Posts
What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula in Chinese
Showing posts with label Walpola Rahula. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Walpola Rahula. Show all posts
You can get the book from here: https://www.amazon.com/.../ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi...
What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula
This book is a must read for those seeking to have a foundational understanding of the core teachings of Buddha.
In terms of insight it is more towards anatta. (Comments by John Tan below). I personally think the author should have realised anatta.
Sent John Tan quotations:
It must be repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’, as opposed to matter, and that consciousness (viññāṇa) 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 Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life, has persisted from the earliest time to the present day.
This book is a must read for those seeking to have a foundational understanding of the core teachings of Buddha.
In terms of insight it is more towards anatta. (Comments by John Tan below). I personally think the author should have realised anatta.
Sent John Tan quotations:
It must be repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’, as opposed to matter, and that consciousness (viññāṇa) 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 Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life, has persisted from the earliest time to the present day.
One
of the Buddha’s own disciples, Sāti by name, held that the Master
taught: ‘It is the same consciousness that transmigrates and wanders
about.’ The Buddha asked him what he meant by ‘consciousness’. Sāti
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 doctrines 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 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 body and tangible
objects arises a consciousness, and it is called tactile 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, add it is called wood-fire. It may burn on account
of straw, and then it is called straw-fire. So consciousness is named
account to the condition through which it arises.[57]
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, but (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 of 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 consciousness and so
on…’[58]
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 (rūpupāyaṃ), matter as its object (rūpārammaṇaṃ), matter as its support (rūpa-patiṭṭham),
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
objects, mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may
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.’[59]
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 combination of these five groups. They are all impermanent, all
constantly changing. ‘Whatever is impermanent is dukkha’ (Yad aniccaṃ tam dukkhaṃ). 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
Brāhmaṇa, 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
Brāhmaṇa, is human life, like a mountain river.’[60] As the Buddha
told Raṭṭhapāla: ‘The world is in continuous flux and is impermanent.’
One
thing disappears, 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 be called a permanent Self (Ātman),
individuality, or anything 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 really be
called ‘I’.[61] But when these five physical and mental aggregates which
are interdependent are working together in combination as a
physio-psychological machine,[62] 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 (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
These five Aggregate together, which we popularly call a ‘being’ are dukkha itself (saṃkhāra-dukkha). There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says:
‘Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer is found.’[63]
There
is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is
not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself.
Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there
is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you
remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot
fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the
Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’
....
Sometimes you see a man in a restaurant reading while eating – a very common sight. He gives you the impression of being a very busy man, with no time even for eating. You wonder whether he eats or reads. One may say that he does both. In fact, he does neither, he enjoys neither. He is strained, and disturbed in mind, and he does not enjoy what he does at the moment, does not live his life in the present moment, but unconsciously and foolishly tries to escape from life. (This does not mean, however, that one should not talk with a friend while having lunch or dinner.)
....
Sometimes you see a man in a restaurant reading while eating – a very common sight. He gives you the impression of being a very busy man, with no time even for eating. You wonder whether he eats or reads. One may say that he does both. In fact, he does neither, he enjoys neither. He is strained, and disturbed in mind, and he does not enjoy what he does at the moment, does not live his life in the present moment, but unconsciously and foolishly tries to escape from life. (This does not mean, however, that one should not talk with a friend while having lunch or dinner.)
You
cannot escape life however you may try. As long as you live, whether
in a town or in a cave, you have to face it and live it. Real life is
the present moment – not the memories of the past which is dead and
gone, nor the dreams of the future which is not yet born. One who lives
in the present moment lives in the real life, and he is happiest.
When
asked why his disciples, who lived a simple and quiet life with only
one meal a day, were so radiant, the Buddha replied: ‘They do not
repent the past, nor do they brood over the future. They live in the
present. Therefore they are radiant. By brooding over the future and
repenting the past, fools dry up like green reeds cut down (in the
sun).’[164]
Mindfulness,
or awareness, does not mean that you should think and be conscious ‘I
am doing this’ or ‘I am doing that’. No. Just the contrary. The moment
you think ‘I am doing this’ you become self-conscious, and then you do
not live in the action, but you live in the idea ‘I am’, and
consequently your work too is spoilt. You should forget yourself
completely, and lose yourself in what you do. The moment a speaker
becomes self-conscious and thinks ‘I am addressing an audience’, his
speech is disturbed and his trend of thought broken. But when he forgets
himself in his speech, in his subject, then he is at his best, he
speaks well and explains things clearly. All great work – artistic,
poetic, intellectual or spiritual – is produced at those moments when
its creators are lost completely in their actions, when they forget
themselves altogether, and are free from self-consciousness.
This
mindfulness or awareness with regard to our activities, taught by the
Buddha, is to live in the present moment, to live in the present
action. (This is also the Zen way which is based primarily on this
teaching.) Here in this form of meditation, you haven’t got to perform
any particular action in order to develop mindfulness, but you have
only to be mindful and aware of whatever you may do. You haven’t got to
spend one second of your precious time on this particular
‘meditation’: you have only to cultivate mindfulness and awareness
always, day and night, with regard to all activities in your usual daily
life. These two forms of ‘meditation’ discussed above are connected
with our body.
Then
there is a way of practising mental development (‘meditation’) with
regard to all our sensations or feelings, whether happy, unhappy or
neutral. Let us take only one example. You experience an unhappy,
sorrowful sensation. In this state your mind is cloudy, hazy, not
clear, it is depressed. In some cases, you do not even see clearly why
you have that unhappy feeling. First of all, you should learn not to be
unhappy about your unhappy feeling, not to be worried about your
worries. But try to see clearly why there is a sensation or a feeling of
unhappiness, or worry, or sorrow. Try to examine how it arises, its
cause, how it disappears, its cessation. Try to examine it as if you
are observing it from outside, without any subjective reaction, as a
scientist observes some object. Here, too, you should not look at it as
‘my feeling’ or ‘my sensation’ subjectively, but only look at it as ‘a
feeling’ or ‘a sensation’ objectively. You should forget again the
false idea of ‘I’. When you see its nature, how it arises and
disappears, your mind grows dispassionate towards that sensation, and
becomes detached and free. It is the same with regard to all sensations
or feelings.
Now
let us discuss the form of ‘meditation’ with regard to our minds. You
should be fully aware of the fact whenever your mind is passionate or
detached, whenever it is overpowered by hatred, ill-will, jealousy, or
is full of love, compassion, whenever it is deluded or has a clear and
right understanding, and so on and so forth. We must admit that very
often we are afraid or ashamed to look at our own minds. So we prefer
to avoid it. One should be bold and sincere and look at one’s own mind
as one looks at one’s face in a mirror.[165]
Here
is no attitude of criticizing or judging, or discriminating between
right and wrong, or good and bad. It is simply observing, watching,
examining. You are not a judge, but a scientist. When you observe your
mind, and see its true nature clearly, you become dispassionate with
regard to its emotions, sentiments and states. Thus you become detached
and free, so that you may see things as they are.
[10:23 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: This book is nice
[10:23 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: This book is nice
[10:23 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: I didnt see the buddhaghosa quote in the first two pages above before
[10:23 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: I think its clear and good
[10:23 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: The fire and wood
[10:29 PM, 1/23/2021] John Tan: Yes
[11:20 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: I think the only point missing is what dependently originates does not truly originate
[11:20 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: But that would be the unique point of mahayana and this book is theravadin
[11:43
PM, 1/23/2021] John Tan: What does they mean in this context? The
subjectively is "gone" and everything turns "objective". How this
notion "objectively" arise? Because of this, there is "existence".
These notions "objectively", "existence" r what "inherentness" mean. If
nothing is "inherently" there, then it is neither subjective nor
objective but merely designated as objective or subjective, this is the
"conceptual level" of release I m talking abt. Then there is the level
of taste i told u.
[11:44 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: oic..
[11:44 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: so the book is more like anatta but turn into objectivity
[11:47 PM, 1/23/2021] John Tan: It is anatta, otherwise path towards emptiness will be clear.
[11:48 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: ic..
[11:48 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: yeah i think the author realised anatta
[11:49 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: i told anurag to get this book, he got it yesterday
[11:58 PM, 1/23/2021] John Tan: I heard many said it is a good book
[11:58 PM, 1/23/2021] Soh Wei Yu: yeah.. i think its the best introduction to buddha's teachings
