explain it," the Buddha said, "Bhikkhus, when form (rūpa) exists, by clinging (upādāya) to form, by adhering to form, the personality view (sakkāya diṭṭhi) arises."
It is when we become bound by clinging (upādāna) to form—I will explain this further—when we see a form with our eyes and get attached to it, that is when the personality view is said to arise. Personality view (sakkāya diṭṭhi) is the act of grasping a form as 'I' or 'mine'.
Now, for the children who have recently joined and may not understand, I will explain: what does the Blessed One mean by 'the world' (loka)? Is it this universe with the sun, moon, stars, and galaxies? No. The Buddhas refer to 'the world' as that which is seen through the six sense bases (āyatana). What are these six? The six sense bases. I am explaining this in a way that even a small child can understand.
An āyatana (base, or sphere) is like a factory; it is a place that is constantly producing something. Whatever it may be, it produces. A factory is always working. If you go to a place that makes soap or slippers, you’ll see slippers being cut and made. If it's a factory that makes beverages, the work of making beverages happens there. It’s a factory, an āyatana.
Similarly, for us, as taught by the Buddha, we have such a factory: this eye. What does it do? It constantly helps us to see forms (rūpa). It helps to see forms. Now, in this world, there is the realm of the four great elements. There are buildings, the great earth, the sun, moon, and stars, and this space. There are infinite world systems. No matter how much there is—the great oceans, the great mountains—can the eye take a whole mountain inside of it? It cannot. However, if that mountain has a shape, the eye can capture its color impression (varna satahana).
What impression does it capture? You all have studied science; when there is light, a color image falls upon the eye. In the presence of light, these color impressions fall. The color impression of this boy here falls on the eye. So, what falls on the eye is only the color impression. Just the color impression. When that falls, and if the physical eye is in good condition, it receives that color impression.
So, no matter how many things exist in this world, the eye can only see a color impression. This is called the 'sign of color' (vanna-nimitta) or, in Abhidhamma, 'form born of clinging' (upādāya rūpa), the form of color. No matter how good our eyes are, we cannot see beyond this color. The eye can only see color. Actually, the eye itself can’t even see; a color image just falls upon it. When it falls, now you have the eye, and you have the color. The color image has entered the eye. Now there are two things: the eye is there, and the color is there.
But just because a color image falls on the eye, we don't see. For that to happen, a mind or consciousness (sita) must join in. What must join in? The mind. When the mind joins, the Buddha said, "The meeting of the three is contact (tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso)." When these three come together—what three? The eye, the color image that fell on the eye, and the mind that joined in—this coming together of the three is called a source of contact (phassa āyatana). This union of the three is now set to do a new job; we call it a source of contact. What kind of source? A source of contact.
This happens, doesn't it? Everyone sitting here can see. Everyone has a mind. Right? At this very moment, everyone's eyes are seeing something. Just look at something with your eyes. Let's look over there at this boy. The eye doesn't see his name. The eye cannot recognize if he is fair or dark. But a color impression of him falls on the eye. In an instant, a color impression falls. At that point, we say a 'source of contact' has occurred. Or, a source of contact has been created with the eye as its base. That is an āyatana.
Alright? After that, a process occurs. That is the process of recognizing who this is. Recognition (saññā). For me, I know this boy's name is Anuhas. Ah, now I recognize him as Anuhas. Did I recognize him as Anuhas with my eye or with my mind? With the eye or the mind? Now, this gentleman who just came in doesn't know him that well. Can this gentleman recognize him as Anuhas? He can see that he's a boy or something similar. But we know his perception (saññā). We have given him a name. So, our mind recognizes him. That is not something the eye does.
So, who recognized him? Who was it that recognized him? If Achala recognized him, Achala thinks, "I recognized Anuhas." I think, "I recognized Anuhas." What do I think? "I recognized Anuhas." That's what one thinks, isn't it? Then, one can think further about who Anuhas is. "Anuhas is a boy in our class. Where does Anuhas live?" One can think like that. Now, in relation to what is one thinking? By taking what was seen by the eye as 'self', one thinks in relation to that.
Does this process happen outside or inside of us? That is the point. Therefore, when the Buddha speaks of 'the world' (loka), he is referring to the world that is constructed inside. What is the world? The one inside. In truth, if a color from this entire infinite universe does not collide with the eye, there is nothing for the eye to do. We walk around providing color impressions for the eye. So, no matter how many stars or planets there are in this infinite universe, we can only receive their color image into our eye.
So, the world, according to the Buddha, is not this external world you see with your eyes. It is the world you create in your mind by taking in a color. Let's see if you can say it: It is the world the mind creates by taking in a color. That is all that happens. That is the actual event. Nothing more happens.
Next, the ear is the same. After the ear receives something... "Anuhas, where is your village?" "Anuradhapura." Now you heard. Now, suppose a person from France is here. Does he understand where Anuradhapura is? Perhaps if he has visited, he would know. In English, it's Anuradhapura, and in French, it's probably Anuradhapura too, so that's why. Now, "Anuradha, what is your father's name?" "Yasaratne." Ah, okay. "Does your family make clay pots and pans?" Now, when I ask something like that in a different language, does this person understand what is being said? But can he hear the sound of my voice or not? The sound is heard. But it is not understood.
Then, what does the ear hear? Only the sound (sadda). A good ear hears the sound. Try to understand this. If the ear could understand, then everyone should be able to understand everything that is spoken. Everyone in the world should understand every language if the ear could understand. The ear cannot understand. The ear can do one thing: if the ear mechanism is good, it can register sound. What can it do? No matter how many songs you sing, what the ear hears is only the vocal sound. Whether it was sung in tune, with rhythm, and with melody is judged by a different world [the mind].
Alright? So, the ear and the sound are there. Even when we are sleeping, sounds are present, but we don't 'hear' them. Therefore, a mind (sita) must be involved. What must be involved? The mind. The simultaneous arising of the ear, sound, and mind in a single moment is called a source of contact (phassa āyatana). What is it? Because of the ear, a source of contact... a new word. Because of the eye, a source of contact... The source of contact arises when the three come together: tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso. The meeting of the three is contact. So that's what happens there. Again, where do we recognize what is said by the ear? In the mind (manas). So again, no matter how many sounds the ear takes in, where is the world created? In the mind.
This is what is called a 'form born of clinging' (upādāya rūpa) in the Abhidhamma; that's not important now. The mind grasps that object. The mind recognizes that object. The mind directs itself towards it. I will teach you about that later... the function of the mind is to direct. It is with the mind that one experiences. When you listen to a song, where do you experience it? In the ear or in the mind? You experience it in the mind.
Alright. So now the Buddha's teaching becomes clear for a second time. The world is created inside. No matter how big a world exists outside, no matter how many sounds exist outside, if they do not fall on our ear, they are not sounds to us. Right now, bombs might be exploding somewhere. Are those sounds to us? They are not sounds to us. Only if it reaches the ear does it become a sound. This means no matter how many sounds exist in this world, they are not our world. At this very moment, according to the Big Bang theory, suns might be exploding somewhere, universes might be forming with great sounds. If we heard them, our eardrums would burst. We would cease to exist. But are they of any concern to us? No concern. Why? They don't fall upon our eardrums. Therefore, no matter how vast the external world is, it is truly out of foolishness that we keep thinking about that world. Where is the real world located? It is created with this mind, between the soles of our feet and the top of our head.
Alright? This is the Buddha's teaching. Out of foolishness, we talk about 'the world, the world'. Many people have asked the Buddha about the universe. The Buddha didn't speak about it because there's no point. Even if he did, would you understand? You wouldn't. You can't comprehend it. It would just be a sound heard by the ear, and you would imagine something based on what little you know. But because Ven. Ananda persistently troubled him, he did speak a little about the "thousand-fold" and "two-thousand-fold" world systems. But even though he said it, those things are not within our sphere of experience (gocara). It is not our world. It's outside our domain.
The nose is the same. How is a world created through the nose? After a smell is sensed. If this boy goes and smells something, he senses its scent. If I were to be smelled now, I'm sweating, so a smell would be found. The nose creates a world. What does it create? With the help of smells and odors. If your eyes are closed and a flower is brought to you, if you have experienced that flower's scent before, you can identify it by its smell and say, "This is a jasmine flower, this is a shoe-flower." Does the nose say that, or the mind? The mind. So the world is created in the mind.
The remaining two are the same. The body is the same. The tongue is the same. When a bit of food is placed on the tongue, you can immediately say if it's jackfruit, breadfruit, or coconut. Does the tongue say that, or the mind? The mind.
So, although beings in this world think of 'the world' as this vast external thing, what the Buddha calls the world are these five senses, and next, the mind. When you are not taking in objects from these five senses, what are you doing while seated? What are you doing? You are thinking (kalpanā karanavā). Mental objects (dhammā) arise in the mind. An object comes to the mind. Then you start thinking about it.
Can a human being do anything beyond this? Can you? Try to do something beyond this. You can see forms with your eyes. You can hear sounds with your ears. You can know smells with your nose. You can take objects into the mind. You can receive touch with your body. You can know tastes with your tongue. When you are not doing any of these five, can you or can you not sit and think about each of these things with your mind? Is it possible to do anything beyond these six? Just think about it. Can we do anything beyond these six? If not, how small are we as people?
There is a sutta taught by the Buddha called the Sabba Sutta (The All). The Buddha says, "I will teach you 'the all' (sabba)." The other day I saw a very foolish comment on one of these videos... Anyway, what is this 'all' for a being? What is 'the all'? It is just this much: the eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, the mind and mental objects. That is the all. A being has nothing beyond this. The Buddha even issues a challenge: if anyone claims there is something beyond this, it is just words (vacana mātra). They might speak as if they understand something incomprehensible. But they haven't understood it, and there is nothing beyond this. It is merely a statement of words. If anyone were to posit an 'all' beyond this, it would be a cause of vexation only. Just vexation.
Let's imagine it. We think, "Is there an end to this universe?" We think and think and go on and on. Spacecraft are traveling now, aren't they? A craft launched 35 years ago is still sending information. They say it has only just reached the Kuiper Belt. Do you know what the Kuiper Belt is? It's a region beyond Pluto where pieces of asteroids are gathered. They say it's sending pictures from that area now, after 35 years. And it sends back images and information from beyond that. There is no end. Just because we go on and on... if we start thinking about these things, it is just an object that has arisen in the mind. Beyond that, have we seen the Kuiper Belt? We haven't even seen a color impression of it. We haven't heard a sound from it. We don't know its smell. Someone gave it a name, said it exists, and we think about it. When we think, it again becomes just an object arising in the mind, and we are trapped back in the place the Buddha described.
Therefore, 'the all' for us, no matter how much we think about this world of the four great elements, this sermon is about whom? It is about oneself. This sermon is not being delivered to Anuhas about Samahitha. It's not being delivered to Samahitha about Anuhas. It is about how your own mind is formed. How your own world is formed. What constitutes the world for you.
Anyone listening to this Dhamma should reflect that this is not about others. This is about one's own domain, one's own world. If any person, after applying this to themselves, thinks they have a world beyond this, it is just a mental fabrication (manas-ghāta). Because it is just another object that has arisen in the mind.
Alright, that's clear now. So, for what primary purpose does the Blessed One teach the Dhamma? To extinguish suffering (dukkha). To extinguish what? To extinguish this mental suffering. So why does mental suffering arise? It arises primarily because of the personality view (sakkāya diṭṭhi). The fetters (saṃyojana) of personality view, skeptical doubt (vicikicchā), and clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbataparāmāsa) work together. It arises due to sakkāya diṭṭhi.
Now, in a place where sakkāya diṭṭhi is explained, it says there is form (rūpa). The forms we see with our eyes. We think about these color impressions. The collection of these forms is called the aggregate of form (rūpa-kkhandha). When we grasp this aggregate of form as 'I' or 'mine', it is called the aggregate of clinging to form (rūpūpādānakkhandha). What is it called? It means when we grasp these forms as 'I' or 'mine'. 'Form' here means the color seen by the eye, the sound heard by the ear, the smell sensed by the nose. All of these are forms (rūpa). They are subtle forms. So we are not describing the color of this boy's body, but the color-form that has been taken into our mind. That is what this sermon is about.
So that is the aggregate of clinging to form. Next, we feel it (vēdanā). We can feel pleasure, pain, or neutrality. We grasp that collection of feelings as 'I'. "Ah, I am the one feeling this. I am the one experiencing this. I can't bear this." We think like that. This is called the aggregate of clinging to feeling (vedanūpādānakkhandha). I am explaining this in a language you can understand.
We perceive or recognize (saññā). What does it mean to recognize? Is this person fair or dark? What is his name? What is the color of this building? That is what recognition is. It's not a strange word. What we are always doing is just recognizing the things that come to the mind. When we grasp this act of recognition as 'I', what do we do? We grasp it as 'I'. That is called the aggregate of clinging to perception (saññūpādānakkhandha).
Next, we direct it through volitional formations (saṅkhāra/cetanā). We think, we act accordingly. That is the aggregate of clinging to formations (saṅkhārūpādānakkhandha).
Finally, we are conscious of it; we know it. That is called consciousness (viññāṇa). The aggregate of clinging to consciousness (viññāṇūpādānakkhandha). Now, if I were to explain this in detail, it would take about an hour. So for now, I have mentioned five. What are they? Form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness (rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, viññāṇa). These are what arise at all times. They arise in every moment. I will draw this on a board in a little while to show how it happens. Understand this in simple terms.
The Buddha says that this is all that is happening. But we don't think of it as a "five-fold aggregate" (pañcakkhandha). We grasp it wholesale as 'I'. As what? As 'mine'. We think about things, we think about our mother, our father, about ourselves. We feel, "These problems are happening to me." That feeling is the personality view (sakkāya diṭṭhi). The term sakkāya refers to the five aggregates, and the view (diṭṭhi) we create that this is 'I', 'mine', or 'my self' is sakkāya diṭṭhi. The Buddha teaches to eliminate this.
This does not mean we are trying to stop seeing forms. The Buddha does not preach to stop hearing sounds. He does not preach to stop thinking. What is it for then? It is to eliminate the grasping of it as 'I' and 'mine'. Once 'I' and 'mine' is removed, the sakkāya (the aggregates) remains, but the diṭṭhi (the wrong view) is gone. We see forms. The Arahants and the Buddha also saw forms and heard sounds. But because the sakkāya diṭṭhi is absent, there is no such grasping. There is no taking it as 'I am' or 'this is mine'.
Even after explaining it like this, those who have been listening for a long time might understand a little, but you [newcomers] may not. To simplify it even further:
A person named Bhaddaka Gāminī came to see the Buddha. What was his name? Bhaddaka Gāminī. He came and asked the Buddha about suffering. At one time, the Blessed One was dwelling among the Mallas, at a market town of the Mallas named Uruvelākappa. Then Bhaddaka Gāminī, the village headman, approached the Blessed One, exchanged greetings, and sat to one side. Seated to one side, he said this to the Blessed One: "Venerable Sir, it would be good if the Blessed One would teach me about suffering (dukkha), the origin of suffering (samudaya), and the cessation of suffering (atthaṅgama)."
What is he asking? "O Blessed One, teach me about suffering, the cause of suffering, and the cessation of suffering." He is asking about his own suffering, the cause for its arising, and the way for its cessation.
Then the Buddha says, "Gāminī, if I were to teach you about suffering, its origin, and its cessation with reference to the past... thinking 'it was thus in the past'... doubt could arise in you about that." Now, the Buddha tells him something. "Bhaddaka, your question is good. However, if I were to teach you about past suffering, you could have doubts about it." Why would teaching about past suffering be a problem? The past has gone by a long time ago. We don't even remember it. Some things, even if we try to recall them, we can't. So a case like that could be problematic. "Therefore, Bhaddaka, I will not speak about past suffering."
"Similarly, the future... we do not know if we will suffer in the future, or experience happiness. We don't even know if we will be alive. We cannot speak about the future. So I will not speak to you about future suffering either."
"If I were to teach you with reference to the future, thinking 'it will be thus in the future,' doubt and uncertainty could arise in you about that. Instead, Gāminī, putting aside the past and the future, I will teach you the Dhamma right here, as you are sitting right here: 'When this exists, that comes to be...'"
So if not the past or the future, what is left to teach? The present moment. Right now. Bhaddaka is there with the Buddha. The Buddha tells Bhaddaka, "I will teach you about this very moment. Right now." This means what Bhaddaka did before coming from home is not relevant. What might happen to Bhaddaka in the future is not relevant. The question he asked was about suffering, its origin, and its cessation (dukkha, samudaya, atthaṅgama). The Buddha says he will teach it.
Now the Buddha asks Gāminī, "Gāminī, what do you think about this? In your village, Uruvelākappa... are there people there... let's say there are 10 houses in that village. You know all 10 houses. Now, if someone in one of those 10 houses were to die, and you hear the news of their death. You hear the news at this very moment. At this moment. What moment? This moment." In those days, there were no phones...In today's age, you would get a phone call telling you that someone from your village or your home has died, or been sent to jail, or had an accident. I am putting this in modern terms. Or perhaps that the private photos of someone you know have been leaked, and they have been disgraced and ruined. You hear something like this. The Buddha asks, "Are there people in your village for whom, if you heard such news at this very moment, you would feel sorrow? That sorrow would arise, you would heave a sigh and think, 'Oh my, did that really happen?' Are there such people in your village?"
If I were to ask you that question—if I asked Anuhas—if you heard about someone from your village, or your home, or anyone you know... if you got a call or a message right now saying, let's say, your father had an accident, would sorrow and grief arise in you? Would you be able to continue listening to this sermon?
When Gāminī was asked this, he replied, "Yes, Lord, there are such people in my village. If such a message were to come, it would devastate me." You see, something has already happened to someone else. Like that friend of mine who was here, who got the news the day before yesterday that his mother had passed away, right? He got a vehicle at three in the morning and left. You didn't know, we didn't know. He was staying here in Thiththagalla, but his hometown is Gampaha. He got the news. What happened? He couldn't stay. He left. Now he's asking if he can come back. I said he can't. You only get one chance. I told him not to even think about coming back to this area unless he is prepared to build a hut here and commit in that specific way. Otherwise, don't come back, I'll chase you away from the boundary.
Alright? And just the other day, that young man asked if he could go to Galle. If you go to Galle, you've gone. That's it. Don't come back to this area again. That's my way.
So, when Bhaddaka was asked, he said, "Yes, Lord, there are people whose misfortune would cause me mental pain." He says there are such people in the village of Uruvelākappa.
Next, the Buddha asks the opposite question. "Gāminī, now, you again receive news. News comes from a friend or someone else at this very moment. That so-and-so has been ruined. He's gone to jail, he's died. If you heard that, it wouldn't bother you at all. No sorrow would arise in you. No sadness would arise. No sighing or lamentation would arise. Are there such people in your village as well?"
"Yes, Lord, there are such people too. If I hear that certain people are ruined, it's not a problem for me." There are people like that, he says.
Now, look. Regarding people from the very same village, hearing about one person disturbs his mind, while hearing that another person from the same village is ruined is not a problem for him; he just carries on with his own work. We are also like that, aren't we?
Now, what was the question the noble Bhaddaka asked? About suffering (dukkha) and its cause. The Buddha is trying to get the answer from Bhaddaka himself. I am explaining this sutta so that you can understand the point I made earlier.
Next, the Buddha asks, "Gāminī, when a death, a bondage, a loss, or a disgrace occurs to the people in the village of Uruvelākappa, what is the reason that for some, sorrow arises in you, and for others, sorrow does not arise?"
Just like for Anuhas here. If he hears news that his father has died, it will be very difficult. But if he hears that some other father at the far end of some distant village has died, would he even ask me for permission to leave? If you got a message on your phone right now about that, you wouldn't ask, would you? You'd put it aside and listen to the sermon, right? It's of no consequence. Why? What is the reason?
When you hear one piece of news, sorrow and lamentation arise for someone from your own village, but when you hear another piece of news, such sorrow and lamentation do not arise. What do you think is the cause?
Ah, correct. That is your answer. With one group, there is the thought, "He is my friend, that is my father, my mother." With the other, even though they are from the same village, that strong sense of 'mine' is not there. What is it then? Along with that sense of 'mine-ness', what is there? There is a bond (bændīmak). To put it another way, a sense of self-identification (mamatvayak).
Now, he gives the answer. Look at the answer Gāminī gives: "Lord, for those people in the village of Uruvelākappa whose death, bondage, loss, or disgrace would cause sorrow and grief to arise in me, it is because I have desirous attachment (chandarāga) towards them."
What is this chandarāga? It is liking, desire (kæmætta, āsāva). You have a desire concerning your father. The next word that comes with that desire is the idea of 'mine' (magē). What idea? 'Mine'. We bring in 'mine' because of our desire. "He is one of my people. I have a liking for him." That Pali word is chandarāga.
"And as for those people, Blessed One, about whom I do not grieve—whose death, bondage, or disgrace does not cause sorrow to arise—it is because I have no chandarāga towards them."
There it is. So, what is it? That Pali is very beautiful, but I am explaining it quickly to get the point across, otherwise this sutta alone would take hours. The Buddha says, "Gāminī, all suffering that arises, arises rooted in desire (chanda), with desire as its source." Then the Buddha says, "That which you have just realized, in this very moment, this timeless (akālika) Dhamma that you have penetrated... now apply this same principle to the past and the future."
The Buddha is asking, "What did you learn in this moment?" What did he learn? "Why does suffering arise for me?" Why? Because of desirous attachment (chandarāga). Or, because of the feeling of 'mine'. Why did suffering not arise? Because the feeling of 'mine', the chandarāga, was absent.
Now, apply this very principle. If any suffering arose in the past, what was the cause? Chandarāga. If any suffering did not arise in the past, what was the reason? The absence of chandarāga. Now, for the future. As you live on, if suffering arises, what will be the cause? Chandarāga.
Now the problem is solved, isn't it? So who answered the question? The Buddha, or he himself? He himself. The Buddha just asked the questions that led to the answer. This is what is called subjecting the mind to wise attention (yoniso manasikāra). Why couldn't he figure out that answer before? Because he didn't have that kind of wise attention. It is a quality of the Buddha that sometimes he gives the answers, and at other times, he extracts the answer from the one who asked. Why? So that the person realizes it for himself. Couldn't the Buddha have given the answer? Of course. If he had just said "It's chandarāga" at the very beginning, the man would not have understood. Now, did he understand it because the Buddha told him, or because he realized it in his own mind?
When he said that chandarāga arises, was he talking about the external world, or about his own mental world? He gave the answer right then and there, but his village wasn't physically present. His village existed in his mind. The memory-impression of his village arose. He was answering from his own world of experience.
So the story goes on like that. The Buddha elaborates further, and then Bhaddaka exclaims, "Wonderful, Lord, truly amazing! How well-spoken (subhāsita) is this teaching! Lord, whatever suffering arose in the past, all of it was rooted in desire (chanda). Desire was the root, desire was the primary cause. And whatever suffering may arise in the future, that too will be rooted in desire. Desire will be its cause. How well-spoken this is!"
Then the Buddha says... No, Bhaddaka says, "Lord, I have a young son named Ciravāsī." Now he is talking about his son. "He lives in a separate house, Lord. Every morning, I wake up and send a man out, saying, 'Go, man, and find out about the welfare of Prince Ciravāsī.' Lord, until that man returns, my mind is in a state of agitation, thinking, 'May no harm come to Prince Ciravāsī!'"
"Gāminī, what do you think? If your son Ciravāsī were to die, or meet with some trouble or disgrace, would sorrow and grief arise in you?"
"Lord, if my son Ciravāsī were to die or fall into disgrace, immense sorrow and grief would arise in me." The short story is that whenever suffering arises, for whatever reason, it arises. So, even the sorrow for one's children is rooted in what? It is rooted in desire (āsāva).
This is what your parents are thinking while you all are here. But do your parents think their suffering arises from desire, or because of you? When your parents scold you, do they say, "We are suffering because of our own desire"? No, they say, "We are suffering because of you!" What do they say? "What a disaster we've created by raising you! We are suffering!" But that's not what's really happening. It's their own chandarāga. When you all go home, you can teach them this. "It's not because of us that you suffer. It's because of your own chandarāga that you both suffer." That's all.
Next, the Buddha asks, "Gāminī, what do you think about this? On a day before you had seen or heard of Ciravāsī's mother, did you have any desire (chanda), passion (rāga), or love (pema) for her?"
Think about it. Some of you only met each other after coming here. The Buddha asks about Ciravāsī's mother. He's asking this of Bhaddaka. If you hadn't come here, hadn't met her, hadn't seen her... that's what the Buddha is asking about. "During that time when you had not seen or met her, did any desire, passion, or love arise in you for this lady?"
"No, Lord, it did not." Why? Did she not exist in the world then? She existed, but she had not become his world. He had not made her part of his 'mine' world. How many people are there in this world? Do they all become part of our world? No. Only if we see them, hear about them, or associate with them.
The Buddha asks, "Gāminī, did this desire, passion, and love for Ciravāsī's mother arise after either seeing her or hearing about her?" The love affair started after seeing her, or perhaps after hearing about her. Nowadays, you can tell Anuhas, "I have a younger sister, I can set you up if you like." Anuhas hasn't seen her. So how does it start? Through hearing. You can fall in love through hearing too. On Facebook, you see one picture, but when you go to meet them, it's someone else. So you don't even need to see someone to fall in love. It happens through seeing or hearing. That's what the Buddha is asking about.
"Yes, Lord. Now, Gāminī, what do you think? If Ciravāsī's mother were to die, or be imprisoned, or suffer a loss or disgrace, would sorrow and lamentation arise in you?"
"Lord, if that were to happen to her, it is possible that trouble would befall me as well." So the worldly attachment is still there. That chandarāga is still there. "It is possible that a world would arise for me too. That sorrow could arise in me."
The Buddha concludes, "Gāminī, this is the principle. Whenever any suffering arises—whether it's for a wife, a child, or the people of the village, whatever the suffering may be—what is the root of all suffering?" Chandarāga.
Now, after getting this answer, Bhaddaka had a great awakening, didn't he? A happiness arose. So the Buddha confirmed it for him. "Now, have no more doubts. If suffering arises, its root is none other than one's own craving (taṇhā)."
So, when this craving arises... let's say someone says they love Anuhas. Does that love arise for this physical body of maybe 40 kilograms? No. Is it for this body, which, when you add gravity, has a weight of 400 Newtons? Or is it for the mental world that one has built? Apply this to yourself. The suffering that comes from love feels much heavier than 40 kilos, doesn't it? If things go wrong, as the Buddha said, you feel it, don't you?
Therefore, the Buddha was not showing him about this external world made of the four great elements. He used external examples to point to the inner reality. He used the world of people outside to show the world inside.
So now, what have I clarified for you? What is 'the world' (loka)? It is the world you see with your eye. The world you create in this very moment by hearing with your ear.
Next, when you listen to the Buddha's Dhamma, the Buddha says it is sandiṭṭhika—to be seen here and now. You are to look at it in this very moment. It's not about things in the past or future. For many people, the question, "Will I go to a heavenly world after death?" is a question about the future, not the present moment. The fact that "so-and-so hit me in school" is a past issue, not a present one. When you try to teach the Dhamma using these things, it's hard to understand because the time gap is too large and can cause a lot of doubt.
So the Buddha's method is to teach about this moment. At what moment? This moment. It is in this moment that the world arises. What did I say? The world arises in this moment. How does it arise? Either a world arises because of the eye, or because of the sound I am speaking, or because of something you are looking at, or because of something you are thinking. That's all.
So the world is a rapid process that comes into being in this moment. The world is the seeing at this very moment. The world is the hearing at this very moment. It is a process of certain phenomena (dhammatā) occurring. You see with the eye, a world is constructed. You hear with the ear, a world is constructed and ceases. Both happen. You smell with the nose, a world is constructed. This means there is no pre-existing, static world. Our mental world has no continuous existence. What does it not have? It arises and it ceases. The world of seeing is over when you start hearing with the ear. The world of hearing is over the moment something touches your hand. The world of that touch is over the moment something touches your tongue, or a thought strikes your mind.
You need to see this world that the Buddha points to as dependently arisen (paṭiccasamuppanna). It is not a persistent thing. It arises due to a cause, and ceases with the cessation of the cause. It is crucial to grasp this before trying to understand Right View (sammā diṭṭhi).
Now, why is this Dhamma being taught? For the abandonment of the personality view (sakkāya diṭṭhi). To abandon it, you must first understand what the Buddha meant by sakkāya diṭṭhi. We can translate it into Sinhala, but we must understand the meaning behind the Pali. The simple Sinhala meaning I gave you is: binding oneself with desire (rāga) to this arising world, taking it as 'I' and 'mine'.
Where do we get bound? To the world of forms (rūpa-loka), the world of sounds (sadda-loka), the world of smells, the world of tastes, the world of touches (phoṭṭhabba-loka), and the world of the mind (mano-loka).
When we look at a form, we don't think, "Ah, a form is merely appearing." We think, "I see it. I saw it. How can you say it wasn't like that? That's how it was. Who saw it? I saw it." Now, one has taken the act of seeing, grasped it as 'I', made it 'mine', and is now arguing from within that position. That is sakkāya diṭṭhi. The other person says, "No, that's not what I saw." What arises in your head then? Pleasure, or pressure? That is sakkāya diṭṭhi.
The eye sees colors; where are the letters formed? In the mind. The eye can only see the color pattern of the shape of the letter. But he believes what his eye saw is the truth. "It was I who saw it." That is why eyewitness testimony is not fully accepted in court. They cross-examine eyewitnesses. Why? Because what the eye sees is just a color. If the eye saw absolute truth, we wouldn't need to create laws. The eye cannot be trusted. The person is speaking from what his mind has constructed.
Do you know something? They have done experiments. We see an accident happen. If you ask the witness about it at one time, he says one thing. If you ask him a week later, he tells a completely different story. A month later, another story. So what I understood is, he genuinely saw it with his eye, but he can't honestly repeat the exact same story every time. He could if he memorized it. But he can't because memory itself is impermanent (anicca). He reconstructs the memory at that moment with the help of related objects. So it's not the same thing being created every time. So the person is saying what he feels at that moment.
That is why if the same accident was recounted a hundred times, it would change a hundred times. Small changes will occur. That's why a lawyer asks leading questions. "You saw the vehicle was completely smashed, didn't you?" "Yes." "About what time was that?" "Around 8:00." "And the vehicle was going about 40 km/h?" "Yes." Do you see? The witness constructs the memory in line with the questions. That is the nature of the mind. That is the nature of the mental world. So what do lawyers do? Knowing this, they use various arguments to confuse the issue, making the truth seem false and the false seem true, sending the guilty party home and the innocent one to jail. This happens infinitely, doesn't it? That's the nature of this world; it is not a stable thing. A lawyer doesn't see it, and even if he did see it, he wouldn't see the truth.
So, you need to understand this part.
Original Source (Video):
Title: ලෝකයෙන් එතෙර වන්න part - 01 | කච්චානගොත්ත සුත්තං | Thithtagalle Anandasiri Thero
https://youtu.be/EjF5rdiccMk?si=BcsiMlvtpcmJPe1u
Disclaimer
The translations shared on this blog are based on Dhamma sermons originally delivered in Sinhalese. They have been translated into English with the help of AI (ChatGPT & Gemini AI), with the intention of making these teachings more accessible to a broader audience.
Please note that while care has been taken to preserve the meaning and spirit of the original sermons, there may be errors or inaccuracies in translation. These translations are offered in good faith, but they may not fully capture the depth or nuance of the original teachings.
This blog does not seek to promote or endorse any specific personal views that may be expressed by the original speaker. The content is shared solely for the purpose of encouraging reflection and deeper understanding of the Dhamma.
Comments
Post a Comment