Dhamma Must Be an Experience | 2025 Vesak Poya Day| Dhamma Siddhi Thero

මුල් සිංහල වීඩියෝව සඳහා Play කරන්න

Dhamma Must Be an Experience | 2025 Vesak Poya Day| Dhamma Siddhi Thero

 

Monk: In your ordinary life, take a moment to scan every person you meet. See what "type" they are. You will be able to place them into two categories. When, over time, the nature of a virtuous person (satpuruṣa) builds within us, the result is that we will only encounter that virtuous nature before us. For as long as the nature of an unvirtuous person (asatpuruṣa) builds within us, that is what will appear and what we will meet in front of us. Really, the problem isn't out there; it's our problem. So, if we are in a state where we are still encountering a problematic world, before pointing a finger at that world, we should investigate a little as to why that is. If you trace the problem back to its root, you will understand, "It is because something like that exists inside me that these very things are projected back at me."

Layperson: Thoughts are also like that, venerable sir, aren't they?

Monk: That's right. That’s exactly right. For as long as we have a preference for certain types of thoughts, it is those very types that we will encounter. It's cause and effect (hetu-phala).

Layperson: I have taught this to my students so many times.

Monk: Just now, I spoke to a teacher who had retired. Afterwards, the teacher was scolding herself. "We fill ourselves with this knowledge, carry this huge load, but in reality, we don't know a damn thing." She was scolding herself. I just listened for a bit. Then I said, "The very fact that you understand this means you are a considerably developed person, teacher." That much is understood, isn't it? If that is understood, there is nothing else for us to do. Can we just cut it out and remove it? No. It's through understanding that we see, "this happens because of this." That's how it is.

For example, if two lawyers get married, that's a whole different thing... that's the vibe in the house. Do you understand? Yes, it's very likely. Their thinking pattern, their day-to-day life activities, tend to be a bit logical. It's not always like that, not exactly, but it leans that way. However, once they understand, they gradually learn to keep that for their professional life only and adopt a pattern of living a normal, pleasant life. For some people, it takes a long time to understand this.

There are some ladies who work in the police force, and at home, it's also the police station. It's the same behavior. The children become very oppressed without even realizing it. That's because she isn't "reading" herself when she looks at her children or does her work. I get calls from the husbands of such wives, asking how to change these things. The important thing is just this: to read oneself. Then, people change.

Layperson: But venerable sir, for us to "read" someone... it takes time, doesn't it, to figure out what kind of person they are?

Layperson 2: Sometimes, venerable sir, that discovery is also just a thought of ours, isn't it? Meaning, when we "find out" about someone, the story is about whether they are good or bad. So, that's just a thought, right? It just came to my mind... about those volitional formations (saṅkhāra) that have occurred. So, we label them as "bad."

Monk: Yes. When you first met them, they were good, right? Yes. But later, as our "data" comes in, they become bad. Then, after that, if you get more data that points to the good side, you'll think, "Oh, whatever the monk said, there must be something to it. That person is actually so good." You fall for that, right? It's not about choosing who others are; it's about yourself.

This is the way our mind works. It constantly creates things based on data. Yes, yes. Don't get angry at it. That is the nature of the mind. Once you recognize that, even if the mind says, "this person is so good," you don't take it too seriously. Even if it rejects someone as "bad," you don't take that too seriously either. It's just the mind. That’s all.

Every human being possesses virtuous qualities (satpuruṣakama). Most people cause problems out of helplessness, when they don't know what to do, or because, according to their level of knowledge and education, it's the best option they have for survival. In truth, someone might act against us, but they aren't doing it just to be against us. They have their own valid reasons.

Layperson: They have their own valid reasons. The person who was wronged also has them.

Layperson 2: In the movie Suriya Arana, there was a hunter on the other side, right? In that movie, a monk arrives, but he has to exist alongside the man who kills animals.

Monk: However, we never give advice from his place, saying, "Don't eat this, don't kill animals."

Layperson: They wouldn't accept it anyway.

Monk: Yes, even if they came and listened, they wouldn't really hear it. It's the rhythm those people have lived in for so long. It's only when they themselves understand and come and confess, "I have lived such a life for so long. When you, venerable sirs, were nearby, I didn't understand this, but now I do," that we say something from that point onwards. Apart from that, we don't try to save them, to free them, to do this or that for them, to show them liberation (vimutti). We can't do that.

Layperson: In that case, venerable sir, when propagating the Buddha's teachings, did they initially do that work? Like with the group of five ascetics (pañcavaggiya bhikkhū)...

Monk: Then, the Blessed One also considered, based on the characters He had associated with, "Who might understand this, even a little?" It's not about whether to say it or not. The reason he considered them was because he had spent time with them in Uruvelā and had some understanding of their dispositions. He thought of them while he was over 200 kilometers away. From Buddhagaya to Varanasi, he walked that far and only then, after three months, did he speak.

Layperson: Ah, so it was after three months.

Monk: That's right. Otherwise, he could have just gone around telling every single person he met. He met one person [Upaka]. That person asked a question, and He gave an answer. It didn't matter to that person. He said, "It may be so," and went on his way.

Layperson: It says, "It may be so, it may not be so," and he continued on.

Monk: That's how it is. He didn't try to argue, "No, it is indeed so," . He went on his journey. and force his path on him. Upaka met him again during his Buddha’s final period of life. "If only I had understood what you said that day..."

Layperson: Venerable sir, is the Buddha Dhamma the only way to get to this point? I mean, to this concept of Nibbana or enlightenment?

Monk: My understanding is that as long as you hold onto the idea of "Buddha Dhamma," you won't find a path. That's not what I mean. Don't think of it as something that can be attained from within a category called "Buddhism." If you do, a great injustice occurs where it seems that no one in any other country in the world can turn towards this path of understanding. It’s not like that. It's not the "religion" that is important to us. It is the way we see the world, the way we read ourselves. If someone can do that beautifully, in accordance with the Middle Path (madhya pratipadāva) found in the Buddha's teaching, that is the Buddha Dhamma.

Think about it. We preach the Five Precepts (pañcasīla) as the number one thing everywhere. Whether it's a sermon, an alms-giving, or any gathering, we start by administering the five precepts. But even though the precepts are given so much in Sri Lanka, in reality, the majority of people break them.

Layperson: That's right, venerable sir.

Monk: However, there are people in other countries who don't know a thing about the Five Precepts, yet they live by those five things naturally. They do it naturally, without formally undertaking them. They do it naturally. They don't even know.

Layperson: That's right, venerable sir.

Monk: So where is this Dhamma? That's why I say it is wrong to put this into such a category. When I was speaking yesterday, I said that on the path of searching for something, the sources that I encountered that resonated most deeply within me were from Mahayana Buddhism, which does not heavily promote the Five Precepts. That's Buddha Dhamma. The topics we discuss from our Tripiṭaka are not the main points emphasized in their teachings. Therefore, you can't just put "Buddhism" in a box and take it as just this one thing. What I'm saying is that what we define as "Buddha Dhamma" is not the only thing.

It is better than groping around in the frame of a "religion," thinking "this Dhamma is only found within this." It's better to think, "The path must be within myself. There must be something here." or "Whatever the fault is, it must be inside of me." If you can just turn your attention in that direction, if you can incline towards it, you will be fine.

In the end, what you will find is the Buddha Dhamma. Even if an American does it, what they find when they change is also the Buddha Dhamma. However, there isn't a fixed path where you hold "Buddha Dhamma" in your hand and follow it step-by-step. The path is about aligning the content of the Buddha Dhamma with your life experience. It's like when weaving cloth, how two threads beautifully intertwine, like this. If you check to see if such a combination exists in the end, if someone has ended suffering (dukkha), then without a doubt, the Four Noble Truths (caturārya satya) found in the Tripiṭaka will have become manifest to him. However, during the time he is realizing it, he doesn't know "Is this the Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha-ariya-sacca)? Is this the origin (samudaya)? Is this the cessation (nirodha)?" He hasn't even heard of it. He doesn't know of a cessation (nirodha). But if you look at the final result, what has happened is that he has discovered what the Buddha discovered.

From your question, I sense you might be heading towards one particular side. I'm not saying to stop that. But don't take "Buddha Dhamma" as a specific thing for study. If you do, what you will encounter are the definitions, interpretations, and various things that different people have presented as "Buddha Dhamma." Don't get bogged down by them. It's good to listen to them and, if they seem fitting, compare them with your own life experiences and move forward by reading yourself. If it doesn't resonate with you that much, don't feel sad about it, don't worry, don't make it a burden. Put it aside for a little while. "Even though I don't understand it now, one day I will." Like Upaka. You don’t understand now. "But I will definitely encounter an experience through which I will understand this."

Without that attitude, if you start thinking, "I don't understand the Dhamma, it's not sinking in," you just burden the mind and go back to being in a state of suffering. Don't stay there. The lighter you are, the more open you are, the more understanding will come.

Layperson: The idea that there is no birth after death... that's not something that can be said lightly, venerable sir. Could you please share your thoughts on that?

Monk: I got ordained in the year 1991. I have done everything possible to understand this. During my time in the pirivena (monastic college), I studied the books, the Tripiṭaka. I did it at the university level too, studying the Pali language. During both those periods, my subjects included comparative religion and inter-sectarian philosophy. Because of that, I had to read about Mahayana and had the time to read other philosophies for my thesis.

Layperson: About 30 years now…33 years since you got ordained if you got ordained in 1991?

Monk: 1991.Yes, 33. So, amidst all that, I lived a separate life of my own. While that learning was proceeding on one side, I had my own life story. The foundation of that entire story was suffering (dukkha). Nowhere did I ever encounter what you would call satisfaction. That's the kind of life I had.

Layperson: Are you saying that mean your life was filled with suffering?

Monk: Actually, I was truly searching for happiness, but I never found that state of satisfaction anywhere. It was like that.

Amidst this, the other thing also comes in: the Dhamma. Through life experiences, as I mentioned, it has to be like weaving a cloth, where things intertwine one by one. It has to come through experience. The Dhamma must become an experience.

On the journey I took in this way, what I finally came to terms with is that death is a complete concept. It is interpreted in various ways. Those are not problems for me. They are not a burden to me. The world has ideas about rebirth (punarbhava) or reincarnation (punarutpatti), that it certainly happens after death, or that it doesn't. There is no hard evidence to show it this way or that. There are anecdotal stories, like a child who died and was reborn here or there. Such stories exist, right? They are explained in other ways, even scientifically. There are such stories. I'm talking about all of those stories. All phenomena and the entire Dhamma... all of it is grasped by our ears and eyes, isn't it? I'll start from there. Whatever the entirety of the world is, it is built within me through my eye and ear. Without these five senses, there is no world, no Dhamma, no Nibbana, no hell, nothing at all. And I am not saying "nothing exists" as an extreme view either. The word "doesn't exist" carries the same weight as "exists."

From that standpoint, the place I have felt and understood is this: Within me now, there is no idea whatsoever about a next existence. There is no signal, no fear. When you are free from these two things—fear of the future and regret for the past—the burden you feel now, "Will this happen to me after I die? Will I go somewhere? Did I really come from some past life?"—none of those stories exist. If it exists, it exists as the last event that happened and what we infer will happen next based on that. There is this life spread around an area like this table. That’s the lifestyle.

So, when you ask me that question, I respect the view you hold. And then I say, you are asking that question while leaning towards the side that believes in birth after death, or in the results of karma (kamma-phala). That is where the questioner stands. According to their position, I say, "Yes, there may be a birth after death." When listening to our sermons, some people are told that it exists. To some others—when I sense that this person will understand—I speak to them not so much about its existence, but about the way it is constructed, the way it arises. That is why we never give the same sermon twice. Relative to each individual, we only speak what is necessary to awaken what is inside them. After speaking, sometimes at the very end, I will say, "Everything I just said was a lie, don't take it too seriously," and then leave. Do you understand?

Another thing became very clear to me. No matter how much we struggle to make someone understand, they only understand through themselves, through their own life experiences. Likewise, for whomever the cause and effect for understanding arises, the natural law will certainly do them justice. There is nothing we can do about it. Even if we don't want you to be liberated (vimutti), he will be. There's nothing that can be done. They will attain liberation. This is not fatalism (niyativāda). Nature provides justice to that person according to the rhythm in which they exist.

Layperson: When we were young, we had no questions, did we? Of course, heavens exist. Of course, hells exist. It's only later that this starts to change. Then we think, "My question... if something happens to me and I try to build a case or get angry, now I need an answer to that." But it's because of hearing things like this that we changed, venerable sir.

Monk: Sir, That’s where we changed... we used to preach to people only about the next world. We praised the heavenly realms, constantly spoke of the benefits of giving alms (dāna). The reason I left behind the temple tradition that the Sangha has practiced for ages and came out into this forest monastery tradition was because I could no longer uphold that falsehood. Alright? I can no longer praise heavenly worlds. I can no longer create the fear of hell. Because in doing so, I am telling a lie. I am not speaking from direct experience (pratyakṣa). I cannot engage in that falsehood. That's why I let that tradition continue on its own and stepped aside.

Layperson: So, don't you get problems from the other monks?

Monk: Whatever issues they may have are not relevant to me. Because I am not bound or tied to them. I have no such relationship. At one time, we had a connection through the monastic order (sāsana)...

Layperson: What you are saying... do you tell everyone to accept it?

Monk: I have never said that. Never.

Layperson: It's just to awaken the mind .

Monk: Yes, yes. To think a little more broadly. For those who I see are stuck in other ways of thinking, I just give a little knock on the doors— "There's a door here too. There's this way as well." I just try to show a wider perspective, that's all. They have to do it themselves.

People gathered around me and struggled to make me understand. Do you see what I'm saying? Yes. When I was staying with my teacher monk, after he finished giving a sermon and discussion, as soon as some conversation started elsewhere, those who thought they had understood would gather around me. They would start explaining at length. "Venerable sir didn't mean that... No, you didn't understand. Think of it this way..." As one person started, another would join in, then another. Alright? Even then, I would listen to everything they said, but I remained in my own position. Not in a rigid, stubborn way. I was listening, thinking, "If there is something to be heard, I will hear it. It will be understood." Perhaps they are explaining something they have understood, even if I haven't. Maybe when I talk with the venerable sir tomorrow, I will understand what they were trying to say. I remained in that kind of open place. It is the same even today.

I will never give a proclamation to the world that I have realized the truth. If I were to give such a proclamation, it would have to be at the moment of my death. Because I am speaking of my freedom based on the entirety of my experiences up to this moment. Relative to the experiences I have had up to now... let's say tomorrow my leg has to be amputated. At that moment, I must be able to check: is this the same 'he'? Do you understand? Is it the same person who is cooled (nivila) still here now? When both legs are amputated, can a strange kind of burning arise? If it can, how? In that case, I still have many exercises to do.

Finally, at the moment of death, all the sense faculties become inactive. But our mind says, "I need some water." But you can’t even say it using your mouth. At that moment, am I still within the boundary of this understanding?

Layperson: In that case, venerable sir, why postpone it? Until the moment the leg is cut...

Monk: Are you telling me to cut it now and see?

Layperson: no, it's not like that. The arahants we have heard about... they don't need to go to such lengths for something to happen. They can react to whatever comes their way...

Monk: In daily life today that is the way I proceed. I'm talking about an example. How many more tests and experiences will we have to face in our lives beyond what we have already received? We need to be able to see if this peaceful existence we speak of is still there on that day. That is what daily practice is for. Problems must come, conflicts must happen, arguments and debates must occur. Do you understand what I'm saying? Struggles must come. We must exist within them. When we are in them, if we have faults, they will begin to be seen. The problems inside us will clash. I take that daily "update." That is how this moves forward. Therefore, if you think you will become an Arahant today and from tomorrow live in some special way as an Arahant, I say that itself is a sign of non-Arahantship.

Layperson: Their non-Arahantship…?

Monk: non-Arahantship…

Layperson: How did the Buddha put it? That he became a Buddha before going to death...

Monk: That "death," my friend, the way I have understood it, is like this: Take an object of attention. Let's say there is a girl. The mind is repeatedly dying on that object, being born on it, dying, being born, dying, being born… it just spins around in one place. However, in the physical world, we speak of the phrase "kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā" [Pali: with the breakup of the body, after death]. That's the story of what is attained after the breaking up of this body. For me, that story is very distant. And even a fear of death (maraṇa bhītikā) arising from any object of attention… If it does come, I'll know. And at that time, it is good food for me. A good test. I can see, "when something like this comes, this is what happened to me." Such flavorful food is rare.

What I am saying is that the investigation should not be about a death that isn't here now. It is this phenomenon of passing away and rearising (cutūpapāta) that is happening moment by moment within us—that is what needs to be observed. That is my view. When that is observed correctly, if suffering (dukkha) dies within that understanding, suffering cannot be born again. One must be born from understanding. When one is born from understanding, in the next moment, there is no suffering there. If, after a sorrowful experience is over, the very same grief (domanassa) persists into the next moment, there is a problem in the understanding. One must immediately come to insight meditation (vidarśanā), right there, and ask, "Why is this coming again like this? Why is it coming again? Why does this mind die and get reborn on the very same thing?" That is where the investigation should happen. Is that clear?

When you are in this state of investigation, wisdom (paññā) understands, "It is because of this foolishness that it has to be this way." The mind gives us a sense that "it has to be of such-and-such a nature." After you grasp its nature, then that state you mentioned—of dying over and over again in different places—that fatigue will wear away.

If you are asking that question, I would say to wait a little, at least until I am near death, and then come and ask me. If I feel anything strange about that death then, I will tell you.

Layperson: Previously, we made people very afraid of death. What I mean is...

Monk: I actually did that too. Today, I am unhappy about it from the depths of my being. I created the fear of death in people. I magnified death and showed it to them. I only spoke to people about dying, not about living... about how to live life beautifully. At that time, I didn't tell people that. So, that was something that had to happen from me at that time. I am aware of it with understanding. But I am not willing to continue doing it.

Layperson: Venerable sir, there are some monks who have scared people so much that those people have handed over their property to the monks...

Monk: That's their "project," isn't it? The base on which all religions in this world exist—the foundation of all religion in the world—is birth and death. They "market" it by showing two unseen things: who you were before birth, and who you will be after death. It's the same in Christianity. All other religions are the same. In Islam, they speak of a heavenly kingdom. It's like that.

When you read about the nature of heaven in Islam, it describes a "green environment." A completely green-colored environment. They also emphasize many reservoirs and things like that. "The heaven you go to is like this."

Layperson: Things like receiving 30 virgins...

Monk: What I mean is, the relief offered there is relative to the discontent they have built up. The reason they create a "green environment" is that they live in very arid regions, in desert areas where there are no trees. Do you understand now?

The heaven described in our countries is also constructed with very beautiful women for the men, or men for the women. Then there are these chariots and those chariots, things to eat and drink, dancers and so on. They have created many such things.

So what I'm saying is, I will no longer declare such things that are not directly evident (pratyakṣa) to me in this very moment. If you want to go, you can go and see for yourself, eat and drink well.

But there is one thing I do see. The disposition of people who live beautifully with some understanding of life is similar to the nature of the heavenly realms described in the books. Those people eat well. They dress well. They use good vehicles. They live beautifully. Also, the nature of a god (deva) is the nature of giving. Yes, just as they enjoy things themselves, they give to others. They offer it. So, I see plenty of such god-like people in this world. I will speak about that heaven. To get there, if you are living a normal life, cultivate diligence (vīriya).

In this Buddhism, there are plenty of methods for human progress. There are methods to manage one's finances. The Buddha has given lessons on how to manage what you earn. He has praised diligence (vīriya). These things are also mentioned on the other side, in the perfections (pāramitā). Everything is there.

So, you don't need to die to go to a heavenly world. If any person practices in this world what is needed to get onto the path to a heavenly world, they can make their own life a beautiful heaven. This is what I talk about. I am done with telling stories of a heaven you go to after death.

Layperson: Hell and heaven is in this life [Inaudible]

Monk: What I’m saying is we shouldn't just hold on to this idea now . I just gave an answer to the question you asked me.

Original Source (Video):

Title: දහම අත්දැකීමක් වෙන්න ඕන | 2025 වෙසක් පෝදා | ‪@dhammasiddhi‬

https://youtu.be/EoQhga9XxLI?si=v4-nMVX8BGa-bSZe

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.