The answer to the first query gave Hemavata sufficient cause to be convinced that the Buddha referred to by Sætægiri was the genuine one. But to be more sure, Hemavata made a second query. Hemavata’s second query Hemavata said. “Friend Sætægiri, does your teacher not take the property the owner has not given by action or by word of mouth? Does He not rob or steal?” No pilfering at all Taking anything that is not given by its owner is stealing. Stealing consists in taking by stealth or taking by force. This question would seem to Buddhists an insolent one. To ask whether such a personality as the Buddha had ever taken anything by stealth or by force is downright rude. Even if the same question were put to a present-day monk it would be taken as rude. The person who is so asked would be greatly offended. “Is your teacher, the monk, free of pilfering?” It is indeed an insolent question. But in those days such a question was not impertinent nor was it insolent. Those were the days when people were eagerly looking for the genuine Buddha, and many bogus Buddhas were on the scene. The prominent bogus ones such as Puræ¼a Kassapa and five others were claiming that they were Buddhas. Their followers were adoring them and taking refuge in them in the belief that they were real Buddhas. These bogus Buddhas were giving sermons dismissing the idea of kusala and akusala (good deed and evil deed.) Sætægiri and Hemavata had been devas since the latter part of Kassapa Buddha’s sæsana till the beginning of Gotama Buddha’s attainment of Buddhahood. For such a long period these two celestial beings would have had experiences of pretenders to Buddhahood at a time when people were eagerly awaiting the coming of the Buddha, just as citizens of a country were awaiting the coming of their real king when many pretenders sprang up to claim the throne. Hemavata knew that the bogus ones were not free of pilfering, so he had put this question. He wanted to examine Sætægiri’s teacher in respect of misdeeds. Today we can compare notes with many persons who have been worshiping something or somebody as God. According to their testament, their God does not seem to be free of bad deeds. Their God, the Creator, is said to have punished some persons with death and destruction of property, and such acts are considered in Buddhism as evil deeds. Therefore, Hemavata’s question was not impertinent; it was quite pertinent in the context of the prevailing situation of those days. Then Hemavata asked. Is He free of guilt of torture and lassitude? “How is that? Is your teacher, the Buddha, free of the guilt of torture and also of lassitude? Lassitude is a kind of forgetfulness. Whole being overwhelmed by sexual desires one is apt to forget that it is sin to commit fornication. Sexual intercourse is an ignoble act, and such act is sin if committed under unwarranted circumstances “Forgetfulness” used in the original Pæ¹i text is a euphemism for immorality. Rude words of takkadun Kassapa This takkadun (one following the wrong path) was named Kassapa. He was, of course not Puræ¼a Kassapa, a Buddha-pretender. He came to Venerable Bakula about fifty years after the passing away of the Buddha. The takkadun belonged to a sick which required its members to practise asceticism with no clothes on. This Kassapa was a follower of Niganda Nætaputta, a well-known leader of the sect. The later members of this sect became what are now called Jains. When I visited Migadavunna Garden in India, I came upon a Jain temple. In that temple were photographs of their monk, called Muni. Muni means a monk in Buddhism. Our buddhist monks are fully clothed in yellow robes but their monks are all naked. We found such naked munis along the banks of Gangæ. This Kassapa was a friend of Venerable Arahat, Bækula, when the latter was a layman. Kassapa asked Bækula: “Friend, how long have you been in the Buddha’s sæsanæ?” Bækula replied “Eighty years” “How many times did you indulge in sexual intercourse during that period?” asked Kassapa. That obviously was an insolent question. Then Venerable Bækþla said: “Friend Kassapa, you should ask, ‘How many times did you think of sex?’ That is a civilized query.” Kassapa revised the wording of his question accordingly. Then Venerable Bækula replied “I became a Arahat on the eighth day of my ordination, and becoming an Arahat means becoming free of all desires of sex. So I say that I had not thought of sex. So I say that I had not thought of sex since the time of my ordination, that is, not once in the eighty years.” This answer surprised Kassapa who then took refuge in the Buddha’s sæsanæ and after practising meditation, became an Arahat. Hemavata was polite because he was not ignorant of the sæsanæ of the Buddha, and so he referred to “forgetfulness” or “lassitude”. He meant to ask if Sætægiri’s teacher was clean of lust. Hemavata asked whether Sætægiri’s teacher, the Buddha was into Jhæna or in other words, was He full of a awareness so that he could reject all lustful desires which are an impediment to Arahathood. Lust is a basic impediment . (Hankering after pleasant things and indulging in pleasures, or (kilesakæma.) If one is free of that, one is said to have attained the first stage of jhæna. Now this question is just a corollary to question of lassitude. Thus, Hemavata had put these questions relating to misdeeds of physical nature, namely, pilfering, killing and sex act. Then he asked about jhæna. “Friend Hemavata, our teacher is free of the guilt of pilfering. He does not steal or rob, like the bogus ones. Why am I so sure? Because the Buddha said in his Dhammacakka sermon that He had found the middle path, majjhima pa¥ipadæ. He also said that he had practised magga³gas. These eight noble truths consists of sammækammanta, right action. This refers to refraining from killing, stealing and sex act. These are the acts one must avoid; and such an avoidance is called virati. Virati is of three kinds; sampatta virati, refraining from evil deeds without formally taking the precepts of søla (observance of morality) samædæna virati refraining from evil deeds after formally taking the precepts of søla: and permanent avoidance by means of Ariyæ magga, called samuccheda virati. Sætægiri knew that the Buddha was free of the guilt or physical misdeeds because the Buddha had declared that He had completed the practice of Ariyæ magga which embraces all the virati, avoidance of all physical misdeeds. So he said, “Our teacher, the Buddha, is free of the guilt of pilfering”. I want to give you a further explanation regarding the question of pilfering. The bogus Buddhas much earlier than the coming of the genuine Buddha, of the six bogus ones, Puræ¼a Kassapa said that killing, stealing, robbing were not evil deeds, and that at the same time, alms-giving and other good acts were not good deeds. Another bogus one, Makkhali Gosæla, said that there was no cause for either misery or happiness, for such states were predestined, and so, however much one did evil deeds one would not suffer in the same way as one would not gain any merit by doing good deeds. There was no such thing as samsæra (cycle of existences), he maintained, and all beings would be saved when their turns came. Pakudha-kaccayana, a leader of another sect, said that all beings were composed of the four elements together with misery, happiness and life, and so if one were to cut a being with a sword, the sword would cut into these seven components but the being would remain unaffected. Ajita, another bogus one, maintained that there was no such thing as the next life for any being, and good deeds and evil deeds would not produce any effect. From the teachings of these bogus ones we can surmise that they encouraged committing evil deeds; they seemed to be urging people to kill and steal. Nobody wants to be killed or robbed As a matter of fact, every being would like to live long, and would not want to be killed, or to be robbed of his or her hard-earned possessions. Therefore, no one should kill anyone. Sacrifices should not be made by killing lives under a mistaken notion that such sacrifices were meritorious deeds. In the same way, no one should steal anyone’s property, either for himself or for others. Yet in those days, the bogus leaders of the sects maintained that killing or stealing was no sin, and it may be inferred that since they said so, they themselves would not be free of such sins. As for the genuine Buddha, these deeds should be declared as sins. He did not commit these sins and would not have anyone commit them. This was what made Hemavata put the question about stealing, to which Sætægiri made a prompt answer saying that his teacher, the Buddha, was free of the sin of stealing because He was in complete practice of sammækammanta. Free by means of samuccheda virati If one were not in complete practise of sammækammanta one would not be quite reliable although one might have declared that he would avoid taking things which the owner had not allowed him to take. One may steal when one has a chance of stealing and cannot resist the temptation. To take an obvious example, at the time of the British evacuation and just before the coming of Japanese troops into this country, most of the people of the towns fled, leaving their property and the people of the countryside swarmed into the towns to loot. It is said that it was an amusing sight to see almirahs too large for the hovels in which these looters lived. These looters were in their ordinary lives observers of the five precepts, but when they were given an opportunity to steal with impunity, their precepts were broken. That is because of the absence of samuccheda virati, that is avoidance of sins by means of Ariyæ magga. As for the Buddha, He was in complete practice of sammækammanata and was therefore free of the sins of stealing and killing. You wouldn’t steal if you had sympathy Stealing other person’s property is an act devoid of sympathetic feeling that a moral person should not have. Nobody likes to be robbed, so also nobody should rob anybody. This feeling of sympathy a moral person would surely have, and so would not have the desire to steal even if he had not formally taken the precepts. This kind of avoidance is called Sampatta virati. The avoidance after taking the precepts is called samædæna virati. On the subject of stealing, a Jain master said, “One’s property is one’s outer life, and so stealing is taking one’s life” This is quite a plausible argument though little contrived. What he meant to say is that killing is an outright taking of another person’s life, and stealing is also another form of taking his life, for his property constitutes his outer life since he has to depend upon it for his living. That person has acquired his property by dint of hard work and diligent saving and hoarding. So his property is the part of his life. Some persons die of sorrow for the loss of their property. That is why the Jain master declared that property is one’s outer life. Freedom from sin of stealing through vipassanæ Even if one is not free of lobha (greed), one should refrain from stealing either by having a feeling of sympathy or by strict observance of the percept. To the yogøs who take cognizance of the incessant happening and immediate passing of things, avoidance of the sin of stealing is already a completed act. To them everything is in the process of incessant happening and immediate decay and passing out, meaning anicca (impermanence); everything going on in that process is therefore not under anybody’s control, meaning anatta, and so the desire to kill or steal will not occur. To the yogøs, the practice of virati is already an accomplished act. Freedom from sin of stealing through Ariyæ magga When the meditational practice reached an advanced stage, one could see the cessation of næma and rþpa and gain the insight of Ariyæ magga. At that time there never occurred any desire to steal or to commit any sin. That is the time of uprooting of all the evil desires by means of Ariyæ virati. This complete abandonment is called samucchedapahæna. This abandonment occurs not only when one reaches the higher stage of meditational insight but even at a lower stage when one becomes a sotæpan. At that stage all the evil deeds referred to in the five precepts (pañca søla) have been uprooted. According to Dhammadæsa sutta, a sotæpan possesses and insight which enables him to know full well the attributes of the Buddha and so he has a deep reverence for Him. In the Same way, he comes to have a strong conviction of the attributes of the dhamma and the samgha. So the sotæpan has come to posses the ability to observe fully the five precepts which the Ariyæs hold in high esteem. So a person reaching the stage of sotæpanna insight becomes fully convinced of the attributes of the Buddha, of the Dhamma, and of the Samgha, and has come into the fold of Ariyæs with an ability to observe the five precepts fully. The Ariyæs adore the five precepts. They do not want to break them; they are always anxious not to break the søla They observe the precepts not because they are afraid that others would censure them but because they want to keep their minds in purity, and purity of the mind can be achieved only by observance of the five precepts. Not only during this life but in all future existences do they not want to fail in keeping the precepts. They may not know that they have become sotæpan in their previous existence but they do know that they must observe the five precepts fully and with no default. Sometimes one comes across a person who has never done any evil deed such as killing or stealing since his infancy. He was not given any particular instructions by his parents, but he knows by himself what is an evil deed and refrains from it and keeps his søla in purity since his childhood. Maybe, he had achieved a special insight of the dhamma in his previous existence. There are also instances of persons who thought born of non-Buddhist parents have come all the way to this country to practise meditation. Maybe, such persons have had some practice of observance of the Buddha’s Dhamma in their previous existences. These are interesting instances, and their cases must be evaluated in accord with the extent and depth of their study and practice of the dhamma. A real sotæpan had already come into the fold of the Ariyæs and so he has been strictly observing the five precepts and has thus completely uprooted all evil deeds. Though he is not entirely free of lobha (greed) and dosa (anger), he does not have so much of them as to drive him to commit sins in contravention of the five precepts. He would not think of stealing, and if he wanted something that would be useful to him, he would buy it or ask the owner to give it to him in charity. That is the behavior of all an ordinary Ariyæ. The Buddha had already removed all the evil deeds by means of all three virati, and so stealing is entirely out of the question. When he was giving the Dhammacakka sermon, He declared that He had rejected all evil-doing. So Sætægiri said: “Gotama Buddha is clean of the sin of taking anything that was not given by the owner by word or by action. This I declare with the courage of conviction.” Hemavata did not put this question relating to the sin of stealing not to know a mere temporary and occasional abstinence from that sin but to be convinced that the Buddha completely cleared Himself of the sin of stealing. Sætægiri’s answer was categorical. Then the second answer was: “Also, Buddha Gotamma is free of the sin of torture on all beings, He is free of torturing an killing beings.” This answer seems to be not matching with the attributes of the Buddha, but the question to this answer was put because in those days there were bogus Buddhas, and the intention was to distinguish the genuine from the bogus. In those days there were also believers in God, the creator of all beings and things, and such creator was reported in plain terms in their own books as having meted out punishment to those creatures who went against his wishes. Punishment by that God consists in causing great storms and floods to kill people, causing great earth-quakes and destruction to the crops for the same purpose. If it were so, then their God was not free from the sin of killing his creatures. The question Hemavata put about the sins of stealing and killing was relevant in the context of the situation prevailing in those days. One prone to killing is not a sotæpan Once, a writer said in one of the journals that a sotæpan will not kill others, but if anyone comes to kill him he will kill his attacker. That writer declared that he made that statement after a research of the nature of the human mind. That is ridiculous. I just wonder whose mind he had made a research of, and how he could do mind. He might have thought he was a sotæpan. He might have asked himself if he would allow the attacker to kill him when he had an effective weapon to return the attack by way of defence, and might have got his own answer that he would attack the attacker first. From his personal argument he obtained the conclusions which he expressed as his remark in his article. According to the tenets of Buddhism, this is a ridiculous statement. The very fact that one thinks one can and should retaliate the attacker proves that one is not a sotæpan, for according to the Buddhist tenet, the person entertaining such a notion is a mere puthujjana, definitely not a sotæpan. A real sotæpan would not kill even a flea or a bug, not to say of a human being. This fact must be remembered once and for all. As for the Buddha, the rejection of such sins is complete. So Sætægiri gave a categorical answer: “I declare with the courage of conviction that our teacher, the Buddha, never kills or tortures any being.” Then comes them third answer; “Our teacher, the Buddha, is never forgetful. He is far removed from forgetfulness.” Forgetfulness in the secular sense is well known. You forget to do something or you forget names and so on. Or you fall unconscious and fall from the height or get drowned. But forgetfulness in the present context is not that kind. Forgetfulness means to be absorbed in the five kinds of kæmagu¼a (enjoyment of the five senses); it is letting the mind lost in these sense-enjoyments. It is called pamæda in Pæ¹i. Like letting loose the ropes tied around the necks of cattle and allowing them to wander and graze where they like, if the mind is let loose and allowed to enjoy all kinds of the senses, it is pamæda, or forgetfulness. That kind of forgetfulness is very enjoyable indeed, if you will. Enjoying the beauty of a woman or of a man, the sweetness of the voice, the sweetness of the smell, the sweetness of the taste and the delight of the touch of an individual is pleasurable. To think of the good things in life even if you cannot have them really to think of enjoyment of the senses-such fancies also bring some kind of pleasure to you. All your waking hours are spent in thinking of sensual pleasures and working out arrangements for enjoying them. You do that not just for one day, one month or one year; you do that all your life. If you do not have a chance of thinking of such pleasures you get bored. If there were no sensual pleasures to think of and arrange to get them, then people wouldn’t want to live in this world. Such getting lost in thought and enjoyment of sensual pleasures is called pamæda. Of these sensual pleasures, sexual pleasures are most prominent. So Hemavata asked his friend whether his teacher, the Buddha, was free of the sin of copulation. To this question Sætægiri gave a definite answer, “Our teacher, the Buddha, is absolutely free.” This apparently impertinent question was quite pertinent in the context of the situation of that period. The answer was also definite. The Buddha was free of not only the physical pleasures gut also of the enjoyment of the looks, the voice, the smell, the taste and other forms of contractual pleasures. And also, He was free of the forgetfulness in regard to the practice of the satipa¥¥hæna (meditation); He was always into jhæna. There are two kinds off jhæna, concentration on appearances and (2) Vipassanæ jhæna, constant mindfulness of the physical and mental phenomena by dwelling deeply on the incessant happening and immediate decay and perceiving thus the anicca (impermanence), dukkha (misery) and anatta (nonentity) of all ingredients. Concentration of one’s mind on a certain object is called samatha jhæna. Pathavø kasina is concentration of one’s mind on the earth. Such concentration would not make for insight into the happening and decay of things but as the mind is fixed on the same object sensual thoughts do not have a chance to enter the mind. One can attain by this method the four stages of rþpa jhæna, and then on to the next four stages of arþpa jhæna. These jhæna would not give the practitioner an insight into the impermanence of the ingredients of existences; they are good only for getting concentration and keeping the mind calm and collected. The progress in the jhæna would lead to dibbacakkhu, special sight, dibbasota, special hearing pubbenivæsa, ability to review past existences and cetopariya ability to know another person’s mind. Then basing the samatha jhæna one can practise meditation and eventually attain magga and phala insights. so samatah jhæna should not be held in contempt. if one practised ænæpæna kamma¥¥hæna and dvattimsækæra kamma¥¥hæna, one could keep one’s mind calm and collected and attain jhæna and basing on that jhæna, if one went in for vipassanæ one could attain magga and phala insights. But if one did not observe the happenings and decays and just practised the samatha jhæna, one would get only concentration and calmness of the mind. Observing the three lokkha³æs: (signs) means vipassanæ jhanæ. The three lakkha¼æs are anicca lakkha¼æ, dukkha lakkha¼æ and anatta lakkha¼æ. Observing these three signs means vipassanæ jhæna. But one cannot possibly start with observation of these three lakkha¼æs. One must start observing the consciousness emanating from the six sense-doors of the body. To observe the actions of the body, one must make a note of them as they occur, thus: “going” “lifting” of the foot, “moving forward”, of the foot, “dropping” of the foot, as one is walking. In the same way, one must note the standing, sitting, sleeping, bending, stretching, rising of the abdomen; and its falling, seeing, hearing etc.-all actions as they occur. While nothing these actions of the body and the mind as they occur, one will come to know of the new occurrence or happening of the actions and also the passing out of these actions to be followed by a new series of actions. By making this observation one will come to know of the impermanence (anicca), or the constant changes indicating instability which spells difficulty; distress and misery (dukkha) and of the absence of control of the actions by anything called self (anatta). The mindfulness of this state of affairs in the physical and mental phenomena takes the meditator to be beginning of sammæsanañæ¼a stage of insight. At this stage the yogø will make a note of any movement or action, physical or mental, over and over, and thus derive measure of peaceful happiness that is born of samædhi (concentration). This kind of concentration is called ekaggatæ samædhi. This state is equivalent to the first stage of jhæna. In the next stage, as the yogø progresses to it, the actions and movements will present themselves spontaneously for noting. The yogø has passed the first stage in which he has to make an effort to note them. That stage of insight is called udayabbaya-ñæ¼a. At that stage vitakka (thinking) and vicæra (wandering of the mind) are absent, and pøti, sukha (joyfulness) abound with a further strengthening of samædhi. Therefore, the earlier part of this udatabbaya stage of insight is equivalent to the second jhæna stage. At the advanced stage of udayabbaya the light emanating from the state of joy will be overcome by sukha (peaceful happiness) and samædhi (concentration) which have become prominent. That stage is equivalent to the third stage of jhæna. Then further, even sukha dims and fades when attention is focused on the constant decay and passing out of the phenomena as bha³ga-ñæ¼a (insight on decay and destruction) develops. At that stage upekkhæ (indifferent) stands out prominently. That stage is equivalent to the fourth stage of jhæna. In fact, (indifference) and eskaggatæ (one-pointed concentration) become more prominent in the next stage of insight sa³khærupekkha-ñæ¼a. The yogøs who have advanced to this stage will know what it is. When Sætæagiri said that the Buddha was not out of jhæna he meant that the Buddha was into-all these stages of jhæna. Buddha into jhæna while audience were saying “Sædhu” The Buddha was constantly into the jhæna, and for that He is adorable. While, after the end of a part of a sermon the audience exclaimed in one voice, “Sædhu! Sædhu! Sædhu! (Well done!) the Buddha went into jhæna even during that brief interval. And then He resumed the sermon. Such constancy is really marvelous.” Myanmar Sædhu and SrI Lanka Sædhu There are occasions for the audience to say “Sædhu” during my preaching but they are rather few. But in Myanmar it is usual for the audience to say “Sædhu” at the end of a Pæ¹i gæthæ (verse) of which the preaching monk gives a literal translation. When the monk ends in a long drawn-out voice with the (Myanmar) phrase “phyitkya le dawt tha dee” the audience says without any hesitation, Sædhu. They don’t care to notice whether the verse so recited and translated relates to a subject which calls for an exultant hailing or not. They just note ending words “tha dee” and drone out “Sædhu.” For instance, in the Vessantræ jætaka, king Vessantræ gave away his two children, a son and a daughter of tender ages of four or five, to Jujaka Bræhmin. The Pæ¹i verse in that connection describes the Bræhmin’s cruel treatment of the children who wept desolately; how the Bræhmin beat them cruelly and dragged them away. When the preaching monk recited that verse and translated it into Myanmar and ended his version with the usual “tha dee” the audience droned out the usual “Sædhu”. Well, that is the part of the story which calls for sympathy and sadness from the listeners, not exultation, and so the “Sædhu” went awry. But in Myanmar the audience don’t care to discriminate. In Sri Lanka, however, the audience intones “Sædhu” three times only for the part of the sermon which related to attainment of Arahatship or Nibbæna, for that is an occasion of exultation when a congratulatory note of joy, such as “Sædhu”, is called for. During the time of the Buddha the practice of saying “Sædhu” must be of the Sri Lanka pattern. When the audience said “Sædhu” three times, the Buddha paused, and during that brief interval He went into jhæna, and soon after the saying of “Sædhu” by the audience, He resumed His sermon, He never remained idle, How adorable! The preaching monks of today may not be entering into the jhæna; that brief interval is probably the time of resting his voice or it is the time for him to think of the words he will utter when he resumes his sermon. Moreover, the Buddha looked on all beings with great pity, entering into the mood of great pity and loving kindness (mahækaru¼æ samæpatti) and also into the ecstatic mood of sanctification Arahatta samæpatti for twelve crore times each, altogether, twenty four crore times, daily. That shows that the Buddha had not missed one moment in entering into jhæna; so Sætægiri said in reply to his friend’s query, “The Buddha who knows all the dhamma fully is never away from jhæna.” To sum up, the Buddha was free of the sin of stealing, the sin of torture and killing, and was always from forgetfulness nor did He ever stop entering into jhæna. As the Buddha knew all the Dhamma fully, He did not have to think ahead of what He would say in a sermon session. He was always prepared. He also knew of the measure of maturity of any individual for him to give an appropriate teaching, so He did not need to take time for any kind of preparation. Not only did He enter into the jhæna after the sermon session but, as has been said, He utilised the brief intervals during the sermon session when the audience said “Sædhu” to enter into the jhæna. He never remained idle for one moment. Taking this into consideration, we should know how adorable the Buddha is, and we must adore Him by taking refuge in Him with concentrated attention, and while we are doing that we should make a note of the happening of the joy emanating from adoration and immediate fading out of that joy and thus meditate fading out of that joy and thus mediate in the vipassanæ way, thereby strengthening the insight thus gained till we reach the ultimate stage of ariyæ magga. Now in conclusion of today’s session, I would like to urge the new yogøs to enter into the meditational practice by first noting the actions of the body, such as the rising and falling of one’s abdomen, and thoughts and fancies of the mind. Noting the mental phenomena is cittænupassna. Noting the stiffness and the aching of the limbs and all the other physical discomforts constitutes vedanænupassanæ. Seeing, hearing, etc., and anger, disappointment and other workings of the mind noted and meditated upon make for dhammænupassanæ. Noting the various movements and actions of the body constitutes Kæyænupassanæ. The yogøs at this meditation centre have been doing this meditational practice, and all of them have been trying to free themselves from forgetfulness (pamæda). In a few days, or one month, they will have attained advanced stages of meditational insights. Of the four magga ñæ¼as, sotæpatti magga enables the one who attains it to gain great concentration. Then advancing from that stage to the next, sakædægæmi magga, the yogø will have his concentration power strengthened further, and when one reaches the next stage, anægæmi magga, there will not be any wandering of the mind and the concentration will be much deeper; from that stage one can advance through diligence to the ultimate stage of Arahatta magga and thus attain the state of an Arahat. At that final stage, forgetfulness is out of the question, Mindfulness is ever present. So in praising the insight of an Arahat, it is said; “the Arahat is of all mindfulness while walking or standing or sleeping or waking.” An Arahat never misses a moment in his mindfulness of the physical and mental phenomena, and his awareness is of a sweeping nature. By “sleeping” it means that there is mindfulness till the point of falling asleep and the mindfulness is resumed at the point waking up. There is of course, no question of mindfulness while one is asleep. That is how mindfulness is practised every moment of one’s waking life, according to the Buddha’s admonitions of “apamædena sampædetha” (constant awareness). Our yogøs have been doing meditational work. That is a really gratifying fact. They must work hard enough to attain at least the first stage of magga, that is sotæpanna magga. When one attains that stage, one will never go to four nether regions of hell. This is the introductory part of Hemavata.
|
