In the Mithila city of the kingdom of Videha, there was a young man called Pi³guttara who went to Taxila (Pæ¹i: Takkasila) for his education. As he was an intelligent youth he accomplished his object in a short time and so he took leave of his master to return to his native place. It was the familiar tradition to the master to marry his grown-up daughter to his pupil. At that time the master had a marriageable daughter of great beauty and so he married her to his pupil. Pi³guttara was poor in his kammic potential and therefore, he had no love for the master’s daughter who, as a girl of high kammic potential, was ill-matched for him. But since he did not wish to displease his master, he agreed to accept her as his wife. When at night the bride got onto the bedstead in the bridal chamber, Pi³guttara stepped down and slept on the floor. When the girl in duty bound followed him and lay down to sleep beside him, he shifted on to the bedstead. But he got down at once when the girl again followed him. In this way, the girl slept on the bedstead while he slept on the floor for seven days. This shows the incompatibility of two kammic potentials of opposite nature. After a week Pi³guttara paid respect to his teacher and left Takkasølæ with his wife. They did not speak to each other during the whole journey. When they came near the Mithila city, they saw a water-fig tree laden with ripe fruits. Pi³guttara climbed up the tree and ate some fruits. His wife asked him to drop some fruits for her but he told her to get on to the tree herself. When she was up on the tree eating the fruits, he got down and fled encircling the foot of the tree with thorns. Surely, he was cruel but he had to abandon his wife because he was not deserving of her. Before long the king of Videha arrived by chance near the tree. Seeing the beautiful lady of Takkasølæ on the tree, he fell in love with her. So he made inquiries as to whether she was married or unmarried. She told the king who she was, how she was left on the tree by her husband whose whereabouts she did not now know and how she was in trouble, being unable to climb down. The king concluded that she had no husband to claim her and so after letting her come down, he made her his queen. She was named Udumbara Devø (Queen of water-fig tree), after the name of tree on which she was found. One day the villagers near the city gate were ordered to repair the road in anticipation of the king’s visit to the garden. As one of the villagers. Pi³guttara was working on the road when the king and the queen came along in a royal chariot accompanied by the ministers and courtiers. On seeing Pi³guttara with his loin cloth tucked up and a spade in his hand among the village labourers, the queen could not help laughing. The king asked her why she laughed. The queen pointed out her former husband and said that his inferiority complex had struck her so ludicrous as to make her laugh. But the king did not believe her. He said, “You are lying to me. You must have laughed because you saw a man whom you love. I must kill you.” So saying, he took out his sword. The queen was frightened and implored the king to consult some wise men about her statement. The king then asked the minister Senaka for his opinion. Senaka replied that no man would have deserted a beautiful woman like her. Senaka’s reply terrified the queen very much but having some doubts about his wisdom, the king decided to seek the opinion of Mahosadhæ (or wise minister). So he asked Mahosadhæ whether it was possible for a man to dislike and abandon a beautiful and virtuous woman. Mahosadhæ replied, “Your Majesty, the man who abandons a beautiful and virtuous woman may be one who has low kammic potential. Therefore, I believe that it is possible for a man to dislike such a woman. A person of high kammic potential is never compatible with another person of low kammic potential. It is not in the nature of things to find them together.” Only when he heard Mahosadhæ’s answer did the king accept the queen’s statement and his love for her remained intact. But for Mahosadhæ he would have acted on the advice of the foolish Senaka and lost the worthy queen. He owed the life of his beloved queen to Mahosadhæ and so as a mark of gratitude he presented him with a large sum of money. Senaka’s answer was erroneous. Moreover, it was a kind of calumny that served to aggravate the situation that was already tense because of the king’s suspicion. It was not the kind of answer that should be given by counsellors. On the other hand, Mahosadhæ’s answer was reasonable and true. It was also meant to remove discord and restore harmony between the king and the queen. Such are the words of the Wise, free from slander and worthy of emulation by all counsellors. It is obvious that Pi³guttara’s desertion of Udumbara Devi was due not to evil kamma of the latter but to the low kammic potential of the former. Likewise Isidæsi was deserted by the beggar because he did not have the good kamma that would ensure a good life in the house of the merchant. So also the desertion by her two former husband was not wholly due to her bad kamma but it might be attributed in part to their kamma that was too poor for their association with a noble woman. The merchant was at a loss what to do for his daughter. Deserted even by a beggar, Isidæsi was very unhappy. She felt humiliated and despaired of her fate and the worldly life. She thought of leaving her parents either to die or to join the holy order. At this time an elderly bhikkhunø named Zinadatta came to the merchant’s house for her daily collection of food. Isidæsi paid obeisance to her and after offering the food, asked her for admission into the Sangha. The merchant dissuaded his daughter from becoming a bhikkhunø, saying that she could as well give alms and lead a good life as a laywoman. Of course, he did not want to part with his only daughter. With tears in her eyes, Isidæsi replied that her misfortunes were probably due to the evil-deeds which she had excessively committed in her previous life, that she wished to cleanse herself of her unwholesome kamma by practising the Dhamma as a bhikkhunø. Thereupon, her father considered it inadvisable to obstruct her and gave his permission. He also expressed his best wishes for her; “May you attain the insight-knowledge on the level of the Ariyan path and the highest good of Arahatship that have been realized by the Supreme Buddha! May you attain Nibbæna!” Then, Isidæsi took leave of her parents and other elders of her family and received ordination at the hands of therø Zinadatta and before long by virtue of her high kammic potential she became within a week an Arahat endowed with the three kinds of insight-knowledge (three vijjæs). The attainment of Arahatship after the practice of the Dhamma for seven days was due to special kammic potential. Those who achieve extraordinary insight in such a short time are extremely rare among the yogøs here. Those who practise the Dhamma ceaselessly and diligently every day and every night usually attain udayabbaya and bha³ga-ñæ¼a (insight-knowledge) in a week. Isidæsi attained the three-fold insight-knowledge after a seven-day practice and this knowledge means (1) knowledge which enables one to recall all previous existences (pubbenivæsæñæ¼a), (2) knowledge that enables one to see everything in heaven, hell and other parts of the universe that are invisible to the naked eye (dibbacakkhu-ñæ¼a) and (3) knowledge that is synonymous with knowledge of the Arahatta path that can help to eradicate all biases and defilements (æsavakkhaya-ñæ¼a). The attainment of this last knowledge is Arahatship. Isidæsi achieved her object in seven days and in retrospect she might have to congratulate herself on having been deserted by one husband after another. But for desertion by her first husband, she would not have married the second man, still less thought of becoming a bhikkhunø. Indeed even her permanent union with the beggar might have ruled out the possibility of a religious life for her. In fact, she joined the holy order because of her disenchantment with life. She became an Arahat in seven days and achieved complete freedom from all suffering rooted in the wheel of life. For her, desertion by one husband after another was in a sense a blessing in disguise. Thus, we should view the case of Isidæsi wisely. It must have been much gratifying to Isidæsi that although she had to suffer much because of her evil kamma, she benefited by her suffering to become an Arahat eventually. So when a misfortune befalls us, we should not be obsessed by it and become despondent. We should take an optimistic view of it. This attitude of mind that helps to console us and serves our spiritual need is called yonisomanasikæra in Pæ¹i. But no woman should want to be deserted by her husband like Isidæsi. For although Isidæsi became an Arahat, it will be difficult for other women to turn their misfortune to advantage as she did. As Isidæsi recalled her past lives through her insight-knowledge (pubbenivæsa-ñæ¼a), the recollections of her evil deeds and consequent sufferings during her last seven existences dawned upon her. (1) In the first existence she was a goldsmith in the city of Erakiccha. As a young man in close contact with many women, he committed adultery. Because of this evil deed, on his death (2) he landed in hell where he suffered for a long time. (3) Then he was reborn as a monkey. Seven days after its birth the herd leader bit off its testicles and castrated it as it did not want any male member. This was the kammic effect of adultery. (4) Then in his next existence he became a ram. The ram was castrated and probably killed for human food. (5) In his fifth existence he was also castrated to be used for ploughing or drawing cart. The bull is usually castrated for its docility. When we were young we saw some bulls being castrated. It was a terrible sight. The bull was tied down and his testicle beaten and battered with a wooden club. It must have been very painful. The animal could not eat for three or four days. Afterwards, when it was strong enough to work, it had to toil under the burning sun or in the rain without being able to complain of even sickness. In the end when it became very old, it was sold to the butcher regardless of its long service to the owner. Then it died helpless and forlorn at the hands of the butcher. The life of such an animal is heart-rending indeed. (6) In her sixth existence she was conceived in the womb of a slave woman and thus she became a born slave. Still worse, she had no male or female organs at birth, a shameful abnormality that was the kammic effect of adultery. For thirty years she suffered and then (7) in her seventh existence she was reborn as the daughter of a poor, wretched cartman. As her father could not repay his debt to the caravan chief, the girl was enslaved by the latter. She had to do all kinds of work at the chief’s house. Fortunately, she was good-looking and when she grew up, she became the concubine of the chief’s son, Giridasa. The wife and the concubine usually do what is harmful to each other’s interest. The concubine slandered the wife in order to create discord between her and her husband. But the wife was a woman of good moral character and so the slanderous remarks against the good woman were fraught with very grave negative kamma and now, with adultery in a previous life, she was now worsening her destiny by her evil speech. In fact, Isidæsi admitted her mistake and attributed her former husbands’ hatred despite her slavish devotion to them to the kammic effect of her slanderous remarks in a previous life. She added that because of her evil kamma, she was deserted even by a beggar and that she head done away with her evil kammic debt by following the way to Arahatship and Nibbæna. This is most important. Arahatship means the complete extinction of all kammic potentials. Kamma bears no more fruit; it is the Arahat’s last existence and when its course is run, he or she attains parinibbæna. After parinibbæna there is no renewal of life or mind-body complex. So, Isidæsi attained parinibbæna and her suffering came to an end once and forever. This story has a lesson for both men and women. Adultery led the goldsmith to hell and then when reborn as a monkey, a ram and a bull he was castrated and then he became a sex freak born of a slave girl. These were the heavy kammic price he had to pay for the momentary pleasure of adultery. Then the girl’s kamma worsened when she slandered a virtuous woman. Her misdeed must have caused a lot of discord and suffering to others. This should be a good lesson for wives, concubines and polygamous husbands. As a result of her misdeed, even in her last existence as Isidæsi, the daughter of a rich man, she was deserted by three husbands in a row, the last one being a beggar. All these are the evil kammic effects of calumny. “Other people may indulge in harsh language but we will avoid it.” Thus you should practise the Sallekha dhamma that lessens defilements. Pharusavæcæ is harsh talk such as abusing, scolding and cursing. This kind of talk is very painful to the person concerned, unpleasant even to those who have nothing to do with it. Nobody wants to hear such utterances; and a wise man abhors them. In order to be kammically effective, the use of harsh language must involve three factors, viz., the person who is abused or cursed, ill-will against that person, and the act of abusing or cursing. In the absence of any unwholesome desire to cause pain or annoyance, the use of harsh language is kammically fruitless. Once a boy went into the jungle against the advice of his mother. The mother was angry and cursed him, “May you be gored to death by a buffalo!” In the jungle the boy saw a she-buffalo which came to kill him. The boy invoked the power of truthfulness, saying, “Let it happen, not according to what my mother has uttered but according to her desire and will.” It is said that the animal then stopped and stood still. Some parents often call down curses such as violent death from the attack by buffalos, snake-bite, etc., upon their disobedient children but in reality, they do not want to see the slightest harm befall their kids. Teachers, too, scold their unruly pupils, saying, “Go away, all of you! Don’t stay with me! I don’t care a damn for whatever happens to you!” But in fact, they have the moral and material welfare of their pupils at heart. Such a kind of speech or talk, although verbally harsh, does not stem from bad motives and as such, it is not kammically fruitful. On the other hand, a gentle remark that springs from evil desire or feeling is kammically effective. “Let this man sleep soundly and happily” is what the ancient kings used to say euphemistically about a man they wanted to be executed. But the remark is based on ill-will and so it has kammic effect. Therefore, we should avoid abusing and cursing. We should utter only words that are rightly motivated, gentle, pleasant and acceptable, We should overcome the use of harsh language through commitment to moral precepts and through concentration on an object. We must rely on insight-meditation (vipassanæ) when we have to face unpleasant sense-objects. We tend to use harsh language when we are irritated by undesirable sense-objects. We should eliminate it through mindfulness. In particular, a remark which one dislikes often evokes harsh language and so we must be especially mindful when we hear unpleasant words. CASE OF A MAN WHO CONQUERS THROUGH MINDFULNESS In my native village of Seikkhun is Shwebo district there in a yogø who is very mindful. He has been a monk for 20 years. While he was a layman he noted, “hearing, hearing,” whenever he heard his father-in-law rebuking him. The rebuke lasted probably about ten minutes. To him the voice of the speaker as well as his words disappeared instantly and he did not know anything about what the old man was saying. He was not angry nor did he have any desire to retort. But for his mindfulness, he would have retorted angrily and uttered harsh words. This is a very good way to overcome the habit of speaking harshly and other people can follow it. It also helps to overcome anger and ensures the complete extinction of the habit when through the development of insight-knowledge the yogø attains the Ariyan path (ariya-magga). But since slander and harsh speech stem from anger, the yogø can wholly overcome these defilements only at the anægæmi stage. The sotæpatti stage ensures only the extinction of evil speech-habits that lead to the lower worlds. At the dakadægæmi stage, the yogø is assured of only the extinction of the gross forms of harsh speech and slander that does not lead to the lower worlds. He is not yet free from the subtle forms of slander and harsh utterances which become wholly extinct only at the anægæmi stage. Visuddhimagga describes slander, harsh speech and ill-will as the three unwholesome propensities that are to be eliminated at the anægæmi stage. So the yogø should try to attain anægæmi stage to overcome them. According to A³guttara-nikæya, those who use harsh language are liable to land in the nether worlds and if reborn in the human world will be very often abused and scolded. Some people curse a thief with violent death or damnation to hell. Such curses are in vogue among the Indian Sædhþs and fakirs. They would curse a man who does not give them what they ask for and it is the popular belief that anyone who has been cursed by them is in for a lot of misfortune. People are afraid their curses probably because their holy books, the Puræ¼as, tell them how misfortunes befell those who were placed under a curse by the holy men. Buddhist monks do not curse others or swear an oath. According to Buddhism, a curse by itself can cause no misfortune which is only due to bad kamma. In point of fact, a curse is likely to recoil on the one who utters it, as is shown in the following story from Petavatthu. REBIRTH AS PETA BECAUSE OF CURSES In the time of the Buddha, twelve bhikkhus spent their rain-retreat at a village of eleven families. The chief weaver provided the necessities of life for two monks while each of the other ten families cared for each of the other ten monks. The weaver’s wife was a non-believer and had no faith in the Sangha; so she did not serve the monks respectfully. Then the weaver married his wife’s sister to whom he transferred all his property. As a pious woman, she served the monks with much respect. At the end of the lent each monk was offered a robe. Then the elder wife was so enraged that she cursed; “Let the food and drink which you have offered to the Sakyan monks become excreta, urine, pus and blood; let the robes turn into glowing iron sheets!” After their death the weaver became a tree-god and his elder wife a peta near his mansion. She had nothing to wear and nothing to eat. So she begged the tree-god for food and clothes. But when the god gave some food and drinks they turned into excreta in the hands of the peta. The god provided celestial clothes too but they became glowing iron sheets as soon as they were worn by the peta. So the peta discarded the burning iron clothes and ran away crying, the curse in her previous life having thus boomeranged on her. Her unhappy plight came to the notice of a monk who was visiting the place and on his advice the god offered food to him and shared the merits with the peta. The peta was then able to eat the celestial food and she became well-nourished. Then the god entrusted to the care of the monk a suit of celestial robes to be offered to the Buddha and again the peta got part of the merit and this made her beautiful like a goddess in her new dress. So a good deed is a remedy for a person who is suffering because of his or her own curse. In the time of the Buddha there was in a village near Sævatthi a faithful lay Buddhist called Nandisena. His wife Nandæ had no faith and no manners. She did not respect her husband and she abused him and her mother-in-law. After her death she became a peta and prowled in the village neighbourhood. One day she appeared before Nandisena, identified herself as his former wife and attributed her rebirth in the peta world to her rudeness, lack of respect for her husband and the habit of abusing him in her previous existence. Life as a peta was the price she had to pay for her rudeness to her good husband. Had she apologized to him, she might have been freed from evil kammic effects; but the woman Nandæ had done nothing of the sort. Nandisena handed his cloak to the peta and told her to wear it and follow him to his house where she could have clothes and food. But the peta said that she could have such things only if he made offerings to the virtuous bhikkhus. Nandisena did so and shared his merits with her and she said, “Sædhu! Sædhu!” (well-done; well-done). The peta got celestial food and clothes and became beautiful like a goddess. These stories show how abusiveness leads to the lower worlds. The kammic rewards for those who avoid harsh language and speak gently are just the opposite. Those who speak gently and tolerate abuse instead of repaying it in kind, land in deva worlds. There are stories in Vimænavatthu illustrative of such kammic rewards. If reborn in the human world, they are spoken to gently and they hear only sweet voices. Abstinence from the use of harsh language is also beneficial in the present life. A man who speaks gently endears himself to everybody, he is highly esteemed and is not in conflict with his friends. So we should cultivate the habit of speaking gently. We must not speak when we are angry. We should first overcome anger through mindfulness and speak gently. We can profit by this practice here and now. FRIVOLOUS TALK (SAMPHAPPALÆPA) We should also avoid frivolous talk. Frivolous talk is a talk that has nothing to do with truth or one’s welfare or the dhamma or the Buddha’s instructions. It is a talk that is not worthy of remembrance. In short, it is a misrepresentation of fiction as fact. But by and large people are fond of fiction. With their clever imagination, writers produce popular novels which are sold out in a month. There is a big demand for their books. By contrast, religious books have only a few readers because they do not have mass appeal like works of fiction. Frivolous writings pander to popular desires and turn the weal and woe of human life into fiction with various elaborations. True to the Sallekha dhamma, we should pledge to avoid speaking, writing or spreading anything that is frivolous. One who practises this Sallekha dhamma will talk only about what is true or about what is beneficial or about the dhamma or about the Buddha’s teaching or about what is worthy of remembrance. Even when we talk wisely, we must talk at the right moment. Moreover, we should not talk excessively. Even in our talks about the dhamma we must pay due regard to circumstances. If you often preach a man who has no spiritual inclination, he will be afraid to listen to the dhamma; and if you repeatedly urge him to practise it, he will soon give you a wide berth. So you should be discreet and teach him gradually at the right time. But in case of a very intimate friend, we should bear in mind the story of Ghatikæra and urge him persistently to take interest in the dhamma. In the lifetime of Kassapa Buddha there was a potter called Ghatikæra. He was a lay disciple who had attained anægæmi stage. One day he urged his friend Jotipæla thrice to see the Buddha. Jotipæla demurred and spoke in contempt of the Buddha. Jotipæla was not an ordinary man. He was a Bodhisatta. But as a brahmin and what with his deep-seated religious beliefs, he had a low opinion of the Buddha and hence his scornful rejection of the potter’s advice. Traditional beliefs are really formidable and so Ghatikæra, the potter, took Jotipæla to the river-side for a bath and after taking his bath, Jotipæla put on his loin-cloth and was standing for a while to get his hair dry when the potter told him to see the Buddha at his residence nearby. Ghatikæra proposed thrice and his proposal was turned down thrice as before. Then the potter got hold of his friend’s loin-cloth and again urged him to see the Buddha, but it was in vain. At last the potter grasped his hair and repeated his suggestion. Then Jotipæla was stunned. He wondered why the low-caste potter had dared to hold his hair. He thought that the potter had the courage to do so probably because of his faith in his teacher, the Buddha. So he asked the potter, “Is this matter so important that you have to hold my hair?” “Yes, it is,” said the potter. Then Jotipæla considered the potter’s request seriously concluded that it might be a matter of no small consequence and agreed to see the Buddha with his friend. After seeing the Buddha and hearing the dhamma, he was converted and joined the Sangha. Thus, because his suggestion was bound to benefit his friend, the low-caste, untouchable potter urged the high-caste brahmin, first, by word of mouth, then by catching hold of his loin-cloth and finally by holding his hair. His persistence contributed to the spiritual welfare of his friend and the latter was much grateful to him. Likewise, today although some people had at first no interest in the dhamma, they came to our centre to meditate in response to the persistent request of their friends. By virtue of their effort and kammic potential they gained spiritual experience for which they are much indebted to their dhamma friends. There are many such yogøs and their experience shows how persistent urging often pays. That is why the Dhamma has the attribute of ehipassiko (come and see). It invites every-one to test it. Just as a man who enjoys good food is thankful to the man who has invited him to the feast, so also the yogø who has had some spiritual experience thanks the person who has urged him to practise the dhamma. So we should persist in urging our intimate friends to practise Satipa¥¥hæna meditation. Of the good talks that are commendable, those about welfare (attha) and teaching or discipline (vinaya) concern worldly matters too. In other words, we should engage in talks that are beneficial or edifying in our everyday affairs. But monks have to avoid any kind of talk that is prescribed in the Vinaya pi¥aka. Even the meditating layman should avoid the kind of talk called tiracchænakathæ which means any talk that is incompatible with spiritual spiritual progress. Talks of this kind are those about kings, thieves, rebels, ministers, armies, food, drinks, clothes, relatives, vehicles, villages, towns, men, women and so forth. If these talks have nothing to do with emotional shock, weariness, faith or wisdom, they are to be labelled samphappalæpa or frivolous talks and as such they should be avoided. According to A³guttara-nikæya, the kammic result of frivolous talk is that the talker is liable to land in the nether worlds and if reborn as a human being, most people do not pay attention to what he says. Typical of the frivolous talk that is vicious enough to lead to the lower worlds is serious talk about such things as the story of the fighting of Bhærata kings in Mahæbhærata, the legend of the kidnapping of Sitadevø by the ogre Ræva¼a called Dasagøri and so forth. The commentaries describe only such talks as samphappalæpa. The following is the condensation of the story in Mahæbhærata. On the bank of Yamunæ river a son was born of the union of the hermit Paræsara and Saccavatø. The son was called Depæyana. After his birth his mother became a virgin again through the supernatural power of the hermit. Depæyana later became a hermit, Bhyæsa by name. He promised to come when his mother wished to see him. Later, Saccavatø was made queen by Santanu, the king of Kurus. She bore him two sons, the elder Citri³gadahu and the younger Citraviriya. When king Citraviriya died, leaving two queens but no offspring, Saccavatø sought the help of Bhyæsa, the hermit to preserve the royal family line. The hermit was so ugly that on his approach the elder queen shut her eyes and so she gave birth to a blind son, Dhatara¥¥ha. The younger queen looked at him with her feeble eyes and so she got a feeble son, Panðu. Panðu became king because his brother was blind. The latter married Gandhæri, daughter of the Gandhæra king. She had one hundred sons, the eldest being Duyodhana. One day king Panðu killed a couple of mating deers with his bow. The male deer being a powerful hermit, he cursed the king to die while enjoying sex. So Panðu decided to avoid sexual intercourse. He had two queens, Kuntø and Maddø. Neither of them had a son to succeed Pandu. Kuntø prayed and had three sons, Yudhi¥¥hira, Bhima and Ajjuna through her relations with the god Dhamma, the wind-god and Sakka respectively. Maddi had twins, Nakula and Sahadeva, through two Assavi gods. Panðu died and was succeeded by the blind prince Dhatara¥¥ha. Dhatara¥¥ha’s son Duyodhana and others were called korabhyasa while Pa¼ðu’s sons were hated by Duyodhana and others. Yudhi¥¥hara and other were called Pa¼ðavas. Being brave warriors, Pa¼ðu’s sons were hated by Duyodhana and others. So after consultation with his younger brother Pussæsana, his friend Ka¼¼a and his uncle Saku¼i, he ordered the Pa¼ðavas in the name of the king to practise elephant-warfare at a rural house. His plan was to burn the house and kill them while they were sleeping at night. But being warned by Vidura, the wise man, Kuntø and her five sons fled and escaped death. But they had to endure much hardship in the jungle and the five princes had to lie low in the guise of brahmins. The story also tells us how Bhima killed two man-eating giants. Later, disguised as brahmins the five princes attended the ceremony for the choice of a suitor by Ka¼hæ, the daughter of king of Pañcæla. The princess was to garland the suitor of her choice. The meeting was also attended by Duyodhana and his party as well as by local princes. Ka¼hæ’s brother announced the names of suitors. This was to introduce them to the princess. It was a contest of skill. The contestants tried one after another to string a bow but no one was successful. Ka¼¼a, a charioteer of Duyodhana faction managed to string the bow and he was about to shoot the target when the princess shouted that she would not choose him. At last Ajjuna who was disguised as a brahmin stringed the bow, shot and hit the target. Ka¼hæ garlanded and chose him but Ajjuna said that she was not meant only for him and in accordance with the family tradition she became the wife of the five brothers. Oddly enough, she was somewhat like Ka¼hædevø in Ku¼æla jætaka. Finally the fighting broke out between the princes headed by Duyodhana and their cousins led by Yudhi¥¥hira and they killed one another. The war is described in Mahæbhærata. People are instructed to accept all these as facts and hear the story again and again. Everyone who recites or hears it sincerely is assured of liberation from all evil kamma and passage to higher abodes after death. Ræmæyana tells us elaborately how Ræma’s wife Søtædevø was abducted to Ceylon by the giant Ræva¼a and how Ræma fought Ræva¼a with the help of the monkey Hanuman and recovered his wife. The believer who recites and hears this story is also guaranteed a heavenly life after death. In fact, to those who are not orthodox Hindus and intelligent, it is obvious that these stories are myths and fabrications. If we regard these stories as real events, the belief will impede spiritual progress and cause much harm. To encourage the belief in such stories will, therefore, lead to lower worlds and lack of credibility in case of rebirth in the human world. According to the commentaries, listening to frivolous stories is kammically harmful only if one believes them. Again Visuddhimagga and other commentaries say that the yogø can overcome interest in frivolous talk only at the Arahatta stage. Therefore, we assume that interest in ordinary frivolous talk like one of the thirty kinds of it that do not lead to the nether worlds still lingers at the lower stages of the holy Path. The kammic results of abstinence from frivolous talk is, of course, the opposite of the evils that beset one who indulges in it. One who avoids frivolous talk goes to higher abodes after death and if reborn as a human being, he is highly esteemed and trusted by other people. You should also avoid abhijjhæ or covetousness. In other words, abhijjhæ is the intention to possess another person’s property unlawfully. But in the Sallekha sutta, sensual desire which is only a hindrance is also described as abhijjhæ. So we should regard it as both kinds of lobha (greed), that is, lobha that is productive of evil conduct and lobha that is not so productive. We have the first kind of abhijjhæ when we crave for the possession of another person’s property. Here abhijjhæ means not the intent to buy the property but the intent to own it unlawfully. Abhijjhæ as a mere hindrance (nøvara¼a) is of four kinds, viz., (1) ordinary desire (2) pæpicchæ (3) mahicchæ and (4) atricchæ. (1) Ordinary desire is desire for something which one sees or hears or which one neither sees nor hears. This kind of desire is hard to overcome by making a vow or just by an act of will. It will dominate us so long as we are not free from greed (lobha). But the meditating yogø should be on his guard against it; whenever it crops up, he must watch and reject it. (2) Pæpicchæ is the desire to win the respect and admiration of others of which one is not worthy. Some persons wish to give others the impression of having faith which they do not have; of having moral integrity which they do not possess; or of having knowledge which they lack; or of having practised the dhamma without any practice; or of attaining jhæna without any attainment; or of having insight-knowledge (vipassanæñæ¼a) or psychic-powers which they do not have; or of being Ariyas or Arathats without having any Ariyan qualification or attributes of Arahatship. Some pretend to be Arahats so as to mislead other people. They welcome people who regard them as Arahats. This desire to be esteemed and admired for the quality which one does not have is called pæpicchæ (wicked desire). The Sallekha sutta stresses the need for freeing oneself from this kind of desire. (3) Mahicchæ is inordinate greed. A man who is consumed with inordinate greed is not content with what he has. He wants to have too much of everything and to have things of better quality. It is important to lessen this kind of greed. (4) Atricchæ is desire for something that belongs to another under the impression that it is better than what one has. In other words, it is discontentment. The effort to overcome it is of great importance for many people have to suffer in their search for something new which they think is better than the old. The sutta’s teaching on abhijjhæ is primarily concerned with covetousness that is productive of evil conduct. So a few more words about it. Arhijjhæ is the desire to have unlawfully something that belongs to another. Nowadays, this kind of desire seems to dominate many people. There are talks and instructions about ways and means of getting other people’s property. As a result there are people who apparently look forward to possessing things that do not belong to them. In reality they are not likely of realize their hopes. But whenever we think of getting another person’s property, the evil thought occurs together with its kammic effects. So, if we wish to practise Sallekha dhamma, we should not harbour such thoughts but try to get what we want by lawful means; buy it at the proper price and honestly seek the money for it. Covetous thought by itself is kammically effective and the effect may be potent enough to lead to the lower worlds. The intent to steal or rob is more serious in that it is the volitional prelude to the commission of crime; and still worse, of course, is the actual commission. We should, therefore, overcome such evil, grave deeds through moral integrity and reflections such as, “I do not like anyone who tries to get my property unlawfully; in the same way nobody will like me if I try to get his property unlawfully.” We should also cultivate concentration constantly in order that it may leave no room for covetous thought in the mind. Covetousness may arise when we see, hear about, smell, eat, contact or use desirable objects belonging to others. So the yogø who is constantly mindful at the moment of seeing, etc., finds everything vanishing whenever he notes a phenomenon with his potent insight-knowledge. This makes it impossible for him to covet other person’s property, let alone to think of getting it unlawfully. Thus we can overcome covetousness through insight-meditation, too. It can be rooted out when we attain the path of the Noble Ones or Ariyas. The complete extinction of covetousness that leads to misconduct is assured at the Sotæpatti stage and so is the extinction of wicked desire (pæpicchæ). Other kinds of covetousness are to be eliminated at the three higher holy stages. Visuddhimagga says that abhijjhæ is wholly done away with only at the stage of Arahatship. It says so because it describes ordinary greed (lobha) also as a kind of abhijjhæ. So we assume that sotæpatti stage ensures the extinction of evil conduct-oriented abhijjhæ and pæpicchæ since these two defilements are liable to lead to the nether worlds. The Sallekha sutta which teaches us to overcome abhijjhæ is very profound in that it tells us to practise the dhamma to the point of overcoming it (abhijjhæ) through the attainment of the four holy stages. Let us affirm then that:– “While other people are covetous, we will avoid covetousness. We will seek spiritual uplift through non-covetousness. We will put an end to the defilement of covetousness through non-covetousness.” Vyæpæda is the evil intent to bring about the death or destruction of a person. So in the Pæ¹i texts defining the term vyæpæda, it is said, “May these living beings be ill-treated or killed! May the whole tribe or clan be wiped out, destroyed or become extinct! There is such kind of intent to do wrong and destroy other beings.” Thus vyæpæda is the intent to cause the death or ill-treatment of a hated person or person. The intent in itself is unwholesome kamma in thought. At the very least the desire for the death or destruction of mosquitoes and bugs amounts to kammically effective ill-will. But as these lower forms of life have no morality, ill-will against them is not very grave in its kammic effect. The effect is very grave if we long for the death or destruction of men and monks who have good moral and other attributes. Therefore, we should remove ill-will by cultivating love and radiating good will, “May all beings be free from danger! May all beings be free from mental and physical suffering! May all beings live happily!” This is the way to avoid the evil path of ill-will by means of the good path of love. If we cultivate love in this way, we can advance from one stage to another and put out the fire of ill-will by means of the pure water of love. People who have no self-control are intent on the death and destruction of those whom they hate. We who live among such people will free ourselves from ill-will; we will overcome ill-will by cultivating love. If we have ill-will, we must remove it through mindfulness. Such is the practice of Sallekha dhamma. We can conquer ill-will through insight-meditation, that is, through mindfulness at every moment of seeing, hearing and so forth. When we see a person whom we do not want to see or when we hear a sound which we do not wish to hear, especially when we learn what a person is doing to endanger our interest or when we find or know what we do not want to find or know, we have ill-will, “Damn that fellow! A plague on him!” But with mindfulness at every moment of seeing, etc., you will find every thought and feeling passing away instantly and then it is impossible for ill-will to arise. Therefore, constant mindfulness of every mental event rules out the possibility of ill-will and that is the way to overcome it through the practice of vipassanæ (insight-meditation). If we cannot practise vipassanæ, we can overcome ill-will through the development of loving-kindness (mettæ-bhævanæ). We should radiate loving-kindness to every living being whom we see or hear. Then, there will be no ill-will against those people. Living beings whom we do not see or hear should also be the focus of our loving-kindness. If we watch the consciousness that suffuses loving-kindness, it means insight-meditation. Thus by suffusing loving-kindness and making a note of it, we can advance in our insight-knowledge from one stage to another till we attain anægæmi stage when ill-will becomes completely extinct. Even at the sotæpatti stage the yogø is free from ill-will that can lead to the lower worlds. So we should seek at least the sotæpatti stage to overcome ill-will and if possible, we should strive to attain the anægæmi stage for its total extinction. Let us then develop loving-kindness and meditate: – – May all beings be free from danger! In developing loving-kindness the consciousness that is focussed on it as well as the physical act of willing disappears instantly. This disappearance indicates the law of impermanence. Impermanence is suffering and impermanence and suffering (anicca and dukkha) are signs of insubstantiality (anatta). Such awareness of the nature of things as we develop loving-kindness is insight-knowledge (vipassanæ). Let us then practise vipassanæ while developing mettæ (loving-kindness) at the same time. – May all being be free from danger! The term miccha¥¥a is a compound of micchæ and atta; micchæ means wrong and atta means idea and so miccha¥¥a means wrong idea. Of the ten wrong ideas the first eight constitute the wrong eightfold path that is opposed to the right eightfold path. These are wrong belief, wrong intention, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong concentration and wrong contemplation as opposed to right belief, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood right effort, right concentration and right contemplation. This wrong eightfold path leads to one of the four lower worlds, viz., hell, animal world, the peta world and the world of asuras. If, because of good kamma, the follower of the wrong path is reborn as a human being, he will be short-lived, sickly and subject to other sufferings of life. Then we have micchæñæ¼a (wrong knowledge ) as opposed to sammæñæ¼a (right knowledge) and micchævimutti (wrong freedom) as opposed to sammævimutti (right freedom). Thus there are ten wrong ideas. Micchædi¥¥hi which means wrong belief is the opposite of sammædi¥¥hi which means right belief. People usually resent being called heretics or upholders of a wrong belief. But this is an expression of one’s view and there is no cause for resentment. Every religion lays claim to exclusive possession of truth and regards the teachings of other religions as wrong beliefs. Some 14 or 15 years ago a young teacher from Sudan came to Yangon and practised meditation at our centre. He spent over a month and so far as his insight-knowledge was concerned, he could speak of sammasanañæ¼a (knowledge of exploring, grasping, etc.). About four months after his return to his native place he wrote to us that his father asked him whether he was still a heretic and that he admitted to still being a heretic. So there is no reason why we should resent being labelled heretics by those who do not follow our religion. For it is only a matter of opinion and in our eyes they, too, would be heretics. What matters if that our beliefs must be true in the context of the realities of nature. We, on our part, will have to describe the non-Buddhist teachings as heresies but this should not be considered an overly harsh judgment. We have to consider only whether our view has any basis in fact. The wrong belief that we speak of here is of two kinds, viz., the wrong belief included in the ten evils (duccarita) and the wrong belief that forms part of the eightfold wrong path. We have given talks on the three evil deeds viz., killing, stealing and unlawful sexual intercourse as well as the four kinds of evil speech, viz., lying, slandering, the use of harsh language and frivolous talk. All these seven evils should be avoided. Of three evils in thought we have dealt with covetousness and ill-will (abhijjhæ and vyæpæda). We will now go on to wrong belief. An analytical knowledge of wrong belief is very important and it concerns those who cannot meditate as well as the meditating yogøs. The wrong belief leading to evil conduct is the belief that there is no kamma and no kammic effect. It will do you good if you remember this brief statement about it. Generally speaking, wrong belief has ten parts. I have dwelt on them in the discourse on Dependent Origination (Pa¥iccasamuppæda) but I will repeat them because of their importance. The first of the ten views or parts of wrong belief is the view that the act of giving away is not fruitful. In other words, it is the view that the act of giving is not beneficial, that it is only a waste of one’s property. But careful reflection leaves no doubt about the benefits of giving. The recipient is pleased with what he gets. Your act of giving makes him happy physically and mentally. The food that you give to a starving man may prolong his life. The donor, too, is happy by reflecting on the results of his act. Moreover, he endears himself to many people. The man who contributes liberally to the fund for a certain object in the neighbourhood is highly esteemed. He is extolled by wise men. He wins admiration and fame. He is respected at every meeting he attends. He has attendants wherever he lives. He has influence and is successful in every undertaking. These are the benefits that accrue to him here and now. After his death the donor is reborn as a prosperous man or he attains heavenly abodes. Of course, these are post-mortem rewards that do not admit of empirical investigation. For those who insist on actual facts, it is hard to understand. But we should accept the teaching on kamma, bearing in mind that it is beyond the comprehension of the ignorant and that its verification lies within the intellectual sphere of the enlightened Buddha, the Arahats and the psychic yogøs. If you wish to realize its truth, you should develop supernormal powers that will help to fulfil your desire. With the divine-eye (dibbacakkhu) or power of clairvoyance you can see million of donors enjoying heavenly bliss as well as millions of evil-minded misers who are suffering in hell or the world of petas. Even some yogøs who do not have such supernormal powers see beings attaining heavenly abodes because of good kamma and beings landing in the lower worlds because of evil kamma. This, of course, raises the question of whether what these yogøs see is real or only imaginary. But it is reasonable to accept it as real in view of the independent accounts of similar experience by other yogøs. So the denial of any benefit accruing from giving is part of wrong belief. (2) The second part of wrong belief is the view that “There is no use in making an offering on a big scale”, that it is only a waste of (consumer) goods and human energy to do so. (3) The next wrong view is that feeding, giving gifts and other kinds of trivial offering are also useless; in other words, that feeding the guests, giving a feast or presents on the occasion of a wedding, on a new year day, etc., do not produce any benefit. The second and the third views are essentially the same as the first. They refer to the kinds of good deeds that were in vogue in ancient India and mention the specific acts of giving that are repudiated by heretics. (4) The fourth wrong view is that a good or a bad act is devoid of any major or marginal effect. In other words, it says that the so-called good acts produce no good effect but are only a waste of energy and that the so-called bad acts do not have any bad effect, that the doer is free from guilt. As we have pointed out, the good fruit of a good act is abundantly evident in the present life and its good fruits in the afterlife are to be seen by the clairvoyant yogøs. The same may be said of the evil deed. Those who do evil in deed or speech will be at the very least blamed by the wise. If they commit crimes, they will be punished. They will be economically ruined if they do any evil that harms their economic interest. As to their post-mortem passage to the lower worlds, this is obvious to those who have the supernormal power of seeing and we should accept it on the authority of the Buddha and the Arahats who have witnessed it supernormal. But the man who is very fond of sensual pleasures thinks only of indulging in such pleasures and he does not like the good deeds that stand in his way. Nor does he wish to avoid bad deeds for the man who believes in the kammic effect of a good or a bad deed will have to do good even at the sacrifice of his material welfare. He may think that he will not make any material progress so long as he has to avoid evil in his business. Therefore, he does not consider the kammic effect of his deeds. He is inclined to reject it and he thinks of various arguments in support of his view. This is primarily due to his excessive love of sensuous pleasure. (5) and (6) Another wrong view is that there is no mother or father. Wise men teach us to regard our parents as our great benefactors, to revere them, to care for them and to support them in return for what they have done for our welfare. The person who holds wrong beliefs does not accept this teaching. He rejects it, saying that people get their children by accident in the course of their sexual enjoyment, that they care for their children because of their sense of responsibility and that there is no reason why the latter should be grateful to them. Moreover, since he makes no distinction between good and evil, he does not believe that support of parents or any wrong done to them is productive of kammic effects. So, when he says that there is no father or mother, he is denying that we deserve the special respects of our children by virtue of being their parents. It is a terrible belief. One result of this belief is certain and it is that the person who holds it will not be respected by his children. (7) This is the belief that three is no such thing as this world (as distinct from the other world). In other words, there is no rebirth in the human world following death in the other world. One who holds this wrong belief rejects hell, the deva-world and the pets-world which are invisible. In this view, the only other world is the animal and it is impossible for an animal to die and pass onto the human world annihilates every living being. (8) This belief denies the existence of other worlds. It denies the possibility of rebirth in hell, the deva-world or the peta-world following death in the human world. It insists that annihilation is the fate of every dying person. (9) This belief says that there is no being who emerges in a new existence after death in a previous existence. In this sense, this view is the same as views (7) and (8). The Pæ¹i text says, “Natthi opapætikæ sattæ” and here opapætikæ means beings with upapatti birth that is, spontaneous birth. In other words, it refers to beings who emerge with complete body-organs and in Buddhism these beings are deva, Brahmæ, peta, asura, denizens of hells and beings at the beginning of the world. The heretic denies their existence because he had never seen them himself. There is no basis for this skepticism for good spirits as well as evil spirits are to be found occasionally in many places. There are tree-gods who give instant trouble to those who destroy their abodes. The spirits that guard ancient treasures have been by some people and the psychic feats of some wizards have been witnessed by others. Then there are meditating yogøs who have really seen deva, Brahmæs, peta and internal beings by means of their power of concentration. In view of these facts the belief which denies the existence of the spiritual world is untenable. (10) This view is important. So we will give an almost literal translation of the Pæ¹i passage and explain it. “There are ascetics and brahma¼as (bhikkhus and holy men) who say that they have a special knowledge of and actually see this present world and the other, invisible world. But in this world there are no ascetics and brahma¼as who lead their lives and conduct themselves rightly.” To put it another way, the heretic’s view is that among those who have founded religions and proclaimed their doctrines there is no one who can teach on the basis of their independent, special and empirical knowledge of the visible human world and the invisible heaven and hell. There is not one whose teachings accord with their practice. All their teachings are speculations and conjectures born of ignorance. The implication is that no religion is good or right. This charge against religion was made not only in ancient times for today it is being made by those who are hostile to religion. Thus the heretic denies the existence of the Buddha and the Arahats who know the truth about the world as a result of their spiritual effort. But if one thinks rationally, one will have to conclude on the basis of the heretic’s own saying that he (the heretic), too, is just an ordinary man and that his argument is also mere speculation without any special knowledge. So it will not do to accept as truth the words of an ignorant person. It is necessary to think deeply and independently. There are many religions in the world. Some of them concede in their holy books that their teachings are based on speculations and not on actual experience. Moreover, these religions do not promise any personal experience to those who practise their teachings. Instead, they only insist on blind faith and worship. Such religions will have no appeal for wise men. As for the Buddha-dhamma, it claims that its teaching is based on personal, extraordinary knowledge. True to its claim, steadfast practice will ensure personal experience. The Buddha’s teaching is confirmed by science in many respects. But in order to verify the teaching decisively, one will have to practise systematically and thoroughly. So the person who holds this last wrong view should practise it fully and see for himself. The man who proclaimed this tenfold doctrine in the lifetime of the Buddha was Ajita, a teacher of a religious sect. But he was already teaching before the rise of Buddhism. So initially his attack might not have applied to the Buddha and his disciples who were real Arahats but as he continued to make a sweeping charge against all holy men in the time of the Buddha, it implies an attack on the Buddha and the real Arahats. DENIAL OF KAMMA AND ITS EFFECT The ten wrong beliefs that we have mentioned all boil down to the view that rejects kamma and its effect. For the denial of (1) the benefit of giving, (2) the benefit of giving lavishly, (3) the benefit of feeding and (4) the good or evil effect of good or evil deed means the rejection of kamma and its effect. The denial of (5) mother and (6) father means the rejection of the effect of reverence for parents and of the wrong done to them and hence it also is the rejection of the kammic law. The denial of (7) this world (8) the other world and (9) beings that emerge spontaneously also is rejection of kamma that leads to new existence or in other words, the rejection of the law of kamma, (10) The last view that denies the exist5ence of the Buddha and the Arahats means rejection of the potential for Buddhahood and Arahatship and as such it too is the rejection of the law of kamma. Thus the tenfold false belief means the rejection of kamma and its effect. The word kamma is a Pæ¹i term which means action. Bodily action, verbal action and mental action are self-evident. These are the deeds which we call kamma and are not the effects of these deeds equally obvious? Clearly a good deed is beneficial while a bad deed produces an evil effect. People who seek their welfare focus on good deeds everyday. They are engaged in work for their prosperity and happiness. They send their children to school, hoping that education ensures good jobs and prosperity in later life. The child who leads a good life and learns his lessons will benefit by his good deeds in terms of good education, superior job and material wealth. These are the results of good actions. On the other hand, evil deeds have evil consequences. Those who do evil are blamed; if they commit crimes they are convicted. These results of good or evil deeds are to be experienced in the present life. Likewise, there are good and evil results of our actions that pass on the future existences. We need not have any doubt about these kammic results if we think rationally. For every human being wants to be prosperous and happy but all men and women do not fulfil their desires. Most people are poor. Men are born equal but some men die at an early age while some live long. Some are sickly while some are relatively free from disease. Some are good-looking and some are ugly. Some have many enemies but some are popular. Some meet with success and make fortunes while some are unsuccessful and suffer financial losses. Some are intelligent and some are dull. Why do human beings differ from one another in so many respects? The difference between identical twin brothers or sisters is certainly not due to their parents. Farmers who work on the same plot of land may differ vastly in the output of crops in spite of the equality in soil, water and labour. There can be no cause for their inequality other than their deeds in their previous lives. Some teachers say that the world and all living beings were created by the almighty God who has infinite power. According to Buddhist texts, they describe the world and all beings as the creation of the supreme ruler or the Great Brahmæ. The differences among human beings are, therefore, to be attributed to the will of the Creator. But this view is not acceptable to intelligent people. It does not explain fully the differences among human beings. For why does the Creator create a good life for one person and a bad life for another? Why does he prolong the life of one man and shorten the life of another? Why is a child still-born and another destroyed while still in its mother’s womb? The hypothesis of a Creator does not dispose of these questions satisfactorily. Again, why does the Creator fail to make all human beings equally rich? Why does he make many people poor? Why has he created snakes, tigers and other animals that are harmful to mankind and germs that cause diseases? These facts of human life raise doubts about the belief in a Creator. The Sinhalese Sayædaw asks U Nærada why the Creator has made the Europeans and Americans rich and the peoples of India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Indonesia poor. This disparity has nothing to do with creation for it is most probably due to different degrees of intelligence, energy and effort that is, actions in the present life. Thus the theory of creation cannot explain the facts of human life and as such it is not acceptable to wise men. Then there is the view which describes everything as happening by chance. This view is wholly untenable for everything that we see has its corresponding cause. A good deed benefits us while a bad deed harms us. Obviously anyone who commits a crime is bound to suffer because of his evil deed. Of the people who do the same kind of job some prosper and get promotion while others do not achieve much success in life. This is presumably due not to their present deeds but to their past kamma. Moreover, there are people in many parts of the world who can remember their previous lives. They can tell you what they have done and what kind of lives they have passed through. The average human being is oblivious of his past existence because of the Suffering he has undergone while in his mother’s womb. But the devas do not suffer at the time of the renewal of their existence. Like a man waking up, they appear suddenly with their bodies and so with clear recollections of their past, they can recount the good deeds that have led them to heaven. In short, in the absence of the present actions that condition it, the disparity in the fortunes of human beings is obviously due to past kamma. The doctrine of kamma is the key to all problems of human life. Some people die at an early age as a result of their acts of murder in their previous lives. Some are afflicted with diseases because of their ill-treatment of others in their past existences. We have explained these kammic effects in our last discourse. No one will resent the law of kamma for it is of a piece with the facts of human existence, that is, the fact that every action whether good or bad, has its consequences. Kamma explains everything and the view which rejects it is clearly wrong. This false belief is one of the ten evils (duccarita) and it is described as the belief leading to evil conduct. The evil conduct oriented belief is of three kinds, viz., natthika-di¥¥hi (Nihilist belief), ahetuka-di¥¥hi (No-cause belief) and akiriya-di¥¥hi (Non-action belief). Puræ¼akassapa, one of the six prominent heretical teachers in the lifetime of the Buddha declared that there was no moral action that produced good or evil. This view is called akiriya-di¥¥hi, that is, the view which denies causal agent of kamma. Another teacher, Ajita, said that there was no result of a good or evil deed since death annihilated every human being. This view which rejects the result of kamma is called natthika-di¥¥hi. Still another teacher, Makkhaligosæla taught that there was no moral cause that made a man happy or unhappy because every man’s happiness or unhappiness was inexorably predetermined. This view called achetuka-di¥¥hi rejects kamma both as a cause and as an effect. Although the other two views differ in their rejection of kamma, they are essentially the same for the denial of cause implies the denial of effect and vice versa. So all these views are false in that they reject kamma and its effect. A strong attachment to anyone of the views is fraught with grave consequences. The man who holds it is denied spiritual progress because he makes no effort for it. After death he cannot attain heaven but is bound to land in the lower worlds. According to the commentaries, he will not be liberated from hell as long as he clings to the belief. It is the worst of all evils, the most serious of all wrong beliefs. Even if the renunciation of the belief frees one from hell, one is likely to land peta or animal world of his kamma is not good enough to ensure his rebirth as a human being. So this false belief is frightful indeed. In the Sallekha sutta, the Buddha teaches the disciples to reject the belief. “Other people may believe that there is no kamma and its effect. We will hold the right belief that there is kamma and its effect. Thus we should practise this Sallekha dhamma that will lessen defilements.” The right belief that leads to good conduct is called kammassakata sammædi¥¥hi. According to this view, we have only our actions as our property. Good deeds benefit us and bad deeds are harmful to our interest. This view is very important because it forms the basis of all good deeds. Only this right view makes us avoid evil, do good and leads to prosperity in heaven or the human world through the practice of ordinary charity, morality and mind-development (bhævanæ) Or it may lead to the attainment of holy path (Ariyamagga) and fruition (phala) through the practice of meditation. So it is very important to hold this right view. But those who are born of good Buddhist parents inherit this important, invaluable right belief in their childhood and so they need not make special effort to acquire it. They should only guard and strengthen it through right contemplation. AFFIRMATION OF THE BELIEF (CITTUPPÆDAVÆRA, ETC.) It is more important to affirm our belief in kamma when we have to deal with heretics or when we are among them. We should stick to the right belief regardless of what is said by those who reject it. Some lack a firm conviction and so they go astray after reading books that support wrong beliefs. Some have deviated from right views following their marriage or social relations. This means a loss of spiritual heritage that is very much to be deplored. Such misguided people will realize their mistakes and suffer remorse on their death-bed and hereafter. Wrong belief means wrong path, right belief means right path and so just as one follows the right path in order to avoid the wrong path, so also one who is not wholly free from wrong belief should change his path. This is what the Buddha taught concerning the choice of right belief as the alternative to wrong belief. Moreover, a wrong belief leads to the lower, while a right belief leads to the higher planes of existence. Of these two paths the Buddha tells us to choose the higher one. A man who does not believe in kamma and its effect will not do good nor will he avoid evil. So he cannot hope for a higher life but is bound to land in the nether worlds. But a man who believes in kamma and its effect avoids evil, leads a good life as far as possible and by virtue of his good deeds attains the higher worlds of human beings or devas or he may attain the noble, holy path to Nibbæna through the practice of insight meditation (vipassanæ bhævanæ). Thus one can make spiritual progress only through right views. Everybody craves for a higher life and seeks it but some seek it by following the wrong path. Some people do not believe in kamma and its effect and yet they have attained higher life and prosperity because of their past kamma and hard work in the present life. The man who has thus become prosperous despite his rejection of kamma is esteemed by some people who accept his views and follow his advice. In this way, they may achieve their objects in their present life but they are likely to land in the lowest worlds after their death. Therefore, we should seek higher life by means of right views. Finally, according to the Buddha, the acceptance of right views is essential to the total extinction of defilements or in other words, the attainment of Nibbæna. If one believes that there is no kamma and its effect or is inclined to such a belief, one should reject it and accept the right belief after hearing a good sermon and reflecting wisely (yonisomanasikæra). This will lead to the extinction of the defilement rooted in wrong views. The ordinary worldling who is not yet wholly free from wrong views will also be assured of complete freedom from them if he strengthens the belief in kamma, practises meditation and attains the first stage of holiness (sotæpattimagga) and its fruition. Therefore, in accordance with the teaching of the Buddha, let us affirm that:– “Other people may hold that there is no kamma and its effect but we will hold the right belief that there is kamma and its effect. We will practise the dhamma that lessens defilements. We will cultivate the thoughts for the right belief in kamma. We will avoid the wrong belief by adopting the right belief for our spiritual uplift and for the extinction of defilements.” Thus we should strengthen the belief in kamma. Whenever we come across or hear of an evil deed we should remember that it will have an evil kamma effect and avoid it. Whenever we do a good deed, we should do it whole-heartedly, bearing in mind that it will benefit us. This way of doing good is born of knowledge. It assures one of good rebirth in the next life. Moreover, whenever we contemplate the law of kamma, we have wholesome consciousness (di¥¥hijukamma). This is a kind of mind-training and we should practise it before we can practise other bhævanæs. THE PATH-ORIENTED WRONG BELIEF AND RIGHT BELIEF We have told you how to remove the false belief that is productive of evil and cultivate the right belief that is productive of good. We now urge you to remove the false belief regarding the path or as it is called Aniyyænikadi¥¥hi which means the false belief that is a hindrance of liberation from suffering. There are four false beliefs, viz., attadi¥¥hi, sakkæyadi¥¥hi, sassatadi¥¥hi and ucchedadi¥¥hi that run counter to insight-knowledge and path-knowledge (magga ñæ¼a). Of these attadi¥¥h or sakkæyadi¥¥hi is the belief in the existence of a living entity or soul. The living entity is called atta and the Pæ¹i texts refer to both living being and atta. Ordinary people supposed themselves as well as others to be living beings. In reality there are only the five khandhas or only consciousness and corporeality. There is not atta or a living entity. People believe in the existence of the non-existent atta and this false belief is called attadi¥¥hi or sakkæyadi¥¥hi. Sakkæya means mind-body complex and sakkæyadi¥¥hi is the false view that this mind-body complex is the living being or atta. For example, seeing involves the eye-organ, the visual object and the eye-consciousness. But those who cannot contemplate or understand with insight-knowledge regard the clear eye-organ, the visual object and the eye-consciousness as a living being. They believe that “My eye is clear and good; I see my hand; I see his body; it is I who see”, etc. This is the sakkæyadi¥¥hi which identifies the apparent mind-body complex with atta. This kind of false belief is also associated with acts of hearing, smelling, eating, touching and thinking. To give another example, when you bend or stretches your hands or legs, the desire to bend and stretch is consciousness while bending and stretching comprise corporeality. We have only this mind-body complex. But those who can not contemplate or understand with insight-knowledge have the illusion “It is I who bend or stretch because it is I who wish to do so”, etc. This is the sakkæyadi¥¥hi that regards the apparent mind-body complex as atta and the belief arises too in connection with other kinds of physical behaviour. It is hard for common people to be wholly free from the ego-belief (attadi¥¥hi). There is only a difference in degrees, some being much attached to it and others being not so much attached. The belief is deep-rooted in those who do not know anything about the khandhas. I held this belief when I was young and ignorant. I believed then that there was a living entity in a man’s physical body, that on his death it left the body either through the mouth or the nose. I thought that life entered the mother’s womb during pregnancy. This belief is supported by doctors who recognize the coming of life in the fetus only when they hear its heart beat. So people who do not have adequate knowledge about mind and body cling to the belief. But it does not have a firm hold on Buddhists who are familiar with the impersonality of life. The belief is not strong enough to impede spiritual effort and the practice of the Dhamma. So it is possible for Buddhists to practise and attain the Ariyan path and fruition in spite of their ego-belief. The belief is weak in those who have a good knowledge about the nature of mind and body. Not that they are wholly free from it. For while talking about the nature of mind and body, they may have the illusion that “It is I who is talking,” a fact evident in the heated and impassioned arguments during the discussion of the Dhamma. It is the insight-meditation and the Ariyan path that can ensure the extinction of the belief. Of the two, meditation brings about the extinction of the belief on the tada³gapahæna level or in other words, the illusion as regards the object contemplated is eliminated by the opposite. Constant mindfulness means extinction of the illusion on the vikkhambhana level, i.e., overcoming by repression. The belief may still arise, however, when the yogø stops meditating and is off his guard. It is completely rooted out only when he attains the first stage of holiness. So it is up to him to strive for the first stage of the holy path. In order to attain this object, one must start with meditation that is the prelude to knowledge of Ariyan path. The practice of meditation presupposes knowledge and some say that before he meditates the yogø should be thoroughly familiar with the concept of khandha (the five groups of mental and physical phenomena), æyatanas (the bases or sources), dhætu (elements), indriya (the faculties), saccæ (the truths) and paticcasamuppæda (the dependent origination). This is sound advice since it accords with Visuddhimagga (Buddhaghosa’s book, “The Path of Purity”). If the yogø is to meditate without a teacher, he needs such knowledge for self-examination. We should not assume, however, that this knowledge is indispensable to all meditating yogøs. For not every yogø who meditated according to the instructions of the Buddha did so only after he had thoroughly studied the concepts of khandhas, etc. Perhaps giving instructions to meditators in those days did not usually last even an hour. Especially if there is a teacher to guide the yogø, his knowledge is sufficient if he bears in mind that there are only mental and physical phenomena and impermanence, suffering and insubstantiality. The Buddha pointed out the need for sufficient knowledge in a few words as follows:– “O King of devas! The bhikkhu who wants to meditate till he attains Arahatship remembers that he should regard none of the phenomena as permanent, pleasant or substantial.” This was the Buddha’s brief statement in response to the king of deva’s question as to the extent of knowledge that is essential to the attainment of Arahatship. It is the word of the Buddha, not a post-canonical teaching. To put it another way, all phenomena that occur to one or others should be regarded as impermanent, suffering and insubstantial and this knowledge suffices to equip the yogø intellectually for the practice of meditation. We can have this knowledge by merely hearing the sermons. Religious Buddhists have learnt for a long time that there are only physical and mental phenomena, that everything is transitory, suffering and devoid of ego-entity. So if you know the method of meditation, you can meditate at any time. The Buddha’s method of meditation is given in a few words: “So sabbam dhammam abhijænæti ... The yogø knows all phenomena intelligently and mindfully.” Here all phenomena means the psycho-physical phenomena involved in hearing, smelling, eating, touching, bending, moving, thinking, etc. The yogø should note them in order to know them as they really are: Abhijænæti means to fix one’s attention on the object intelligently, to be mindful of it; and the yogø must know all phenomena. His awareness should not be confined to a single phenomenon. He must take cognizance of every event that occurs when he sees or hears or contacts or knows. But in the beginning he cannot attend to all events. So he should start with the observation of one or two obvious events. While sitting, he must fix his mind on “sitting,” “sitting,” or he can concentrate on his nostril which is the point of contact with inhaled or exhaled air and make a mental note, “in,” “in,” and “out,” “out”. Or he may note arising and passing away with his mind fixed on tenseness and movement in the belly. If while thus watching, some thoughts occur, he should note them and return to the original phenomenon that he has been watching. If stiffness, pain, heat and any other sensation occur, he must note, “stiff,” “stiff,” “pain,” “pain,” “hot,” “hot,” etc., and then resume his original introspection. If there is bending, or stretching or any other movement, it should also be noted. When the yogø stands up, he must do so mindfully. When the yogø walks, he must be aware of every step that he takes; if possible, he must make a note of every act of seeing or hearing. By virtue of his mindfulness, he develops the power of concentration and comes to realize independently that there is no living ego-entity, nothing apart from the knowing consciousness and the known corporeality. This is the knowledge (næmarþpaparicchedañæ¼a) which enables the yogø to discriminate between consciousness and corporeality and it is basic to right belief in meditation. This belief is opposed to the ego-belief and the personality-belief (sakkæyadi¥¥hi). It is important to grasp this right view properly. Some people think that they have the right view if they merely recognize that there are only corporeality and consciousness, the former comprising the four primary elements plus the twenty-four secondary physical phenomena (upædærþpa) and the latter being made up of eighty-one kinds of mundane consciousness plus fifty-two elements of mind (cetasika). This does not accord with the Buddha’s teaching that all phenomena should be known. Nor does such kind of reflection in itself ensure the elimination of the ego-belief that arises at the moment of seeing, hearing, etc. But the yogø who keeps watch on what is actually happening to the psycho-physical organism will, at the moment of noting the arising (of the belly), realize that there are only the arising corporeality and the knowing consciousness; and at the moment of noting the falling of the belly, he knows that there are only the falling corporeality and the knowing consciousness. At the moment of bending or stretching, he knows that there are only the corporeality that bends or stretches and the consciousness that makes a note of it. The same may be said of his knowledge of the distinction between næma and rþpa while walking, seeing, hearing, etc. So every moment of mindfulness means rejection of the ego-belief and the personality-belief. That is the way the Buddha pointed out for dispelling these beliefs in the Sallekha sutta. “Other non-meditating people may believe in the ego-entity. But we who are familiar with the Satipa¥¥hæna method of introspection will, by introspecting the psycho-physical phenomena at the moment of their occurrence, hold the correct view that there is no ego-entity but only the consciousness and corporeality. Thus we will practise the dhamma that lessens defilements.” Our interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching is advanced and profound. Those who cannot meditate are included in the “other” people. But we should assume that knowledgeable persons who are not firmly attached to ego-belief are to be excepted. The belief will have a strong-hold on those who cannot meditate and have little knowledge. According to our interpretation, such person will have to be labelled heretics. But ego-oriented heresy is not as serious as evil conduct-oriented belief. If does not by itself lead to the lower worlds. The believer may land in heavenly abodes by virtue of his charity and morality. Or he may attain jhæna and pass on to the Brahmæ world or even the highest abode. So the ego-belief is not a barrier to the deva-worlds. But a person who is dominated by the belief lacks faith in the Buddhist teaching and so it may impede his spiritual progress. The extreme ego-belief usually prevails among non-Buddhists and is hardly to be found among Buddhists. So a Buddhist may hold the ego-belief because of his ignorance and yet he may have faith in the Dhamma and practise meditation. If he exerts whole-hearted effort, he may attain the holy path and fruition. So while living in a world that is wedded to ego-belief, we should meditate and hold the right view based on insight-knowledge. “Other people may believe in a living soul or an ego entity but we will hold the right view that there are only consciousness and corporeality. We will practise the dhamma that lessens defilements. We will cultivate thoughts about such a view. We will avoid the ego-belief and personality-belief by adopting the right beliefs. We will achieve spiritual uplift through right beliefs. We will put out the fire of defilement arising from ego-belief and personality-belief through adherence to right belief.” Implicit in this affirmation is that those who hold the ego-belief are to be labelled heretics, an implication that may be offensive to believers. But as we have pointed out, such an ego-belief is not as serious as evil-oriented heresy. It only prolongs one’s existence in samsæra or the cycle of life. Moreover, ordinary people are seldom free from the belief. We are temporarily free from it only when we are meditating. So there is no reason why the believers should resent being called heretics. If they resent it, they can switch to the right belief through introspection. There are people who have set their heart on greater spiritual heights without giving up their ego-belief. As for the meditating yogø, he makes spiritual progress on the basis of his right views just like Visækhæ and Anæthapi¼ðika in the lifetime of the Buddha. These two disciples of the Buddha passed on to heavenly abodes on their death. There they attained anægæmi stage and will pass through the Suddhævæsa, i.e., the five Brahma worlds of form in succession. They will spend one thousand world-cycles in the lowest Aviha realm, two thousand world-cycles in Atappa realm, four thousand world-cycles in Sudassa realm, eight thousand world-cycles in Sudassø realm and sixteen thousand world-cycles in Akani¥¥ha realm, or altogether thirty-one thousand world-cycles in Suddhævæsa Brahma realms. Finally in the Akani¥¥ha realm they will become Arahats and attain Nibbæna. This is how the yogø makes spiritual progress through right belief on the basis of insight-meditation and Ariyan path. We should also follow their example. SASSATADI¿¿HI AND UCCHEDADI¿¿HI (CONTINUITY-BELIEF AND ANNIHILATION-BEKLIEF) Sassatadi¥¥hi is the belief that a living being remains permanent, passing from one existence to another. According to this view, the soul or the ego never perishes although the gross physical body is subject to death and destruction. After the death of the body the soul moves on to another physical abode. It is indestructible and it survives the disintegration of innumerable world-systems. By and large the sassata belief is prevalent among people who believe in kamma. It is explicitly accepted by the Hindu holy books. According to their view, the living being has two kinds of bodies, viz., the gross body and the subtle body. The gross body eventually perishes but the subtle body passes on to a new abode and remains intact. The soul which thus seeks a new abode is very small, smaller than the tip of a pin that can go through the eye of a needle. It can reach a very distant place instantly and pass through mountains and brick walls. They have to credit the soul with such supernormal power for only then would it be able to gain access to a potential mother who is sleeping in a brick-building without any opening. There is no Buddhist book that explicitly states such a view. But ignorant people believe that the soul leaves the body after death and passes onto another abode or existence. The belief does not have a strong-hold on those who have knowledge about causal relation between mind and body. No one is, however, wholly free from it so long as he lacks insight-knowledge on the level of the holy path. Opposed to the sassata belief is the uccheda belief which insists on annihilation after death. If you believe that there is nothing after death, you assume that there is something before death and presumably that something is the ego. So, although the annihilationists insist on the corporeality of everything (or the primacy of matter) they are not really free from ego-belief. In other words, the uccheda view, too, is rooted in ego-belief. According to sassata view, the ego continues to exist after death while according to uccheda view it is annihilated by death. So both views attribute ego to a living being, the only difference being that the first view insists on while the second view rejects the continued existence of the ego after death. Some people hold that the mind and body of child-hood still exist in the grown-up man but this is not sassata view. It is only the idea of permanency; you may call it attadi¥¥hi but it is not the same as sassatadi¥¥hi in as much as ucchedadi¥¥hi, too, insists on such permanency before death. Moreover, if the belief in the mind and body of childhood is to be labelled sassata belief, our awareness of their ceaseless passing away will have to be called uccheda belief. In fact, this awareness is based on reflection and insight-meditation. The view opposed to it is only ego-belief, not sassata (continuity or eternity) belief. In short, sassata belief insists on permanence while uccheda belief on annihilation of the ego after death. The annihilation doctrine was preached by Ajita in the lifetime of the Buddha. The substance of his teaching is that when a man dies, his corpse is placed on a bedstead and taken to the cemetery by four men. There it is burnt to ashes and nothing is left. According to this view, there is no need to avoid evil. One can do anything that will serve one’s interest. Nor is it necessary to do good. Those who hold this view urge us to do whatever is beneficial to us and they tell us not to do good at the sacrifice of our own interest. Thus the uccheda view rejects action and its kammic effect and as such it is one of the false views that give rise to evil conduct. RIGHT BELIEF BASED ON MEDITATION (OR) KNOWLEDGE OF CAUSAL RELATION The sassata view and uccheda view have to be repudiated through the right view regarding cause and effect or through the reflective insight into the causal relation of dependent origination. It can be removed too by the right view in meditation called paccayapariggahañæ¼a. There is no living soul either before or after death. The only thing that exists is the psycho-physical process based on cause-and-effect relationship. There are only consciousness, mind, corporeality, etc., that arise ceaselessly because of ignorance and other cause. Today most people do not know the four noble truths rightly. In short, they do not really know the truth of suffering. This truth is evident in every phenomenon that occurs at the moment of seeing, hearing, eating, thinking, etc. All phenomena are continually arising and passing away and so they are impermanent, unpleasant, undependable and insubstantial. We do not know them as they really are and consider them permanent, pleasant, good and substantial. This is ignorance. Because of ignorance we take delight in sensual objects and become attached to them. We cling to them. We try to get the object of our attachment. Thus ignorance (avijjæ), craving (ta¼hæ), attachment (upædæna), action (kamma) and conditioning (sa³khæra) are the five causes or in short, the round of kamma involving good or bad deeds. The round of kamma is followed by the round of result (vipækava¥¥a). It happens in this way. A dying person has certain mental images as a result of the good or evil deeds that he has done in the course of his life. There are images of his deeds (kamma), the objects and circumstances concerning his deeds (kammanimitta) and the future life conditioned by the deeds (gatinimitta). These images flash across his mind when he is close to death. So he dies while being attached to one of these images. Death is nothing but the cessation of the ever arising-and-passing away of the mental process following the dissolution of the last thought-moment. But it is not complete cessation. There arises new consciousness in a new existence in a new abode in accordance with one of the mental images to which the dying person was attached at the last moment. Together with this (rebirth-consciousness) there follow other consequences, viz., næmarþpa (mind and corporeality), æyatana (bases or sources), phassa (contact) and vedanæ (feeling). Thus there are five causes (ignorance, etc.) and the round of action followed by the round of results (consciousness, etc.). Likewise, from the moment of conception to the moment of death the psycho-physical phenomena arise ceaselessly and in the course of their arising pleasant and unpleasant feelings cause craving, etc., in the next existence. Thus there are only causes and effects. Because of ignorance, kamma, etc., there arise new existence, consciousness, etc., and then we speak of a man’s attainment of the deva world or damnation in hell. In reality there is no transmigration of a person, a being or an entity. There is only the arising of mind and corporeality afresh in a later life as the result of kamma in a former existence and during a single life we have only a psycho-physical process as a result of former states of consciousness. You should know this nature of life by hearing sermons and by reading scriptures. Those who have such knowledge are free from two heresies, viz., the uccheda belief that a man’s life is annihilated after death and the sassata belief that a man’s soul-entity passes on to another place after death and remains permanent. FREEDOM
FROM HERESIES THROUGH DISCRIMINATIVE But the knowledge that we acquire from books and teachers (sutamayañæ¼a) is not well-founded and it is insight-knowledge (bhævanæmayañæ¼a) that is more solid. So it is necessary to meditate and through meditation you will discriminate between mind and corporeality and become aware of their nature. When you bend, stretch or move your leg or hand, you recognize the mind that wants to bend, etc., and then you come to know without thinking that the bending of the leg is due to the mind’s inclination to bend and so forth. When you make a mental note of seeing something, you know that you see because of your eye, the visible object and consciousness. The same may be said of hearing, etc., and we become aware of mind and corporeality as cause and seeing, hearing, etc., as effect. We come to know, too, that preceding thought-moments determine succeeding thought-moments, that perception depends on the presence of the object to be perceived, and that thought-moments arise and pass away afresh as units. So to the yogø, death is like the dissolution of the thought-unit that is now apperceived. It is not the dissolution of a person or being individually. Rebirth is also like the arising of a unit of consciousness that is apperceived. It is not the passing on of an individual being. So rebirth means the arising of a new unit of consciousness following an attachment to an object just before death. Thus the yogø realizes independently the cause-and-effect relation (of psycho-physical phenomena) and some yogøs can explain it clearly though they have no bookish knowledge. Once you realize the purely psycho-physical phenomena of life that are in a constant, causally related state of flux, you are free from the eternity-belief (that the soul continues to exist after death) or the annihilation-belief (that the soul if annihilated by death). Gone over-board are also the belief that man is created by God and the belief that man comes into existence automatically. The creation-belief called visamahetukadi¥¥hi is a kind of sassata belief while the automation-belief, termed ahetukadi¥¥hi, belongs to the group of evil-oriented wrong belief. Opposed to these four beliefs is the paccayapariggahañæ¼a, the discriminative knowledge of cause and effect. GENESIS OF SAMMASANAÑƤA, ETC. The two right beliefs that we have mentioned, viz., næmarþpaparicchedañæ¼a and paccayapariggahañæ¼a are basic to meditation and hence they are here called vipassanæsammædi¥¥hi. In the course of further introspection the yogø realizes independently that all the psycho-physical phenomena arising from the six senses are impermanent, suffering and insubstantial. This realization is due to the discovery of the fact that everything that arises invariably vanishes. If some thoughts occur to you while you are watching the rising, falling, etc., you should note them, too, and then they will pass away. Thus you see the arising and vanishing of a new mental event and you realize its impermanence and you reflect on the impermanence of all mental phenomena. This is sammasanañæ¼a. If while being mindful of the arising, falling, etc., you have the unpleasant feeling of stiffness, pain, itchiness, etc., you should fix your mind on it and note “stiff, stiff”, “warm, warm”, etc. Then your unpleasant feeling will gradually disappear, you realize its impermanence and reflect on the impermanence of all feelings. This, too, is sammasanañæ¼a. You should also take note of craving, anger, displeasure and other mental states that arise. You will find that they vanish as you note them. Reflection on their impermanence is sammasanañæ¼a. Fixing your mind on the movements of any part of your body such as bending, stretching, etc., is momentary and impermanent, and so is your mental state at the moment of watching the arising (of the belly). Each mental event vanishes together with the corresponding physical event. So you reflect on their impermanence. Their impermanence leads you to think of their unsatisfactoriness, undependability and painfulness, your lack of control over them and the occurrence of phenomena in their state of nature. This reflection is the first insight-knowledge that you gain in meditation. It is sammasanañæ¼a, the first of the ten kinds of insight-knowledge. As you keep on making a note of all that occur without reflection, your insight quickens and arising is followed so quickly by vanishing that at last your attention is confined to the latter phenomenon. Then impermanence, suffering and insubstantiality become more manifest. This insight into fast arising-and-passing away is udayabbayañæ¼a. At this stage, the yogø sees lights, feels elated, ecstatic and excessively joyful. These sensations and visions have to be watched and rejected. Overcoming them, the yogø finds that the arising of the phenomenon that he watches is no longer apparent and only their vanishing remains in the focus of his attention. The yogø thinks he is aware only of the vanishing of the phenomenon and this awareness clearly points up to the rapidity with which everything dissolves and passes away. This insight into the passing away as the only reality is bha³gañæ¼a. At this stage, no image, vision or sign occurs to the yogø. He finds that everything vanishes instantly without getting from one place to another. For example, when he directs his attention to bending, the yogø sees no image of his hand or leg. He finds only the physical phenomenon and the corresponding consciousness vanishing, The same may be said of stretching, walking, arising, falling and so forth. This discovery helps to underscore the nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta. With the development of this insight-knowledge (bha³gañæ¼a) there arise fear (bhayañæ¼a) and other kinds of knowledge. These latter kinds of knowledge make the yogø more fully conscious of the dissolution of everything and the three marks of existence, viz., anicca, dukkha and anatta. Of these developments sa³khærupekkhæñæ¼a is very subtle and very good. It makes the yogø indifferent to both pleasant and unpleasant sense-objects which can, therefore, neither repel nor attract him. The yogø can, then, remain mindful for two or three hours at a stretch. When this equanimity-knowledge is fully developed, the yogø has vu¥¥hænagæmini vipassanæ (insight leading to ascent). The last part of this insight is called anulomañæ¼a (adaptation-knowledge). This insight-knowledge means a clear grasp of anyone of the three marks of existence and it is the right belief based on insight. The adaptation-knowledge is the last of the different levels of knowledge associated with mindfulness. Immediately after the end of this knowledge the yogø is face to face with Nibbæna where consciousness, corporeality and kamma-formations become extinct. This contact with Nibbæna involves maturity-knowledge (gotrabhþñæ¼a), path-knowledge and fruition-knowledge. Of these three, the path-knowledge is the right belief of the path (magga sammædi¥¥hi). Contact with Nibbæna means seeing that the consciousness and corporeality and kamma-formations which arise and pass away are wholly extinct. At the moment of the arising of insight-knowledge the yogø sees only the psycho-physical phenomena arising and vanishing. With the end of the last adaptation-knowledge, the psycho-physical phenomena cease to arise and their complete extinction means realization of the peace of Nibbæna. This will be fully understood only by those who have had the experience. Those who have no experience may just imagine it. SEEING THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS SIMULTANEOUSLY Seeing Nibbæna means seeing the Four Noble Truths. When the yogø sees the complete extinction of all psycho-physical phenomena that arise and pass away, he knows that it is peace par excellence. He knows, too, that compared with Nibbænic peace, the ever arising-and-vanishing phenomena are painful and because of this awareness he is more or less free from craving for such phenomena. At the sotæpatti stage he is free from the craving that is strong enough to consign him to the lower worlds. At the sakadægæmi stage he is free from gross sensual desire; at the anægæmi stage he is free from the subtle sensual desire while at the Arahatta stage he is free from the desire for the world of form and the formless worlds. Thus the yogø knows freedom from desire through avoidance (pahænæbhisamaya). Actual contact with Nibbæna is the fourth noble truth. The realization of this truth occurs in the mind of the yogø and so it is known through development (bhævanæbhisamaya). In short, the yogø’s insight into the third truth (the truth of the cessation of suffering, that is, Nibbæna) means his immediate insight into the other three noble truths. There are three stages of right belief. First we have the basic right belief; then there is right belief based on insight-knowledge which is the forerunner of the Ariya path (pubbabhæga vipassanæ sammædi¥¥hi) and lastly we have the right belief of the Ariyas (Ariyasammædi¥¥hi). The same may be said of the other parts of the Noble Eightfold Path. Each part of the path has three stages, viz., basic path, preliminary path and Ariya path. We may consider here right belief as an example. The belief in kamma is very important because it is the basic path. Without the belief in kamma one will not avoid misdeeds and it will be difficult to do good deeds such as dæna and søla. Even when such a man has to give alms by force of circumstance, it will be an act divorced from knowledge and so the merit that he gains will be of an inferior kind. So he is likely to land in the lower worlds and stands little chance of achieving good rebirth, let alone the holy path or Nibbæna. On the other hand, the man who believes in kamma avoids misdeeds, devotes himself to good deeds, hears the discourses on the Dhamma and practises insight-meditation. So even if he does not have unusual spiritual experience, he will be happy in his future lives. If he fully develops right belief up to adaptation-knowledge (anulomañæ¼a), there will arise the right belief about the Path (Ariyamagga) and he will actually see Nibbæna. So let us affirm our belief in kamma in accordance with the teaching of the Buddha. Those who cannot as yet practise insight-meditation should pay special attention to this right belief. They should also implant the belief in the minds of their children. For, without this belief, a child is not a true Buddhist although he may be called a Buddhist by birth. He would have unwholesome thoughts and ridicule the good deeds of his parents such as revering the memory of the Buddha, keeping sabbath, giving alms, etc. When he grows up he may become a convert to another religion through marriage or for some other reason. Or he may become an agnostic. So you should instill this right belief in your children and if possible, make them strengthen it through meditation. Let us then affirm our right belief in kamma although others may reject it; cultivate right thoughts and adopt right practice that will lessen defilements. Let us avoid false beliefs and stick to right beliefs for our spiritual uplift. Those who believe in kamma should strengthen the belief. Those who have not gained insight-knowledge should practise meditation. Those who are engaged in meditation or have had much practice in it should set their heart on having higher insights. They should try to gain udayabhayñæ¼a (knowledge concerning the arising and vanishing) that affords unusual spiritual experience, ecstasy and a firm basis for the path-knowledge and its fruition. They should also seek sa³khærupekkhæñæ¼a (equanimity knowledge) which is very subtle, calls for relaxed watchfulness and is something like spontaneous awareness. It will make them completely detached in the face of pleasant or unpleasant sense-objects. At this moment they will have the attribute of the Arahat called cha¹a³gupekkhæ (indifference to six sense-objects). The experience is gratifying to the subject and awe-inspiring to others. With the perfection of this knowledge there arises the right belief about the path that brings one into contact with Nibbæna. At this stage all the wrong beliefs become wholly extinct. You should, then, try to gain at least the right belief on the sotæpatti level and if possible, the right belief on the higher level. Through right beliefs we can overcome self-conceit (asmimæna, di¥¥himæna) which dominates us on the lower paths. This self-conceit is rooted in qualities which we really possess and so it is also called yathævamæna. We can do away with this kind of conceit once and forever only when we become Arahats. So, in order to overcome it we have to replace wrong beliefs with right beliefs and it is up to us to conquer it through Arahatship. WRONG INTENTIONS (MICCHÆSA£KAPPA) “Other people may have wrong intentions but we will have right intentions and thereby lessen our defilements.” That is what the Pæ¹i text says. There are three kinds of wrong intentions, viz., intentions arising from sensuous desires, that is, the intention to have the object of one’s desire (kæmavitakka), intentions arising from ill-will or the intention to ruin another person (vyæpædavitakka) and intentions arising from aggressive desire or the intention to hurt another person (vihimsavitakka). Nowadays people harbour many wrong intentions and the most common of these intentions is that which stems from sensuous desire. People usually are intend on getting the objects of their desire - good food, good clothes, good houses, cars, land, garden, cattle and so forth. They have plans concerning their ambition, social relations, professions, families, maintenance of property, etc., in short, they are pre-occupied with their sensuous desire almost the whole day. Of these intentions, the self-serving intention may be called right intention. But, since it is based on unwholesome sensuous desire, it is termed wrong intention from the point of view of the Dhamma. But the intention to seek lawfully the necessities of life is not greatly harmful. Even the bhikkhus who are devoted to the Dhamma have to seek food, etc., and it is quite proper to think of doing lawfully what is unavoidable. However, during meditation the yogø should not harbour such thoughts for a long time. They should be watched and rejected. What is gravely harmful is the intention to get unlawfully something which one does not deserve or in the case of those who deserve it, obsession with the desire for it. For this kind of sensuous thought prolongs the cycle of life (samsæra) even if it does not lead to the lower worlds. The best thing to do is to reject sensuous thoughts. The bhikkhus and yogøs who have high regard for morality based on restraint of the senses should avoid sensuous thoughts about visabhæga objects that is objects in the form of males and females that have different physical appearances. Bhikkhus and male yogøs should avoid thoughts about women and nuns, and female yogøs should not think of men. Such sensuous thoughts impede concentration, knowledge and mental development and as such they are to be watched and rejected. Again, when we think of a person whom we hate, we tend to have ill-will against him. We accuse him of having done something harmful to us, of having obstructed our plans and so we long for his destruction and ruin. We think of doing away with him. This is hateful thought arising from ill-will (vyæpæda). The object of ill-will is not necessarily a human being. When we seek to destroy snakes, scorpions, mosquitoes, bugs, etc., we are also motivated by ill-will. We may justify our attempt to kill snakes, tigers, etc., but the unwholesome kammic volition involved leads to suffering and so every thought of killing for any reason or purpose is to be called a wrong intention. If the intention is not to kill a person whom one hates but only to ill-treat him, it is called vihimsavitakka or aggressive thought. Here one intends to beat, abuse, scold or otherwise cause suffering to another person. If one is motivated by goodwill in his intention, there is no kammic result. But the aggressive thought that stems from hatred is kammically unwholesome and the kammic result is grave in proportion to the moral purity of the person who is wronged. RIGHT INTENTION (SAMMÆSA£KAPPA) Right intention is the opposite of wrong intention and as such it is of three kinds, viz., thought of renunciation (nekkhammavitakka), thought of hatelessness (avyæpædavitakka) and thought of harmlessness (avihimsævitakka). Of these three, the thought of renunciation is the intention to liberate oneself from sensuous desire defilements and the cycle of life. According to the commentary, joining the Buddhist Sangha is nekkhamma or renunciation. So is Nibbæna or the jhæna or vipassanæ (insight-meditation) or the practice of charity morality, etc. So the thought of entering the holy order, the thought of developing the mind to attain the first jhæna, the thought of attaining Nibbæna, the thought of going to meditation-center, the thought of observing the moral precepts, the thought of giving alms, the thought of hearing a sermon–each of these thoughts is thought of renunciation. Every thought of renunciation presupposes the right belief in kamma. The belief is also involved at the time of translating the thought into action. So, when you develop right intention or thought, you develop, too, right belief and vice versa. Other parts of the path are also more or less developed accordingly. Thought of hatelessness is the opposite of thought of hatefulness. It is thought of the welfare of all living beings based on goodwill and love. Thought of harmlessness is the opposite of thought of harmfulness. It is the thought arising from compassion and sympathy. People usually have regard only for those who are associated with them. They tend to ill-treat any person who oppose them. In this world of such moral degradation it is indeed very noble to think of the welfare of all living beings universally with love and compassion. Here we will cite the story of bodhisatta Sumedhæ’s thought of renunciation that is so memorable. Bodhisatta Sumedhæ was born aeons ago. His parents died when he was young. So the treasurer of the family handed over to the young man all the wealth that had been accumulated by the seven generations of his forefathers. Sumedhæ reflected on the mortality of his forefathers who had left all their wealth in the hands of other people. They could not come and look after their property. They could not use any of their former property nor could they take it away with them. Now Sumedhæ hoped to take away his wealth in the form of kammic effect by giving it away. In other words, he hoped to gain merit by alms-giving, the merit that is called anugæmika property because it is the property that always follows the donor in the cycle of life. There are four kinds of property, viz., ja³gama property, thævara property, a³gasama property and anugæmika property. The commentary describes slaves, cattle and other living things as jahgama property and the non-moving, lifeless things as thævara property. But we will classify property in the traditional way. Gold, silver, clothing, etc., which are easily changeable are to be regarded as ja³gama property. This kind of property is not durable. Although it is one’s property, it is another person’s possession when it gets into the hands of a thief, a robber or a swindler. For example, a fountain pen or a pocket watch that is stolen by a pickpocket becomes his property and it is hard to recover it unless it bears identification marks or there is someone to testify to your ownership. So you cannot own a thing permanently if it can change hands easily. It may be yours now but it may belong to another the next moment. So gold, silver, etc., which are not of immediate use to us have to be changed into permanent property such as land, building, etc. A permanent property cannot be moved secretly and so is more durable than movable property. Yet you may lose it when a powerful man legally claims it by right of inheritance. Or you may lose it because you cannot always count on it through the change of times. You cannot always count on it and so it is better to change it into a³gæsama property or property like the parts of your body. You carry this property wherever you go just like your legs or hands. This kind of property is a person’s occupation like painting, teaching, writing, dancing, medicine, law and so forth. A man can earn his living by his profession, he cannot be robbed of it and so people spend money on the education of their children. But a vocational training or knowledge may be of no use if the law forbids its practice. So more solid than the property of profession is the anugæmi property in the form of alms-giving, morality, etc. Nobody can steal it or rob you of it or prevent it from producing its wholesome kammic effect. It will follow you in your life-cycle and prove beneficial. So Sumedhæ thought of turning his wealth into the most solid property or anugæmi property that he could take with him on his death. So the Bodhisatta Sumedhæ gave away all his wealth and became an ascetic. He was then about 16 or at most 20 years old. As a young ascetic, he developed concentration, trained his mind and within seven days he attained jhæna and psychic-power. Later on he offered himself as a bridge at the foot of the Døpa³karæ Buddha who prophesied that he would become a Buddha. Here the Bodhisatta’s intention to give away all his wealth as the right intention or the thought of renunciation. So was his thought of becoming an ascetic and trying to attain jhæna and psychic-powers. So too was his thought of seeking Buddhahood by offering his body to be used as a bridge by the Buddha. Likewise, the thought of making daily devotion before the shrine of the Buddha and observing the five precepts, etc., is thought of renunciation. So is the thought of observing the eight precepts on sabbath days or the thought of hearing the dhamma and practising it. Here the practice of the Dhamma means renunciation of desirable and pleasant sense-objects. The Dhamma will be foreign to those who are steeped in sensuous pleasure. So although you urge them to practise it they will refuse to do so on one pretext or another. You have thoughts of hatelessness (avyæpæda) when you diffuse love and goodwill toward a person or persons; or when you are interested in their welfare; or when you work for their welfare verbally or physically; or when as a leader you do something for the good of your followers. You have thoughts of harmlessness (avihimsævitakka) when you avoid harming a person out of compassion and sympathy; or when you think of saving or helping a suffering person. Such compassionate thoughts occur often in nurses and doctors who attend the sick kind-heartedly. It is with compassion and thoughts of harmlessness that we pray for the end of suffering among other people. Let us cultivate compassion especially towards those who are sick, distressed or wailing over their misfortunes. During the practice of insight-meditation every moment of mindfulness means the rejection of three kinds of unwholesome thought and the cultivation of the three kinds of wholesome thought. If, at the moment of seeing, the visual object is watched and its true nature (that is the fact of its having the three marks of anicca, dukkha and anatta) realized, there can be no sensuous thought, no hateful thought and no harmful thought. The same may be said of the state of consciousness at the moment of hearing or eating, etc. Every moment of mindfulness means the development of wholesome thoughts as opposed to unwholesome thoughts. In other words, the right intention in itself that is involved in mindfulness helps to develop thoughts of renunciation, thereby excluding sensuous thoughts. Ill-will and aggressive thoughts are removed in the same way. For if you are aware of the impermanence of everything at every moment of mindfulness, how can there be the desire for an impermanent object or malicious and aggressive thoughts on account of it? So the meditating yogøs develop the three kinds of right thought or intention at every moment of mindfulness. As their insight-knowledge develops and becomes perfect, they see Nibbæna and attain the Ariyan path. The right intention on the Ariyan level helps the yogø to overcome the unwholesome thoughts progressively. At the first stage it removes the sensuous thoughts that lead to the lower worlds. At the second stage it removes the gross forms of sensuous thoughts, etc. At the third stage the subtle forms of sensuous thoughts are stamped out while at the last stage, i.e., on the level of the Arahat, the right intentions root out the unwholesome thoughts arising from the desire for the world of forms and the formless world. The Buddha, therefore, urged his disciples to lessen their defilements by having right intentions,. We should cultivate right intentions to avoid the wrong path of wrong intentions for our spiritual uplift and for the extinction of wrong intentions. Wrong speech is speaking wrongly or improperly. It is of four kinds, viz., lying, slandering in order to create dissensions among those who love one another, abusing and talking frivolously. These kinds of speech may serve the interest of the speaker and so there may be justification for them in his eyes but they may be harmful to other persons and the speaker will have to bear the unwholesome kammic effect of his wrong speech in future. Right speech means abstinence from wrong speech. Here the term sammævæcæ refers not to what one says but to the avoidance of lying, etc., whenever the occasion arises. Such abstention is called virati. Those who are committed to the five precepts should avoid lying and kindred wrong speech such as slandering, abusing and frivolous talk. Needless to say, the abstention from the four kinds of wrong speech is binding on those who have committed themselves to æjøva¥¥hamaka morality. During meditation the abstention is effected through overcoming by the opposite (tada³gapahæna). So in effect meditation involves virati (abstention) although it has substantially little to do with it. Then on the Ariyan path the four kinds of wrong speech are rooted out through destruction (samucchedapahæna). Wrong action is of three kinds, viz., killing, stealing and committing sexual acts wrongfully. These acts may be justified by those who commit them but they are by no means justifiable from the point of view of the victim. For how can you say that it is proper for a person to kill you for the good of someone or some people, to steal or rob you of your property or to lust for your wife or daughter? Everyone will agree that these acts are evil and those who commit them will have to suffer in future for their evil deeds. Here, too, right action means abstinence form killing, etc. Those who have committed themselves to non-killing and so avoid killing are doing the right action. Every moment of mindfulness during meditation leads to abstinence from killing, etc., although it involves no element of consciousness (cetasika) as regards abstention (virati). On the Ariyan path all wrong actions are done away with through destruction. WRONG LIVELIHOOD (MICCHÆÆJØVA) Wrong livelihood is to earn one’s living by getting money unlawfully. Some people commit evil deeds such as killing to make their living but some commit evil not for economic reason but because of their greed or anger. Evil deeds that have nothing to do with one’s living but stem from anger or greed are not wrong livelihood but wrong action or wrong speech. For example, the killing of mosquitoes, snakes, etc., or one’s enemy through anger is wrong action. But the killing of chickens, pigs, fish, etc., for the market or for one’s own consumption is wrong livelihood. As for stealing or robbing, it is usually done for economic reason and so most of these acts are to be classified as wrong livelihood. Stealing out of spite or through ill-will, habit or propensity is, of course, wrong action. Unlawful sexual intercourse has usually nothing to do with one’s living. To seduce a woman, however, for the sake of money or for one’s living is wrong livelihood. Telling a lie in business transaction is wrong livelihood; but if you lie for other reason, it is wrong speech. The same may be said of slandering. Nowadays some kinds of propaganda are defamations that fall within the category of wrong livelihood. They are very harmful. Abusive language is not very much used in business. But there are many kinds of wrong livelihood in the form of frivolous talk that we can find in fiction-writing, play acting, film-making and so forth. All kinds of wrong livelihood involve violation of the moral code that prescribes abstinence from killing, etc. Those who observe the five precepts are free from the seven kinds of wrong livelihood that we have mentioned about. It is obvious that those who adhere to æjøva¥¥hamaka morality are especially free from wrong livelihood. Right livelihood is to earn money lawfully with moral life untainted by any kind of wrong livelihood. To put it another way, right livelihood is to make one’s living without killing, stealing, etc. Wise men of yore described it as proper farming, proper trading and so forth. Obviously proper farming is cultivating crops or gardening by one’s sweat of labour without ill-treating another person. Proper trading is to buy goods at proper price without ill-treating, killing, stealing, robbing or cheating another person and then to sell them property at current prices. In olden days there were few traders who made a profit of one kyat on a commodity that was worth ten kyats. Later the business men became greedy and some of them sold their goods at a profit of hundred percent. This is not proper marketing. Proper marketing is to market goods of genuine quality at proper prices without any attempt at profiteering. Those who thus sell their goods properly benefit from their business. In 1952 there was in Zeygyo bazaar at Mandalay a grocery owner named Ko Nyan. He was a Myanmar Buddhist. He spoke to his customers courteously, “Sir, what can I do for you?” He did not overcharge his goods but stated the exact price. If a customer haggled, he would say, “Sir, I cannot reduce the price: I make only a profit of two pice on one kyat.” Even if the buyer happened to be a child, he never thought of cheating over the price and quality of the good. If the wrong article was sold by mistake, the buyer could change it for the right one. So his four or five assistants were always busy, a form of right livelihood that was really commendable. Again a Government employee or a worker in a private business or a porter who does his work dutifully for a reasonable wage is earning right livelihood. So is the driver or the boatman who works conscientiously and charges fairly for his service. THE RIGHT LIVELIHOOD AND THE WRONG LIVELIHOOD OF THE BHIKKHUS Unlike the laymen with their seven rules of conduct the bhikkhus have a wide variety of moral rules binding on them. A bhikkhu should not ask for food, robes or dwelling unless the person who is thus requested happens to be his relative or to have invited him. Neither should he nor other bhikkhus use anything that is received in this way. Asking outright for donations as is being done nowadays is very unbecoming of a bhikkhu. A bhikkhu should not even show signs or make indirect remarks that would induce a layman to offer food or robes. It is wrong livelihood to use anything that the bhikkhu obtains by begging, or showing signs or through artful suggestions. Moreover, any effort on the part of a bhikkhu to make himself intimate with laymen or laywomen or to endear himself to them by giving flowers, fruits or food is an offence called kuladþsana which means destroying the faith of the laity. Giving flowers, etc., may help to win the affection of the recipients but it will not contribute to their faith. For respect for a bhikkhu can become genuine faith only if it is due to his moral purity and other qualities. So any attempt to cultivate intimacy by giving flowers, etc., is harmful to the original true faith that the bhikkhu’s virtuous life has created. The lay follower is then likely to revere only the monk who gives flowers. He will not care for other good monks. The so-called reverence for the liberal monk is, in reality, nothing more than affection that we find among ordinary people since it has little to do with faith. So it is improper for a bhikkhu to offer flowers, food, etc., to his lay followers, to fawn on them, to serve them, to care for their children, to practise medicine, to read their horoscopes or engage in any other faith-destroying, wrong livelihood. It is also wrong livelihood to make use of the consumer goods which the monk gets by means of such practices. The bhikkhu should avoid, too, hypocrisy in regard to material goods, jhæna, magga, etc., and the practice of meditation. Some bhikkhus pretend to have no desire for the robe or food offered by their lay followers. They would refuse to accept it, “I do not want good robes and good food. I am content with cast-off rags and the food that I get by begging.” Their refusal strengthens the faith of their lay follower who repeatedly requests them to accept his offer. Then they accept and never decline the offer of the lay believers on whom they have thus impressed their apparent distaste for the good things of life. This is the way of earning one’s living wrongly by posing as an ascetic. A monk may say, “A bhikkhu who wears his robes like this or who dwells in such a place is usually a Noble One, an Arahat or one who has attained jhæna and psychic powers.” The description conforms to the speaker’s mode of life, the way he puts on his robe. This is a kind of wrong livelihood by a hypocritical monk. Some monks do not meditate but they behave themselves quietly and gently like a meditating yogø. They stand, sit, lie down, bend or stretch their hands like a yogø absorbed in jhæna or concentration. This is also wrong livelihood by false pretence. Some pretend to be able to read the mind of another person. If a monk who is preaching says, “Ho! The woman over there is distracted. Be attentive and practise breathing,” there may indeed be some distracted women in the congregation. Such women would be much impressed and have a high opinion of the monk. Or if a monk says that he was a king and that such and such a woman was his queen in a previous existence, he will be credited with psychic powers by some of his followers. This is wrong livelihood by deception. A bhikkhu should not use anything that is offered by a lay disciple who has been thus deceived. He should live only on those things that he can have by right livelihood. If there is no one to offer him food, he should go about begging for it. If he has no proper robe, he should search for cast-off rags. Or he should stand in front of the house of a layman and when he is asked what he wants, he should express his desire for a robe. It is not improper to say what he wants in response to an inquiry. To seek the necessities of life through bodily expression (kæyaviññatti) is right livelihood. Food, robes, etc., which a layman offers out of regard for the learning, spiritual life and sermons of a monk are pure since the monk receives them lawfully. So the Buddha urged his disciples to make their living rightfully. THREE KINDS OF ABSTENTIONS (VIRATI) Right speech, right action and right livelihood are three wholesome abstentions. Each abstention is of three kinds. First there is sampatta virati when a man abstains from a misdeed without having been committed to moral rules. Thus a man who has not vowed to observe the moral precepts may abstain from lying, stealing or killing at certain moments of life that expose him to temptations. Then we have samædæna virati that refers to a man who having pledged himself to observe the precepts sees to it that his moral life is pure. The third abstention is the one on the Ariyan path called samuccheda virati that serves to root out all evils. Of these three kinds of abstentions the last one, viz., samuccheda virati is not associated with any thought of abstention. The yogø’s mind is focussed on Nibbæna. But from the time he attains the Ariyan path there never arises any desire to do evil. Evil desires become totally extinct and this means complete abstention and hence the name virati. In the same way while meditating, the mindful yogø realizes the anicca, dukkha and anatta of all sense-objects and so he has no unwholesome desire to kill, steal, lie, etc., and this means abstention from misdeeds. Thus insight meditation involves in effect the three kinds of abstention. When meditation is perfect there is abstention on Ariyan level and then all wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood are rooted out. Wrong effort means hard work and perseverance in regard to misdeeds. Some people have a very strong will in doing evil. They try hard and kill, steal or rob successfully in the face of difficulties. Theirs is a clear example of wrong effort. For example, in killing mosquitoes or bugs, there is effort to crush or beat the insects. Lying easily involves effort and so does abusing. The wrong effort is obvious in the manufacture of weapons for the killing of living beings and so is it in defamation, modern fiction-writing and film-making. Wrong effort creates unwholesome things that have not yet risen and encourages unwholesome things that have arisen. Moreover, it is wrong effort to seek sensual pleasure and objects. It is evident in the case of people who line up to buy tickets at the cinema-halls and theatres. In short, trying to do an unwholesome deed is wrong effort. Right effort is the opposite of wrong effort. It is strenuous effort in connection with alms-giving, morality and mind development. There are four kinds of right effort, viz., (1) the effort to overcome unwholesome tendencies that have occurred. If, for example, you have killed mosquitoes, etc., it is up to you to avoid doing so in future. If you have lied before, you should try to avoid lying in future. (2) The effort to avoid unwholesome tendencies that have not yet occurred. If you see others killing, lying or stealing, you should seek to avoid such misdeeds just as you seek to avoid contracting a disease which you see afflicting other people. (3) Trying to do good things which you have not yet done is also right effort. You should give alms and observe moral precepts, if you have not done such things. You should regard the Buddha with his nine attributes as the noblest being and vow to have faith in him and follow his teaching, reciting thrice the Refuge formula (“I go to the Buddha for refuge”). Similar vows should be made in respect of the Dhamma and the Sangha. We should observe the five precepts or the eight precepts and if possible, become sæma¼eras and bhikkhus and live up to moral codes prescribed for them. It is not easy to become permanent bhikkhus but some may join the holy order temporarily. Then there are other good things to do such as revering those who are worthy of reverence, doing service to them, hearing their talks, etc. We should also meditate on the Buddha, loving-kindness (mettæ), repulsiveness (of the phenomenal world), in-and-out breathing, etc., for concentration and mental development. Then we should practise insight-meditation. Even if we have practised it, we should continue the practice if we have not yet developed unusual insight-knowledge. We should especially seek udayabbhayañæ¼a (insight into fast-arising-and-passing away), sa³khærupekkhæñæ¼a (equanimity-knowledge). Wholesome or good things on the Ariyan path are those which have never occurred to the worldlings. We should seek to cultivate such wholesome things on the path and the attempt to cultivate or develop new wholesome things is right effort. (4) It is also right effort when we try to strengthen and perfect the wholesome things that have already developed. This needs no elaboration. So the yogøs who are here practising insight-meditation are at every moment of mindfulness trying to overcome unwholesome things that have arisen; trying to avoid unwholesome things that have not yet arisen; trying to cultivate wholesome things that have not yet arisen and that such effort concerns higher insight-meditation and Ariyan path; and trying to strengthen and perfect the wholesome things of insight-meditation that have already arisen. These four right efforts are also called four sammappadhæna (the four right exertions). WRONG RECOLLECTION (MICCHÆSATI) Wrong recollection is the remembrance of worldly matter and unwholesome things of the past. Some remember the unwholesome things that they did when they were young, their companions, the places they visited, their happy days and so forth. They may be likened to cows chewing their curd at night. These are wrong recollections. But it is not wrong recollection when one recognizes the mistakes of the past, repents and resolves not to repeat them in future. Such repentance is right recollection. Some monks think of their parents, relatives, native places and the companions of their childhood. They recall how they spent their days as laymen. They think of what they have to do for so-and-so. All these recollections of the past are wrong recollections. Laymen need not reject thoughts about their sons, daughters, etc., for such recollections are natural. But while meditating, the yogø should watch and reject them. As he sits in his retreat at the meditation center, watching the arising-and-falling of the abdomen or his other bodily movements (“sitting”, “touching”, etc.,) the yogø recalls what he did formerly, his sayings and doings in his youth, his friends, etc. These are wrong recollections and have to be watched and rejected. Some old men and women think of their grandchildren. While watching their thoughts, they have mental visions of the kinds near them and they fancy they hear the kids calling them. All these have to be watched and removed. Some have to return home since they cannot overcome these unwholesome thoughts. A yogø’s spiritual effort is thus often thwarted by wrong recollections. In the final analysis a wrong recollection is not a distinct, separate element of consciousness. It is a collection of unwholesome elements in the form of memories vis-a-vis worldly and unwholesome things of the past. RIGHT RECOLLECTIONS (SAMMÆSATI) Opposed to wrong recollection is the right recollection or recollection of wholesome things concerning alms-giving, morality and mental development. One recalls how one did such-and-such good things at such-and-such a time in days gone by; good deeds such as offering kathein robes and food, keeping sabbath on uposatha days, etc. This recollection of wholesome things is right recollection. It is the element of recollection that goes along with wholesome consciousness. It is involved in every arising of wholesome consciousness such as alms-giving, devotion before the Buddha image, doing service to one’s elders, observing the moral precepts, practising mind-development, etc. No wholesome consciousness is possible without right recollection. But it is not apparent in ordinary wholesome consciousness. It is evident in the practice of mind-development (bhævanæ) especially in the practice of insight-meditation. Hence, in the Pi¥aka the elaboration of right recollection is to be found in the sutta on four applications of attentiveness (satipa¥¥hæna). It is sammæsati to be attentive to all bodily behaviour or postures, to all pleasant or unpleasant feelings, to all states of consciousness and to all mental phenomena or mind-objects (dhamma). The yogøs who practise insight-meditation are cultivating right recollection on the vipassanæ level. They watch all psycho-physical phenomena that arise from six senses; they focus their attention generally on the arising and falling of the abdomen, sitting, bending, walking and so forth. This is cultivation of attentiveness to body. Sometimes the yogø watches his feelings, “painful”, “depressed”, “joyful”, “good”, etc. This is to develop attentiveness to feelings. At time attention is focused on “thinking”, “intending”, etc. This is cultivation of attentiveness to states of consciousness. Then there is watchfulness in regard to “seeing”, “hearing”, “desiring”, “being angry”, “being lazy”, “being distracted”, etc. This is to develop attentiveness to mind objects. Every moment of watchfulness means cultivation of vipassanæ attentiveness and is very gratifying. When this vipassanæ attentiveness develops and becomes perfect, there arises attentiveness on the Ariyan path that makes you aware of Nibbæna. So you should practise until you attain this final stage of attentiveness. WRONG CONCENTRATION (MICCHÆSAMÆDHI) Wrong concentration is concentration of mind on a misdeed which one intends to commit bodily or by word of mouth. It is concentration that enables one to do evil successfully. For example, when you intend to tell a lie, your intention will materialize only if you fix your mind on the words that you have to utter falsely. If your mind wanders, you are likely to speak the truth unwittingly. It is said that at the law courts the truth about some cases come to light when some persons who have greed to give false evidence are sidetracked by lawyers whose cross-examination is designed to create confusion. This is due to lack of concentration on the part of the witnesses. So concentration is vital when you do a bad deed. The power of wrong concentration is indeed very great when men plan a big massacre, stage a big robbery or produce lethal weapons. RIGHT CONCENTRATION (SAMMÆ-SAMÆDHI) Right concentration is concentration in regard to wholesome deeds such as alms-giving or observance of moral precepts. Alms-giving involves concentration that is strong enough to effect it. So does paying respect or doing service to others. Concentration is most vital to exercises in mind-training such as preaching and hearing sermon. It is more important in the practice of in-and-out breathing where you have to fix your mind wholly on a single object. Concentration related to such wholesome consciousness is sammæ-samædhi. Sammæ-samædhi is of three kinds, viz., (1) Kha¼ika-samædhi (temporary concentration), (2) Upacærasamædhi (neighbourhood concentration), (3) Appanæsamædhi (attainment concentration). Concentration that is involved when there arises ordinary forms of wholesome consciousness such as alms-giving and morality is called kha¼ikasamædhi as it is temporary. This ordinary concentration is not notable and so the scriptures make no mention of it. It is mentioned only in connection with the foundations of concentration and insight-meditation. So it is concentration that occurs at the preparatory stage of mental development (bhævanæ) or at the beginning of the exercise. Concentration which is powerful enough to exclude hindrances is called upacærasamædhi or neighbourhood concentration. The concentration that the yogø has on the attainment of jhæna is called appanæ or attainment samædhi. In vipassanæ (insight-meditation) there is kha¼ikasamædhi when the yogø concentrates on the four elements, the five khandhas, næma and rþpa, etc. But at the beginning concentration is not apparent as it is not well-developed. When it is developed the mind is entirely fixed on the object of contemplation. During that time the yogø is free from hindrances such as sensual desires. The mind becomes a ceaseless stream of thought-moments characterized by watchfulness. This is kha¼ika-samædhi of insight-meditation. It is also called neighbour-hood concentration as it is like upacærasamædhi which frees one from hindrances. So in the commentary on Satipa¥¥hæna sutta ways of movement, bodily postures (iriyæpatha), clear-sightedness (sampajañña), mental advertence of the elements (dhætumanasikæra) are described as upacækamma¥¥hæna. Visuddhimagga (“The Path of Purity”) also identifies the dhætumanasikæra kamma¥¥hæna of Sa¥¥ipathæna sutta with catudhætuvavatthæna (analysis of the four elements) kamma¥¥hæna and describes the attainment of upacærasamædhi through it. So, for the meditating yogø, from the time concentration is developed enough to exclude hindrances, the samædhi that arises at every moment of mindfulness is vipassanæ kha¼ikasamædhi that is like the upacærasamædhi. Indeed it is also called upacærasamædhi since it resembles the latter in respect of its ability to free the yogø from hindrances. The yogø has then purity of consciousness because the mindful vipassanæ consciousness is pure. When the insight-knowledge is perfect, the yogø attains the fruition or result on the Ariyan path that brings him into contact with Nibbæna. The concentration at the moment of attaining the fruition of the Ariyan path is supramundane attainment concentration. Wholesome sammæ-samædhi is of three kinds, viz., kha¼ikasamædhi, upacærasamædhi and appanæsamædhi. The Pæ¹i Pi¥aka explains sammæ-samædhi in terms of the four jhænas. The Pæ¹i texts mention only the jhæna of the fine-material sphere, jhænasamædhi of the immaterial sphere (arþpa-jhæna) and maggaphala-samædhi as the three primary types of samædhi. We must assume that upacæsamædhi and vipassanæ-samædhi are of secondary importance since these are included in the first jhæna-samædhi. For without the kha¼ika upacærasamædhi the mundane jhæna-samædhi and the supramundane samædhi are not possible and moreover, this kha¼ika upacæra-samædhi helps to overcome the wrong samædhi. WRONG LIBERATION (MICCHÆVIMUTTI) Wrong liberation is the state of consciousness which one mistakes for real liberation. There are many kinds of wrong liberation. There are many wrong views about liberation among non-Buddhists. It is wrong reflection to have a misconception and to misuse one’s intelligence. Such kind of reflection is born of ignorance. The Commentary defines it as devising means of doing evil and gloating over one’s evil deed. One has to plan in the face of difficulties to kill, steal, rob or lie. Planning is also essential to success in doing evil. For killing a large number of living beings easily, it is necessary to plan the production of machines, weapons and poisons. The mastermind behind such planning is generally recognized as intelligence but in reality it is ignorance or misdirected knowledge. Moreover, after doing evil, we often justify ourselves or rationalize our actions. This, too, is misuse of intelligence rooted in ignorance. Opposed to wrong reflection is sammæñæ¼a which means reflection on the path, fruition or Nibbæna which one has attained or reflection on defilements that are extinct or that are still dormant. These reflections are termed paccavekkha¼añæ¼a and the yogø at the sotæpanna stage has four kinds of these reflection; at the sakadægæmi stage he has five kinds; at the anægæmi stage he has five kinds while the Arahats who have no defilements have four kinds of reflection. The yogøs who contemplate all the næma-rþpa that arise from the six senses are on the way to developing right reflection. When the reflection becomes perfect through constant contemplation there arises the extraordinary insight called sa³khærupekkhæñæ¼a (equanimity insight-knowledge). At this stage the yogø can watch the sense-objects for two or three hours at a stretch. He is unaffected and neither pleased nor displeased in the face of pleasant or unpleasant objects and experiences. He is barely aware of and indifferent to all events. His perception sharpens and he realizes the arising-and-passing away of all næma-rþpa. He reflects on the dissolution and then on the extinction of all phenomena. This reflection on the extinction without arising-and-passing away is reflection on Nibbæna (paccavekkha¼añæ¼a). Some yogøs reflect on the extinction of the illusion of ego-entity and all doubts about the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Some reflect on the need for further effort in view of the vestiges of defilements such as craving, anger or ignorance. According to the commentaries, such reflections on defilements occur only to some knowledgeable yogøs. They occur on the attainment of the sotæpatti stage and its fruition. If the yogø at the sotæpatti stage strives for higher spiritual experience and if he has the potential for it he will attain it and there will occur other reflections. As we have pointed out above, there are altogether nineteen of such reflections (sammæñæ¼a) or (paccavekkhanañæ¼a). According to the Buddha, the disciples should develop all these kinds of right reflections. WRONG LIBERATION (MICCHÆVIMUTTI) Wrong liberation is the state of consciousness which one mistakes for real liberation. There are many kinds of wrong liberation. There are many wrong views about liberation among Buddhists and non-Buddhists. Non-Buddhists believe that they are liberated when they succeed in their search for atman or when they differentiate atman from khandhas or personality. In the lifetime of the Buddha the Jains who were the disciples of the prominent religious teacher Niga¼¥hanæ¥aputta held that they could achieve liberation through the practice of austerities that would help them to exhaust the old kamma and make them immune to new kamma. They lived in a state of nature because they believed that non-attachment to cloths was a sign of full liberation. These naked ascetics were honoured as Arahats by their followers. There are still such ascetics in India. Some seek liberation by worshipping fire, some hope they will be liberated if they cleanse themselves of their sins by bathing in the Ganges river. Some hope to attain liberation in heaven by worshipping the Al-mighty God. Some people like the rishis Ælæra, Ræma and Udaka believe in liberation through Nothingness (ækiñcaññæyatana) jhæna or Neither-perception-nor-non-perception (neva-saññæ) jhæna. Some people identifies liberation with jhæna of the fine material sphere. For Baka brahma liberation is attainment of the brahma world of his first jhæna. Among Buddhists, too, there is the view which equates liberation with the attainment of one of the jhæna. The Buddha mentioned it at the beginning of this sutta. We have also referred to Mahænæga and Mahætissa theras who harboured such a delusion. Then there are yogøs who speak of their attainment of the path and its result when they have unusual experiences such as seeing the light, joy and ecstasy attendant on the emergence of udayabbaya insight (insight into fast arising-and-passing away). Some believe they have made much spiritual progress even when they have less significant but unusual experiences such as feeling cool and fresh, feeling light, sudden tremor, collapsing, seeing extraordinary forms and visions, hearing strange sounds, seeing repulsive objects, feeling contact with space, feeling oneself on a big expanse of water, seeing the light and so forth. Some become unconscious while sitting within two hours or two or three days after practising mindfulness. When the body of such a yogø is lifted, his sitting posture remains intact but when questioned, he cannot point out the distinction between corporeality and consciousness or the nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta. So these unusual experiences are purely based on concentration. But for ignorant people they may mean cessation of psycho-physical phenomena or absorption in the fruition of the path. What is important is the successive arising of the different kinds of insight-knowledge that lead to the knowledge of the path and fruition and to liberation. Those who consider themselves liberated should at least have unwavering faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha as well as in their moral integrity, have no faith in any practice that is devoid of the path, should be free from ego-belief and doubt and very strict in the observance of the five precepts. A man may claim spiritual progress or sotæpanna-hood without being free even from the breaches of the five precepts but his sense of liberation is purely micchævimutti. Here for the information of readers we will mention the cause of wrong liberation cited in the commentary on Samægama sutta of Majjhimanikæya. In response to the request of his disciples a monk gave instructions for what he described as instant attainment of Arahatship. Each yogø was to meditate on his original object in his room. If while he was thus meditating, there appeared a light he would be on the first path. The second appearance of the light would indicate the attainment of the second path, the third and fourth lights the third and fourth paths respectively. The yogø would then become an Arahat. Because of such instructions his disciples decided that he was an Arahat. When he died later they believed that he had attained Nibbæna and so they honoured and cremated his remains pompously. The bones were enshrined in a stupa. At that time some knowledgeable monks arrived as guests and the hosts told them about the instruction of their teacher, his supposed parinibbæna and so forth. The visiting monks said: “Sirs, the light which your teacher saw is not the path. It is called upakkilesa, something that defiles insight-meditation. You are not well-informed on vipassanæ. In fact, your teacher is a mere worldling. Their explanation was based on scriptures but it was not acceptable to the other monks who resented any adverse reflection on their teacher and argued the case for his spiritual attainments. Thus some people credit a person with Arahatship when he is in fact not an Arahat. The commentary states that these people cannot attain the Path and fruition or even the deva-world so long as they do not renounce their wrong view.” The ¿økæ explains the commentary’s statement as follows:– “To cling firmly to a wrong view that makes one upgrade the blameworthy worldling to the status of an Ariya, the Noble One, talk about it (the wrong view), to extol it or to argue for it is an obstacle to the attainment of the deve-world or the path.” We should bear in mind then that it is a grave mistake to glorify one’s teacher and argue about him when he is just an ordinary person. The commentary goes on with another monk’s account of Arahatship. The monk said that his disciples should imagine kindling a fire and putting an iron pot over it. Then the disciple should imagine his physical body to be put into the pot and roasted. When the body is reduced to ashes, they must be blown away with the moth. Then the disciple becomes a monk who has been purged of all evils. The teacher who preached thus was also honoured as an Arahat and after cremation his bones were enshrined in a stupa. His disciples also argued with the visiting monks about him. Still, another monk said that his disciples should imagine a large earthen pot placed on fire, the pot that is supposed to contain the thirty-two parts of the body. The contents of the pot are then to be stirred up and dissolved and the froth that comes up is to be consumed mentally. This is, the monk said, imbibing the nectar of the Dhamma. This view is in fact the misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teaching that those who devote themselves to contemplation of the body enjoy Nibbæna. The teacher who preached thus was also honoured as an Arahat and a stupa enshrining his bones built as a memorial. He, too, was the subject of controversy between his disciples and other monks. These are instances of wrong liberation in ancient times. Cases of this kind are likely to be on the increase nowadays. At one time some preached that a knowledge of the four Noble Truths meant Buddhahood and so there arose some of their followers who impudently called themselves Buddhas. But, if we are to expose cases of wrong liberation in detail, it would mean indirect attack on some people and so we will leave it at that. RIGHT LIBERATION (SAMMÆVIMUTTI) Right liberation is liberation that presupposes the eight stages of purification, the twelve kinds of insight-knowledge, the four Ariyan (Noble) paths and the four Ariyan fruitions. Before the yogø practises insight-meditation, he must be morally pure. Then he must have upacærasamædhi or appanæsamædhi that will ensure his mental purity. While watching, the yogø should know the distinction between the corporeality that is being watched and the watching consciousness. Then he must know the cause and effect and reflect independently on anicca, dukkha and anatta (impermanence, suffering and insubstantiality of existence). Then he must have udayabbaya knowledge or insight into the arising afresh-and-instant vanishing of the corporeality and consciousness that he watches. He will have unusual experiences such as seeing the light, feeling joyful, faith, etc. He must watch and transcend them. Then there will arise bha³ga and bhaya insights that see the object of attention and the attending consciousness vanishing together. Then he must clearly have sa³khærupekkhæñæ¼a or insight that is concerned with equanimity and bare awareness without effort. This should be followed by anulomañæ¼a (adaptation knowledge) that occurs very quickly and Ariyan insight that brings the yogø into contact with Nibbæna and finally leads to liberation. Such is right liberation. According to the commentary, all the aggregates of mental elements and consciousness relating to fruition with those of the eightfold path excepted is in effect right liberation. Other Pæ¹i texts define liberation as the sum-total of fruition-consciousness and mental elements. In accordance with their explanations, we may as well understand right belief, etc., in terms of knowledge, etc., at the moment of attaining the Path and the right liberation in terms of right belief, etc., at the moment of attaining the fruition of the Path. We will now go on with three hindrances (nøvara¼a) viz., torpor and languor (thinamiddha), restlessness (uddhacca) and doubt (vicikicchæ). We have dealt with the other two hindrances viz., sensuous desire and ill-will in our talk on the ten unwholesome propensities. TORPOR AND LANGUOR (THINAMIDDHA) The Pæ¹i books describe thina as the torpor of the mind and middha as the torpor of mental factors (cetasika). But cetasika is not a common word in Myanmar language and so we will translate thinamiddha as mental torpor. Since cetasikas are always bound up with citta (mind) the torpor of citta means torpor of cetasikas. Mental torpor means a decline in energy and laziness. For the yogø who is engaged in meditation low energy and a dull, sluggish mind are obstacles to the development of concentration. Hence thinamiddha is described as a nøvara¼a (hindrance). The yogø must first free himself from hindrances and make himself pure. He should overcome the hindrances by means of jhænasamædhi or upacærasamædhi (neighbourhood concentration). The Satipa¥¥hæna sutta contains two parts, the first dealing with samatha (tranquility) and the second with vipassanæ (insight). Practice of in-and-out breathing and reflection on impurity as described in the first part lead to attainment of jhænasamædhi. The section on in-and-out breathing says: – “The yogø breathes in (assasati) attentively; he breathes out (passasati) attentively.” Assæsa is translated as exhaled air and passæsa as inhaled air in secular treatise and lexicons. But in the Pæ¹i books of patisambhidæmagga which sets forth the course of training in holy life assæsa and passæsa are described as inhaled air and exhaled air respectively. This interpretation is more reasonable in practice. For if you fix your mind on the nostril in the practice of breathing, the inhaled air is first apparent. It also fits in with the Pæ¹i term “ænæpæna”. Ænæ means inhaled air pæna means exhaled air. So I have translated passasati as breathe out. In breathing in and out the yogø should do so mindfully. According to the commentary, if contact with the in and out air is apparent at the nostril or the upper lip, the yogø should watch the point of contact. He must ignore the air that is breathed into the body or the air that is breathed out. He must watch “in, in,” and “out, out” The commentary suggests that the beginner should practise by counting, “one, two, three,” etc. But what matters most is the development of concentration through the practice. So it will do as well if the yogø just watches always mindfully “in, in,” “out, out”, whenever he breathes. Through such practice he will be free from sensuous desire and other hindrances and attain upacærasamædhi (neighbourhood concentration) and the four jhæna of appanæ (attainment) samædhi. This is the way to cultivate mental purity according to the section on ænæpæna in the Satipa¥¥hæna sutta. Then as regards reflection on impurity, the yogø should reflect on the thirty-two parts of the body such as hair, bones, heart, liver, lung, intestines, urine, saliva, etc. This reflection will free him from hindrances and ensure upacærasamædhi and the first jhæna. This is the way to achieve purity of mind through reflection on impurities. MENTAL PURIFICATION THROUGH INSIGHT The other nineteen sections are described as those relating to insight-meditation (kamma¥¥hæna) and upacæra (neighbourhood) concentration. The yogø notes that he walks when he walks, that he stands when he stands, that he lifts his foot when he does so and so forth. In short, he watches, and notes all kinds of bodily movement. He must also have clarity of consciousness (sampajañña). He must be clearly conscious in looking straight, on looking side-ways, in bending or stretching the legs or hands, in holding the robes or begging-bowl, in eating, in drinking or even in passing the waste matter out of the body. When he walks, stands, sits, sleeps, wakes up, speaks or keeps silence, he must do these things consciously. In short, every behaviour of the body must be governed by consciousness. There is no bodily behaviour that we should not watch or that should not be the object of our consciousness. We should also watch and make ourselves aware of the wind-element or the element of stiffness and motion as suggested by the arising and falling of the belly. The yogø should also contemplate the three kinds of feelings, viz., pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling and neutral feeling. This may be expanded to nine kinds of feelings. The yogø should know and note all these feelings. As regards the contemplation of citta the yogø is instructed to attend to and know every state of consciousness that occurs as it is, whether it is greed or not and so on. As for the contemplation of the mind-objects (chammænupassanæ) there are five subjects for practice. The yogø should know the kind of hindrance that he has whether it is sensuous desire or not, etc. He must know the five khandha, viz., corporeality, feeling, perception kamma-formation and consciousness. He should know the æyatana or the twelve bases or sources such as the eye and the visual objects, etc. When the yogøs of today watch and become mindful of their seeing, hearing, etc., they are practising Satipa¥¥hæna method and their practice conforms to the æyatana section of the sutta. The yogø is also instructed to know the seven links of enlightenment (bojjha³ga). This accords with the experience of the yogøs when they have special illuminations following the development of insight-knowledge such as udayabbayañæ¼a. The yogø should also know the Four Noble Truths. According to the commentary, we should distinguish between two mundane truths, viz., the truth about suffering and the truth about the cause of suffering. When the yogø watches the desire and attachment that arise, he is aware of the truth about the cause of suffering. He also knows it after reflection. So, to watch everything that arises on the basis of the abdominal rising and falling is to practise the four kinds of Satipa¥¥hæna contemplation more or less in accordance with the teaching of the Satipa¥¥hæna. Each of the four methods of contemplation is especially suitable for some yogøs. The yogøs will attain the Ariyan path and fruition through any method that suits them best. So we advise the yogø to watch everything starting with the rising and falling. While thus watching, the yogø is likely to be distracted by habitual thoughts which are largely the hindrance of sensual desire. Such thoughts should be watched and rejected. We become angry in the face of an unpleasant object. This is the hindrance of ill-will that has to be watched and rejected. The yogøs who practise meditation are at the beginning motivated by strong faith, will and energy. But when there does not develop an insight-knowledge, some yogøs lose heart and become slack after sometime. This is the hindrance of torpor which must be removed through constant watchfulness. If watching is not helpful, the yogø should reflect on the virtues of the Buddha, etc., on the dangers of samsæra (life-cycle) and the benefits of vipassanæ. Those who do not know how to reflect should consult their teacher and hear suitable sermons. Hearing sermons tends to dispel laziness. Thinamiddha is also translated as drowsiness. Drowsiness may be due to torpor or to physical exhaustion. While watching, the yogø may lose energy, become slothful and his perceptions are gradually weakened. If he cannot overcome his sloth by watching, he becomes drowsy and falls asleep. Even the chief disciple Moggalæna was overcome with torpor while meditating before he became an Arahat. The Buddha instructed the disciples to dispel torpor by fixing the mind on light, washing one’s face, and so forth. DROWSINESS IS NOT NECESSARILY DEFILEMENT Drowsiness through exhaustion of the physical body may occur in the Arahat who has no defilement. So when Saccaka, the wandering ascetic asked the Buddha whether he ever slept in the daytime, the Buddha replied that he slept during the day in the last month of summer. Saccaka said that sleeping in the daytime was regarded by some people as a form of stupor. Although he thus referred to the views of some people, he was in fact implying that the Buddha was not free from moha (ignorance). The Buddha then said that sleeping was neither stupor nor non-stupor, that one who is not free from biases and defilements may be in stupor, that the Buddha who was free from defilement was never in stupor. So even the Buddha slept and this shows that the desire to sleep because of physical exhaustion is not to be described as torpor or as a hindrance. So the Vimuttimagga (“The Path of Liberation”) mentions three kinds of torpor according to their causes, viz., psychological factors, hot weather and excess of food. It says that, only the psychosomatic torpor is a hindrance or a defilement and that other kinds of torpor cannot be so described because even the Arahats are not free from them. This view is repudiated in Visuddhimagga and the commentary on A¥¥hasælinø. But physical torpor due to climate and food is also mentioned in Milindapañha (“Questions of Milinda”) and Petakopadesa. Thus the theory of physical torpor was advanced by three ancient Indian books and rejected by the Sinhalese commentaries. We should, therefore, assume that the physical origin of torpor was accepted by Indian bhikkhus. The theory is reasonable because it is said that even the Buddha slept during the day when it was very hot. So the term thinamiddha is to be restricted to laziness, drowsiness or lethargy that beset us in doing good deeds or in the practice of meditation. It is thinamiddha if it laziness that prevents you from hearing the sermon or from meditating on the Buddha. Such thinamiddha should be rejected after due reflection. In particular laziness, low energy or drowsiness while you are watching the sense-objects in meditation means thinamiddha. This is to be watched and dispelled. True to the teaching of the Buddha, the yogø should affirm his will to overcome thinamiddha. He should watch vigilantly and focus his mind on the contact between his consciousness and the object that is watched. In this way, before long he will attain concentration. Concentration means insight because, when the mind is concentrated, it is fixed on the object of attention. There is no lethargy, no hindrance. The watching consciousness is pure and this is cittavisuddhi or purity of mind. Just as when you look in the darkness at night you see nothing clearly but when you switch on your flashlight, all the objects that are within the focus of the light become clearly visible. Concentration is like the electric light. All the phenomena on which you concentrate your mind become clear. When you watch the rising and falling, you become clearly aware of the rising, falling and stiffness of the abdomen. The same may be said of the bending, stretching, lifting of your legs, etc. The yogø knows stiffness and motion clearly; every unit of the watching consciousness is also clearly perceived as if it were moving towards the object of attention. Hence there arises næmarþpaparicchedæñæ¼a, that is, insight into the distinction between næma and rþpa and the formation of couples of the watching consciousness and the corporeality that is watched. We will talk more of the relation between samædhi and insight later. For the moment we stress the need for overcoming torpor through intensive mindfulness. Uddhacca is mind-wandering or the straying of the mind away from the object that is to be watched. This is so well-known that it needs no elaboration. While watching the rise and fall of the abdomen or the body postures, etc., the mind tends to wander to vague, indefinite objects. There thought-objects are apparently not objects of desire, irritation or doubt. Sometimes the thoughts seem to slip away in spite of all the special attention paid to the object. Occasionally the mind wavers between this and that way of watching and so is distracted and restless. This restlessness is due to over zeal. The yogø should then relax his effort, take it easy and practise watching steadily. More often than not restlessness is due to weak effort. So, in order to avoid it the yogø should take special care to fix his mind on the object of his attention. Watching should be done with special care just as one exercises great care to prevent a breakable object from slipping from the hand. The commentary says that some people are not tranquil even for a few seconds, their minds are always wandering. They do not try to keep their minds stable even for a moment nor do they know that it is worthwhile to do so. So the Buddha urged his disciples to overcome restlessness by fixing their mind on the object of attention instead of allowing it to wander restlessly. At the beginning the yogø should focus on the arising (of the abdomen) from the beginning to the end. The same may be said of watching the falling, sitting, lifting, putting forward, etc. If the yogø thus keeps on watching carefully, he will develop concentration and find his consciousness falling right on the object of attention. Just as, for example, when you throw a heavy rice bag off your shoulder, it stays where it falls instead of rolling away, or just as when you plunge a spear or a pointed stick into the soft ground, it stays stuck up where it falls. So with the development of concentration, the mind is focused on the object and it is no longer restless but becomes pure. This is purity of mind that is free from restlessness and other hindrances. This mental purity leads to næmarþpapariccheda insight that discriminates between consciousness and corporeality. VICIKICCHÆ (DOUBT ABOUT RIGHT DHAMMA) Vicikicchæ is skepticism about the Buddha, his teaching, the Sangha and the practice of søla, samædhi and paññæ. All these four kinds of skepticism are implicit in the skepticism about the true Dhamma. For one who has doubt about the true Dhamma will have doubt, too, about the Buddha who preached it, about the members of the Sangha who practise it and about the way of life that conforms to it. Hence our translation of vicikicchæ as doubt about the right Dhamma. Also implicit in the doubt about the right Dhamma are doubt about the past of life-cycle (samsæra), doubt about its future, doubt about the present in relation to the combination of past and future and doubt about the relation between cause and effect (dependent origination) For the past of samsæra, etc., are bound up with the right Dhamma. Thus doubt about the right Dhamma means all the eight kinds of doubt that we have mentioned. It does not include doubts that have nothing to do with the right dhamma, doubts such as whether this road will lead to the pagoda, whether this business is likely to be lucrative and so forth. Such kind of doubt in worldly affairs is not a nøvara¼a or hindrance. Only the eightfold doubt about the Dhamma is to be termed a nøvara¼a vicikicchæ. DOUBT ABOUT THE PRACTICE FOR TRANQUILITY The yogø who devotes himself to samatha bhævanaæ may have doubts about the practice. Would the meditation by breathing in itself lead to attainment of jhæna? Would it be possible to attain the four jhænas merely by practising the earth-kasina? Would such jhænas lead to attainment of psychic powers? Is it a fact that such powers enable a man to create things, to go under-ground, to fly in the air, to see or hear everything? Would watching and reflection on the thirty-two parts of the body ensure the attainment of jhænas? These are doubts that pose a hindrance to the development of tranquility. DOUBT ABOUT INSIGHT-MEDITATION Would mindfulness of one’s bodily behaviour (standing, sitting, walking, etc.) by itself develop the insight into the distinction between consciousness and corporeality? Is it possible for the yogø to gain insight-knowledge simply by watching every phenomenon that arises from the six senses such as the arising and falling of the belly? These are instances of vicikicchæ that form a hindrance to the progress in the practice of vipassanæ. The yogø who harbours such doubts is like a traveller at a cross-roads. If he is travelling in a new territory, he should inquire those who have travelled there before. He must travel fast if he is being followed by enemies. Suppose he stops at a cross-roads and wavers without following one way or the other. He will then be overtaken, looted and killed by the pursuing enemies. His suffering is due to his hesitation at the cross-roads. Likewise, the yogø who has doubts is hampered in his effort to practise mindfulness. He is at the cross-roads. Because he hesitates inattentively, he does not know the sense-objects as they really are. Because of his ignorance, he clings to them as if they were permanent, pleasant and substantial. Clinging causes greed, hatred and other defilements as well as wholesome and unwholesome kamma that lead to the lower worlds and other samsæric suffering such as birth, etc. Thus the doubting yogø suffers just as the hesitating traveller at the cross-roads suffers at the hand of his enemy. So it is imperative to dispel doubts about the right Dhamma. Because of skepticism some cannot practise meditation; some do not hear the sermons and some do not care to read books on meditation. They miss opportunities because they confuse vicikicchæ with an inquiring mind. In fact, some people do not grasp the secret of meditation since they do not consider Satipa¥¥hæna sutta seriously. The Buddha’s teaching is simple and straight-forward but they mix it with the teaching of Abhidhamma and commentaries and hence their confusion. The Buddha said, Kæye kæyanupassi vihærati... “Be mindful of your physical body...” which means that the yogø should focus his mind on the parts of the body and its behaviour. Meditation on the parts of the body is described fully in the method of meditating on thirty-two parts such as hair, etc. Watching hair, etc., as loathsome objects in undoubtedly the practice of attentiveness to the body. Again meditation on the behaviour of the body is described in Gacchanto væ gacchæmøti pajænæti... “The yogø knows that he walks when he walks,” etc. The text tells us plainly to be mindful of walking when we walk, of standing when we stand, of sitting when we sit and so on. If we do not watch the behaviour of the body at the moment of it’s arising, we tend to consider it permanent, pleasant and substantial. But watching all forms of behaviour makes us aware of anicca, dukkha and anatta and this awareness in turn makes one free from attachment. Hence the Buddha’s insistence on the need for mindfulness at every moment. Here the bodily behaviour which is the object of attention includes the abdominal rising and falling. Tenseness and motion at the moment of rising and falling form wind-body (væyokæya), watching and knowing mean anupassanæ and so to watch and know the rising and falling is kæyænupassanæ. ALL
FORMS OF CORPOREALITY But the yogø should see to it that his method of contemplation is correct. The physical body is impermanent, painful and lacking in an ego-entity and repulsive. He should contemplate so as to realize these marks of life, viz., anicca, dukkha, anatta and asubha. To this end he must first know the nature of the physical body. This calls for watching all forms of the behaviour of the body at the moment of their arising. In other words, the yogø contemplates all forms of corporeality that are manifest in the whole body. These include solid and gross corporeality, that is earth-element (pathavø-dhætu) represented by hair, etc. The yogø is mindful when he is in contact with the hair or fingernails or toe-nails or the skin, etc. The earth-element is also to be watched and noted when there is contact between the teeth and the tongue or between the flesh and the bones. All solid, gross or soft earth-element that is manifest is the subject for contemplation. There is no earth-element that is not worthy of contemplation. The flowing and compounded water-body (æpokæya) is also to be contemplated. Æpo-kæya means the water-element that is to be found in bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, etc. According to Pæ¹i commentaries, this element is intangible, not an object of body-contact but there is flowing and wetness only after the contact between the æpo-element and other elements that are bound up with it. So the flowing, cohesive æpo-element is apparent when one contacts and watches tear, water from the nose, saliva, sweat, etc. The yogø can watch any manifestation of væyo-element. The hot, warm or cold tejo-kæya or heat-element is also to be watched. Tejo-kæya comprises (1) the normal heat of the body that causes a man to grow old (2) the feverish heat exceeds the normal heat of the body (3) the burning, excessive heat and (4) the internal heat of the digestive system that digests and burn up all the food that is eaten. This heat-element should also be watched wherever it is apparent. The væyo-kæya or the element of stiffness and motion is also the subject for contemplation. The element of motion is six-fold, viz., (1) motion upward, (2) motion downward, (3) motion in the intestines, (4) motion in the abdomen, (5) motion which causes walking, standing, sitting, lying, bending, stretching, handling, etc., (6) motion produced by in-and-out breathing. The yogø can contemplate any kind of this væyo-element. To watch the behaviour of one’s body (“walking” “sitting” “lying” etc.,) in accordance with the teaching of Satipa¥¥hæna sutta is to watch the fifth kind of element of motion called angamanganusari in Pæ¹i. The practice of in-and-out breathing means contemplation of the væyo-element of the sixth kind called assasapassasa. To watch the rise and fall of the abdomen is to watch the væyo element that is in motion because of the pressure of the inhaled air. By watching thus the yogø knows the pressure of the inhaled air. So it can be said that he watches breathing in-and-out air. Some yogøs may think that they should focus only on their nostril. This is true if the object is the attainment of jhæna ad samædhi (concentration). Jhæna and samædhi develop only if the mind is focused on a single object in one place. To attend to several objects in several places is bound to impede their development. But this does not apply to insight-meditation (vipassanæ) which does not require the yogø to restrict his attention to a single place or a single object. Every phenomenon that arises from the six senses is to be the object of mindfulness. The Buddha says, “Sabbam abhiññeyam, Sabbam dhammam abhijænæti” which means that the yogø should be mindful of everything. So in the practice of vipassanæ there is not any restriction as to the part of the physical body that is or is not to be watched. Just as upward motion, downward motion, abdominal motion, intestinal motion and other motions in any place are worthy objects of contemplation, so is the motion of air breathed irrespective of any part of the body. In other words, the arising and falling indicate tautness and motion in the abdomen and so to watch them is to watch the abdominal motion. NO DOUBT ABOUT THE CULTIVATION OF THE FOUR SATIPA¿¿HÆNAS So to watch the rising and falling is to watch the wind-element (væyo-dhætu) in accordance with Satipa¥¥hæna sutta. It means watching the assæsapassæsa (in-and-out breathing) wind-element, one of the six væyo-dhætu that is apparent in the abdomen. This is also contemplation through bodily postures and clarity of consciousness. Hence to watch the rising or falling while sitting or to watch, “sitting, sitting” is to watch the væyo-element and its behaviour. This is the practice of kæyænupassanæ satipa¥¥hæna; so is watching other forms of behaviour such as bending, moving, walking, and so forth. Again, to watch one’s feelings–“it is cramping”, “it is hot” “it is painful”–is vedanænupassa-næ. To watch every mental event whenever it occurs, imagining, thinking, intending, etc., is cittænu-passanæ. To watch seeing, hearing, etc., when these become especially manifest, is dhammænupassa-næ. Hence mindfulness of rising and falling and all other psycho-physical phenomena at the moment of their occurrence is the right dhamma that accords with the teaching of Satipa¥¥æna sutta. There is no doubt about it. Yet those who do not fully understand the nature of vipassanæ tend to be skeptical. Most of these skeptics are well-read and critical. Women have implicit faith in the meditation teachers and by and large they devote themselves to the vipassanæ practice whole-heartedly. They easily attain tranquility (samædhi) by virtue of their uncritical approach and unwavering faith. Tranquility is, of course, followed by insight and so it is not difficult for them to pass through successive stages of insight-knowledge. But this is not true of every female yogø. There are those who do not make any progress because of their critical minds. Some fail to attain any insight because of their laxity, age, poor health and lack of all-out effort. There are also yogøs among laymen and bhikkhus who attain samædhi and insight quickly by dint of systematic effort in accordance with instructions. In short, it is easy to attain samædhi if the yogø is convinced of the worthwhileness of the vipassanæ method that we have mentioned above and practises steadily and zealously. PURITY OF MIND THROUGH TEMPORARY TRANQUILITY So the yogø should not harbour doubt and critical thinking but watch and reject them. Equally to be watched and rejected are sensuous desire, ill-will, torpor and restlessness. In this way he will be free from doubt and other hindrances and being always mindful, his mind will be pure. This is insight-oriented temporary tranquility (vipassanæ) kha¼ikasamædhi that is on a par with neighbourhood tranquility (upacærasamædhi). It may also be called upacærasamædhi because of its resemblance in respect of its freedom from hindrances. Hence in the commentary on Satipa¥¥hana sutta contemplation on bodily postures, clarity of consciousness, reflections on elements and other insight-meditations are described as upacærakamma¥¥hæna (neighbourhood contemplation). These kha¼ikasamædhi and upacærasamædhi ensure mental purity. Hence the Buddha’s teaching: “Other people may have doubt the true Buddha, the true Dhamma and the true Sangha. But we will overcome such doubts.” Thus you should practise the Sallekha dhamma that lessens your defilements. You should affirm your will to overcome doubt by following the path of right belief and right resolution. You should do for your spiritual uplift and put an end to the defilement of doubt by determination. CONQUEST OF DOUBT THROUGH INSIGHT AND PATH-KNOWLEDGE Freedom from hindrances by itself will not enable us to overcome doubt. We should try to overcome it till it is uprooted on the sotæpatti level. So even after the mental purity has been attained with the extinction of the hindrances we should keep on watching the rise and fall and other psycho-physical phenomena. The yogø then discriminates between the object that is watched and the watching consciousness. He will note as he watches that the stiff, moving and arising corporeality is one thing and the watching consciousness another. He will make the same distinction at the moment of sitting bending, etc. In short, the distinction between the corporeality and the consciousness will become apparent at every moment of mindfulness. The insight into such a distinction is called næmarþpaparicchedañæ¼a. This insight is the basis of vipassanæ practice and so it is important to have it in its proper perspective. It is only after the independent, proper development of the næmarþpapariccheda insight in the course of the practice of mindfulness that the yogø makes progress and passes through the higher stages of insight-knowledge. The distinction between næma and rþpa which the yogø then realizes is real. Originally it is impossible to distinguish between næma and rþpa. The two are closely bound up and do not lend themselves to intellectual analysis. For example, when you move your hand, you cannot differentiate its motion from the desire to move it. When you watch and the distinction becomes clear, it is not possible to confuse one with the other. The watched corporeality and the watching consciousness remain sharply distinct. The distinction is borne in on you at every moment of watching and so is the non-existence of the living ego or soul apart from næma and rþpa. This is the purity of belief. As you keep on watching, you will realize the causal relation, that, for example, your hands bend because of your desire to bend them, that you have consciousness because there is an object for it and so on. You reflect on the causal relation between defilements in your previous life and the manifestation of næmarþpa such as rebirth-consciousness in your present life; the causal relation between the good and evil that you experience; your effort and hope for a good life and the continuity of næmarþpa in the future life. This insight into the conditioned nature of næmarþpa is called paccayapariggahañæ¼a. So, for the yogø it is crystal clear that næmarþpa is only conditional or just mere cause and effect and that there is no permanent soul or ego-entity that passes on from one life to another. This is ka³khævitara¼a-visuddhi or purity of escape from all doubt. With this purity, the yogø is free from all doubts such as “Did I exist in the past?” “Did I come into existence only in this life?” “Was I created by devas, Brahmæs or God?” “Will I continue to exist after my death?” etc. For he is convinced of the cause and effect relation between one life and another and the non-existence of a living soul. So the yogø should overcome doubt through this purity. Then he must keep on watching. He will see the watched phenomenon arising and passing away. He realizes the law of impermanence and the suffering of life that is unsatisfactory and undependable. He becomes aware, too, of the conditionality of everything. His awareness is not confined to næma and rþpa. It encompasses all the phenomena that arise from six senses. This kind of awareness is of apiece with what the Buddha says,... Sabbam pariññeyyam ... “Everything is to be analysed and known in terms of anicca, dukkha and anatta.” When such analytical insight-knowledge is complete, the yogø will, while watching the ceaseless arising and passing away of næmarþpa, see the cessation of næmarþpa formations, that is Nibbæna at the sotæpatti stage of the Path. He cannot then have any doubt about the Buddha the Dhamma and the Sangha. Nor will he be skeptical about his practice, the past, the present and the future of life-cycle or the conditionality of all phenomena. The yogø is then beyond all doubt. Such a yogø who is totally free from all doubt is a sotæpanna. So you should overcome doubt at least on the sotæpanna level. There are unwholesome emotions called upakkilesa which defile the mind. The first of these defilements is anger. We usually fly into a rage in the face of an odious sense-object. Some are very short-tempered and highly sensitive. They become furious when they hear even a slight remark that offends them. Their faces blacken, they scowl and rave without restraint. Anger thus causes instant disfigurement and according to the Buddha’s teaching in Culakammavibha³ga sutta, it leads to hell in a future life and makes its victim ugly in his or her rebirth in the human world. If a man restrains his anger even when there is occasion for it and speaks pleasantly and sweetly, the will not become ugly but retains his good look. On his death he will land in the deva-world and when he is reborn as a human being, he is likely to become a handsome person. I have told you of the harm and the good that anger and forbearance can do you with illustrative stories in my other discourses and so I will not now dwell on them. Forbearance brings us instant benefit. So we should exercise it when we are angry. We must not give vent to anger in speech or bodily behaviour but watch and lay it to rest. If our remark or facial expression betrays it, we must try to overcome it before it draws the attention of other people. We must affirm the will to compose ourselves and restrain anger under circumstances that may provoke other people. Some people not only give way to their anger but also harbour spite against the object of their offence. In other words, they are out to take revenge when they have the opportunity to do so. Some bear grudge not only against living beings but also against lifeless objects such as a stump or a post. They would beat or batter a stump when they stumble over it. When they bump against a post, they would deliberately bump their heads again and again against it. If a thing topples or rolls away or falls down, they would break or throw it away in a rage. Such a short-tempered man who behaves like a lunatic is a laughing-stock and pitiable creature in the eyes of observers. There are nine reasons why we bear spite against a person. We bear spite against a person (1) because he has done something harmful to our interests or (2) because he is now doing harm to us or (3) because he will do us harm in future or (4) because he has done harm to our beloved or (5) because he is now doing harm to our beloved or (6) because he will do harm to our beloved in future. In the latter three cases we bear grudge against a person not for self-preservation but for the sake of someone whom we love, e.g., a member of the family, a relative, a friend, a teacher or a pupil. We bear malice when our son is ill-treated or our daughter is molested. Again we bear a grudge against a person (7) because he has done good to someone whom we hate or (8) because he is doing good to someone we hate or (9) because in future he will do good to someone we hate. These are the causes of spitefulness. We should not harbour spite because spitefulness is harmful to us in the present life as well as after our death. If A bears spite and does something harmful to B, the latter’s descendents will seek to settle old scores and again A’s descendents will try to get even with them. This feud will continue endlessly and thus the destructive effect of spitefulness is obvious in this very life. Mutual ill-will also tends to lead to enmity and disaster throughout the samsæric existence (life-cycle) as is evident in the story of Kæløyakkhini in the commentary on the Dhammapada. Long long ago there was a man who supported his mother without getting married. He worked single-handed at home and at his farm. Seeing this, his mother told him to get a wife as his helpmate. He said that he wished to remain unmarried in order to devote his full attention to her welfare. But she urged him again and again and so at last he married a woman. He did not have any child by his wife. So in compliance with the wish of his mother, he reluctantly kept a young woman as his second wife. In due course the younger wife became pregnant. Being jealous and concerned about her future, the elder wife put some drug in the food that destroyed the pregnancy. She caused the second abortion in the same way. Then on the advice of her neighbours the young woman did not tell the elder wife anything about her third pregnancy. But the elder woman found it out and tried to destroy it. But the pregnancy being in an advanced stage, she did not succeed outright but caused much suffering to the young woman. So on her death-bed the lesser wife said, “Sister, you told me to live in this house and yet you yourself have destroyed my pregnancy thrice,” and she willed, “May I, in my future life, be an ogress and in a position to eat your children.” After her death she became a cat in the same house. The elder woman died, too, because she was beaten by her husband for making him childless. She became a hen in the house. When the hen laid an egg, the cat came and ate it. After she had eaten the eggs thrice, the cat was about to eat the hen herself when the latter prayed that she might be able to get even with her enemy in her next life. On her death she was reborn as a she-leopard whereas the cat became a doe. The female leopard ate the doe’s litters thrice and finally ate up the doe herself. But before she died, the doe prayed for the opportunity to take vengeance in her next life. Sure enough, on her death she became an ogress while her old enemy was death she became an ogress while her old enemy was reborn as a woman of Sævatthi city. When as a married woman she gave birth to a child, the ogress came disguised as her friend and ate the child. When she got the second child, it was again eaten up by the ogress. When she became pregnant for the third time, she went to her parents’ house for security. After naming the child, she left for her home with her husband. On the way while her husband was bathing in a pond near the Jetavana monastery, the ogress appeared. The woman called her husband loudly and ran into the monastery with her child. At that time the Buddha was preaching to some bhikkhus and lay followers. The woman crouched at the feet of the Buddha and appealed for help. The deva guarding the entrance forbade the ogress to enter the monastery. The Buddha sent Ænandæ to bring the ogress. At the sight of her enemy the child’s mother was alarmed but the Buddha soothed her. The Lord then gave a talk, stressing the fact that it was forbearance and not retaliation that helped one to overcome another’s enmity. At the end of the talk the ogress became a sotæpanna and there was no longer any enmity between her and the woman. By order of the Lord the woman took the ogress to her house and boarded her. According to the Dhammapada commentary, the ogress forecast the weather and guarded the woman’s household. The long-standing feud in this story would not have come to an end but for the Buddha’s intervention. The story leaves no doubt about the evils of spitefulness. RETALIATION MAY LEAD TO WRONGS DONE TO NOBLE ONES The person against whom we bear spite may be an ordinary person but the victim of our vengeance may turn out to be a Noble One, an Arahat or even a Buddha. Thus Devadatta and Ciñjamæ¼a had ill-will against the bodhisatta but it was against the Buddha that they plotted. Again a woman who was robbed and killed by four young men prayed for an opportunity to take vengeance. But when she became an ogress and finally paid off old scores, all the victims happened to be Arahats. She disguised herself as a cow and gored to death Bæhiyadarusøriya soon after his attainment of Arahatship, Pakkusæti soon after he attained anægæmi stage, the leprous Suppabuddha who was a sotæpanna and Tambada¥hika soon after he attained insight-knowledge. So she incurred the heavy kammic debt resulting from her murder of the Arahats. Thus spitefulness is very destructive and it is best to exercise forbearance. Let us then affirm that we will take things philosophically. In other words, if we suffer at the hands of others we should regard it as repayment of an old kammic debt and cultivate loving-kindness in order to overcome ill-will and lessen defilements. Makkha means ingratitude to a person to whom we should be grateful for help or acts of kindness. A good man should have a sense of gratitude to his benefactor even though he may not be able to show it. He must express it verbally and if possible repay the other’s kind acts. This is part of our moral tradition and yet some fools who are steeped in ignorance tend to speak impertinently to their benefactors. They are ungrateful and speak lightly of what their parents, teachers or friends have done for them. Some do not only lack a sense of gratitude but they do things that are harmful to their benefactors. According to the Buddha, there are two types of rare persons. There are persons who give priority to other people’s welfare. They first work for the welfare of those who have never done anything beneficial to them. They are motivated by pure love, pure compassion or pure goodwill and they do not expect any reciprocal service from their beneficiaries. Such cases of pure altruism as exemplified by parents in their relation with their children are indeed rare. Equally rare are the persons who have a sense of gratitude or who reciprocates other people’s acts of goodwill. At the very least we should acknowledge what we owe to others and if possible we should reciprocate their goodwill by deed or word. We must defend our benefactors if we see or hear anyone doing or saying something harmful to them. We should promote their welfare by deed or word. A person who thus recognizes his indebtedness to another by doing a good turn reciprocally is called katavedø in Pæ¹i. Such kinds of persons are rare indeed. We do not attach much value to abundant things such as grass, stones, etc., because they are available everywhere. But rare things such as diamonds and rubies are very valuable. Likewise, people who have a sense of gratitude are rare and so they are noble whereas ungrateful persons whom you can find everywhere are mean and low. So you should try to belong to the class of noble and of sterling character and to this end you should be grateful to others for what they have done in your interest and do them favour by way of reciprocation. SÆRIPUTTA’S SENSE OF GRATITUDE In the lifetime of the Buddha there was an old brahmin who being helpless and uncared for by his sons and daughters lived in a monastery, attending to the needs of the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus were kind to him but as he was very old, nobody wished to assume the role of an upajjhæya teacher and ordain him. He felt dejected and much ran down for being thus refused admission into the Sangha. But knowing his potential for Arahatship, the Buddha summoned the bhikkhus and asked whether there was anyone who had any sense of gratitude to the brahmin. Then the Elder Særiputta told the Lord how he was grateful to the brahmin for once offering him a spoonful of rice during his begging round in the Ræjagaha city. The Buddha said, “O Særiputta! Would it not be advisable for you to help such a benefactor to attain salvation?” Særiputta promised to ordain the brahmin and before long the brahmin Rædha became a bhikkhu. Following the advice of Særiputta, the bhikkhu practised the dhamma and in a few days he attained Arahatship. Later on, the Buddha asked the chief disciple whether Rædha was docile. “Yes, Lord, he is.” “How many such docile disciples would you be able to accept?” “I would welcome many such disciples, Lord,” replied Særiputta. Here the thera Særiputta’s sense of gratitude even for a spoonful of rice is indeed exemplary and so is the docility of the old monk Rædha. We should dispel ingratitude and be ever grateful to our benefactors. EMULATING MEN OF HIGHER SPIRITUAL STATUS (PALÆSA) Palæsa is to regard oneself as on an equal footing with very noble persons and to speak disrespectfully of them. It is the tendency to rival great men who are unique and peerless in intellectual and spiritual spheres. Some men have little learning but they consider themselves on a par with learned scholars of whom they speak irreverently. They contend that some Sayædaws are not free from errors and ignorance, a contention that is designed to enhance their prestige. Some people have no moral character and yet they consider themselves on a par with the saintly Sayædaws. Some have little knowledge but they do not care for a learned person. Some have never practised meditation seriously but they wish to look down upon those who have had many years’ experience. Recently some monks who joined the order only in old age have gone so far as to challenge the scholarly and saintly Sayædaws, insisting on the truth of their sayings and denouncing some teachings of the ancient holy books as erroneous. Their views are often taken seriously by ignorant people. Thus these monks breed evil kamma because of their misguided rivalry. We have now dealt with seven defilements, viz., torpor, restlessness, doubt, ill-will, spitefulness, ingratitude and rivalry. Of these, torpor and restlessness can be rooted out at the Arahatta stage, ill-will and spitefulness at the anægæmi stage and the remaining three defilements at the sotæpatti stage. These three defilements can lead to the lower worlds and so at the very least it is imperative to seek the conquest of doubt, ingratitude and rivalry. Issæ or envy is the feeling that one has against another person who is better than oneself. We do not want to see a man who is more prosperous and wealthy than we are. The average man does not want to see or hear of anyone who excels him in wealth, social relation, physical appearance, intelligence or knowledge. We feel more envious when the object of our envy happens to be the person we do not love or the person who is in the same profession or have the same social status. Thus a boy will envy another boy, a woman will envy another woman, there is envy among teachers, monks and so forth. The rich are usually envied by the poor. In rural areas villagers who work on their own farms are likely to excite the envy of those who are less fortunate. Government employees who do not get promotions envy those who are promoted. The great and the powerful cause envy in those who are of small consequence. The good speaker is envied by the poor speakers. Thus there are many causes of envy in human beings. In the final analysis envy gives rise only to evil kamma without doing us any good. Envy makes a man unhappy and so it is self-destructive. According to the Buddha’s teaching in the Cþlakammavibha³ga sutta, envy leads to the nether world and if reborn as a human being, the envious man will have few attendants and friends. Opposed to envy is muditæ or sympathetic joy of the four sublime states, the other three being love, compassion and equanimity. Muditæ makes us interested in the prosperity and welfare of other people. It is conducive to happiness because it makes us rejoice at the good fortunes of other people. According to the Cþlakammavibha³ga sutta, rejoicing at the prosperity of others will make one reborn in the deva-world and in case of rebirth as a human being, it (muditæ) makes a man powerful with many attendants at his service. In cultivating loving-kindness, the first of the sublime states, one should say, “May all beings be free from dukkha that engulfs them!” And to cultivate muditæ, one should express the with: “May all those who are prosperous and happy continue to have the same good fortune!” So through the cultivation of muditæ one can build up wholesome kamma without spending a single pice. This good deed may lead to the deva-world and rebirth as a great leader with many attendants. On the other hand envy causes evil kamma without any benefit accruing from it. It leads to hell and a lonely life of poverty in the next existence. We should especially take care not to harbour envy in doing good deeds, in preaching or in the practice of the dhamma. To envy others who are doing many good deeds, who can preach sermons that have mass appeal or have made spiritual progress in meditation is to do little good but much harm to oneself. So it is imperative to avoid envy in doing good things. Macchariya is the desire to hoard up one’s property in order that other people may have nothing to do with it. Its characteristic is described by the commentary as the secrecy with which one keeps one’s wealth. The miser does not want other people to know what he has, let alone give his property to them. In the lifetime of the Buddha when the youth Ma¥¥ha Kundali was seriously ill, his father kept him outside the house in order that his relatives and friends who came to see the patient might not find out what he had in the house. But on his death-bed the young man saw the Buddha as the latter passed the house, paid his respect and attained the deva-world in his next life. Later on his father went to the cemetery and was mourning over his dead son when the young deva appeared and reminded him of something. Then the old man approached the Buddha and asked a question. The Buddha answered it and gave a talk. According to the Dhammapada commentary, both the father and the son attained sotæpatti stage and fruition after hearing the Lord’s sermon. The classic story of the miser in Buddhist tradition is that of Kosiya. He was so miserly that he was called Kosiya, the miser. He lived in a village near Ræjagaha City. He was a millionaire but he was so stingy that he did not offer even a drop of cooking oil to alms-men. Nor would he use it for himself. Then one day on his return from the royal palace he saw a man eating fried food heartily and there arose in him a desire to eat such food. But he did not wish any food to be prepared for his wife, let alone for the other members of his house-hold since that would mean a lot of rice, butter, etc. So because of his stinginess he did not tell anyone about his desire. But the desire became oppressive and at last he lay miserably in his bed. When pressed by his wife, he expressed his desire and in compliance with his wish the woman prepared to make food just enough for her husband. Lest he should have to give food to those who saw him eating, the couple went up to the top storey of the seven-storey building and there with all the doors bolted, they set about to prepare the food. Then the Buddha seeing their potential for the attainment of sotæpatti stage sent the thera Moggalæna. Moggalæna went there and stood in the air near the window of the chamber where they were preparing the food. The millionaire was much shocked at the sight of the thera. He wondered how the thera had come to his hideaway and said that he (the thera) would not get any food whatever he might do. Moggalæna performed miracles such as walking, sitting in the air, emitting gases, etc. He dared not challenge the thera to emit flames lest his house be burnt down. Then knowing that the bhikkhu would not go away unless he got some food, the miser told his wife to prepare a small cake. But the cake became so big that it filled the frying pan. The miser tried to make it small but every time he tampered with it, it became bigger and bigger. So the frustrated miser told his wife to offer a cake to the thera. But when the woman took a cake, all the cakes stuck together and it was impossible to separate them. First the miser tried and then later he and his wife tried together to separate the cakes but it was in vain. At last tired and frustrated, the miser had no longer any desire to eat and so he told his wife to offer all the cakes to the bhikkhu. Then Moggalæna gave a talk on the kammic benefits of alms-giving (dæna) etc. The talk inspired Kosiya with so much faith that he asked the thera to eat the cakes in his house. But the thera said that the Buddha was waiting for food together with five hundred bhikkhus and with their consent he took them to Jetavana monastery in Sævatthi city that was 45 yojana away. It is said that Moggalæna having taken them there by means of his supernormal powers, they reached the gate of the Jetavana monastery just as they passed the foot of the stair of their house. There the merchant and his wife offered cakes, milk, honey, sugar, etc., to the Sangha. Originally the cakes were made just enough for one person but by virtue of the Buddha’s supernormal powers there was no end of the cakes after the Lord and 500 bhikkhus, the merchant and his wife had eaten them. Even after the beggars had been fed, there were’ so many cakes left that they had to be thrown into a valley near the monastery. Then the Lord gave a talk and after hearing it both the merchant and his wife attained the sotæpatti stage and fruition. The above story shows that macchariya or miserliness is characterized by secretiveness arising from jealousy of one’s property. Moreover, macchariya makes one unhappy, discomfited and mean if other persons have something to do with one’s possessions. One who has much macchariya does not want another person to handle or use his property. As is borne out by writers and what we see in life, a jealous husband or wife will frown on anyone who looks closely at his or her spouse: he or she is wretched and cannot bear the sight of the spouse speaking pleasantly to another person. But we should not call every man a miser simply because he does not give alms. A man may be called a miser only when he does not give alms although he can and should do so. The reluctance to offer to an immoral person something which is intended for a morally good man is not a sign of macchariya. When Udæyi asked for the underwear of bhikkhunø Uppalava¼¼a, the latter refused to give it. Her refusal was due not to her miserliness but to the impropriety of the request. Likewise, it is not macchariya to refuse to give a person anything which he does not deserve; nor is it miserliness not to give away a thing which one adores for this is due to attachment. It is macchariya when one does not wish to give things which one has more than enough. Some people never give alms in spite of their affluence. They hoard up all their wealth. They do not even share it with their families or use it for themselves. They also prevent others from giving alms, this kind of macchariya has grave kammic effects. According to the Buddha’s teaching in Cþlakammavibha³ga sutta, it makes one helpless in afterlife, leads to hell and the lower worlds and in case of rebirth in the human world it causes poverty and suffering. It is said in the same sutta that the liberal, alms-giving man attains the deva-world and if reborn as a human being he is rich and prosperous. Cþlakammavibha³ga sutta is a discourse which the Buddha gave in response to the question of Todeyya’s son Subha. Todeyya was the chief of the Tudi village granted to him by King Pasenadøkosala. He was a millionaire but very stingy. His advice to members of his household was “A wise man should manage his household by bearing in mind the erosion of a whetstone whenever it is used, the growing in size of an ant-hill day by day and the accumulation of honey by bees.” The erosion of a whetstone, when we use it once or twice, is of little consequence but when used repeatedly, it will be eventually worn away. In the same way, we may spend or give away our money bit by bit but this may lead to much dwindling of our wealth in the long run. Bearing this in mind we should be frugal and avoid alms-giving. This is implied by the first part of Todeyya’s advice. It is a sound advice from the economic point of view. Rich and prosperous people are usually frugal while on the other hand some people are poor largely because of their extravagance. In Myanmar it is customary to celebrate pompously weddings and initiation (shinpyu) of a boy into the holy order. This may not affect well-to-do people. But those who do not have enough money and so borrow from other people and spend lavishly just to show off are in for trouble. Because of their over-spending, some villagers found themselves heavily in debt after the initiation of their sons and they were forced to mortgage or dispose of their carts, oxen, farms, etc. Then there are funerals of monks and pagoda festivals to which villagers have to make monetary contributions reluctantly. These do not benefit them very much and are in part responsible for their economic distress. But from the religious point of view we should give donations to worthy causes. In accordance with the advice of ancient sages we should invest one fourth of our income in business, save another one fourth for the rainy day and spend the rest. Or we may adjust our expenses otherwise to the n7eeds of modern times. Alms should be given to worthy persons. The initiation should be done within one’s means. With a set of robes, a bowl and food for the morning meal, it may be carried out at the monastery. Rich people may spend lavishly for such alms-giving is beneficial to the donor throughout his samsæri existence (life-cycle), but we should give alms according to our financial position. Todeyya’s advice is not commendable because he told his family not to give alms; he deprecated alms-giving as waster of money. His reference to the collection of honey by bees is, however, worthy of note as it concerns purely the accumulation of wealth. True to his word, Todeyya never gave alms and dying with attachment to his wealth, he was reborn as a dog in his own house. The young man Subha was very fond of the dog. He fed the animal and allowed it to sleep in a good place. One day seeing Subha’s spiritual potential, the Buddha came to his house. The dog barked and the Lord said, “Hi, Todeyya, you are now a dog because you spoke irreverently to me when you were a human being. Now you are barking at me and so you will go to hell.” Seeing that the Lord knew who he was, the dog became dejected and went to sleep on the ashes near the hearth. When Subha returned home he learnt what the Lord had said about his father. He was angry for in the time of the Buddha the brahmins believed that when they died they attained to the Brahma world. So Subha went to the Buddha and accused the Lord of having told a lie about his father. The Buddha asked him whether there was anything that his father did not mention before his death. He said that his father told him nothing about the golden garland, the golden shoe, the golden cup, each worth one lakh of money and cash to the value of one lakh. The Lord told him to return home, feed the dog and ask the animal when it was about to fall asleep. He did as he was told and crying, “the Lord knows all about me” the dog showed the place where all the things and money were hidden. Then Todeyya became convinced of the omniscience of the Buddha and asked the Lord fourteen questions. “Why do some people die young? Why do some live to an old age? Why are some sickly and some healthy? Why are some ugly and some good looking? Why do some have many attendants and some have few attendants? Why are some rich and some poor? Why are some born of high families and some of low families?” We have referred to some of the Buddha’s answers to these questions in our previous talks. We have now to say something about the rich and the poor. If a rich but miserly man does not give alms he will not gain merit. It is not easy to avoid doing good deeds but we live under conditions that expose us daily to bad temptations. We are greedy and convetous in the face of a desirable object. We may be tempted to steal, rob or swindle. We have ill-will at the sight of someone we hate, ill-will that arouses the desire to hurt or kill. Those who do not give alms will suffer in hell after death as a kammic result of their evil deeds. They are helpless because they have no kammic good to their credit that will save them from hell. They are like people who, having no friends and relatives, are at the mercy of their enemies. If, because of some good kamma, they are reborn as human beings, they are likely to be wretched and poor. Those who give alms and share what they have with the needy can attain the deva-world in spite of their kammic evils for these will be outweighed by their acts of dæna. They are like a man who escapes punishment for his crime because of his prestige. If reborn in the human world, they tend to be rich as a kammic result of their previous alms-giving. So we should overcome macchariya and give alms to the best of our ability. Myanmar Buddhists do not need such exhortation. They are very generous. The monks at this meditation-center numbering thirty or forty go about to collect food every morning and they get more than enough rice and curries. Even in time of acute rice shortage the amount of food they collect is considerable. Most of these donors are not rich bur motivated by good-will and faith, they somehow manage to offer food. They will prosper throughout their life-cycle (samsæra). Some are doing dæna so many times that we have to restrain them. The Abhidhamma pi¥aka mentions five kinds of macchariya or miserliness. Miserliness in regard to (1) abode (2) disciples and followers (3) consumer goods (4) qualifications and (5) learning. The first macchariya is miserliness in regard to abode. All the five kinds of macchariya have special reference to bhikkhus and these concern the Sangha more than the laymen. The first macchariya is the one that makes a monk miserly and unhappy when he sees the other good bhikkhus of high moral character dwelling in a big monastery (sangha æræma) or in a specially enclosed building on the premise of the monastery or in a separate monastery. In ancient times monasteries were large buildings donated to the Sangha. Such sanghika monasteries were open to bhikkhus who came from anywhere. They were accommodated in order of seniority in the Sangha. To begrudge a good monk lodging in a sanghika monastery is macchariya. But it is not macchariya to refuse lodging to an immoral, contentious or quarrel-some monk. Private monasteries cannot be blamed for their-exclusiveness. But if the visiting monk is of good character and the monastery is spacious, it is macchariya to refuse admission unreasonably. Among lay people, too, good visitors should be accommodated temporarily if their is room for them. MISERLINESS
IN REGARD TO LAY FOLLOWERS Every bhikkhu has lay followers among Buddhist men and women. Some bhikkhus do not want their lay followers to have relations with other monks. They even forbid a lay follower to go to certain monks. They are justified in doing so if the monks in question happen to be immoral and unworthy of respect. But it is macchariya to prevent a lay follower from seeing good monks. In some places distinction is drawn between two groups of lay followers, those belonging to one’s monastery and those belonging to another. We understand that even inquiries are made to see whether one’s followers go to any other monastery. The primary object of every monk is to free himself from the sufferings of samsæra. Yet some monks are miserly in respect of their lay followers and it is down-right improper for them to be so mean. Miserliness is intense in places where a village may have one or two monasteries and monks are few but have much influence. Once I received a letter from a monk in a village in Bamo district. According to his letter, there were two monasteries in his village and the resided in one of them. He and the other monk agreed to have no contact with the laymen and women who belonged to the other monastery. Now some of his lay followers were visiting the other monastery and giving alms to the other monk. So the writer asked for judgment as to whether or not the other monk was violating the Vinaya rule about stealing because of his acceptance of alms from his (the writer’s) followers. The writer was indeed being preyed upon by macchariya. He was under the delusion that his lay followers as well as their offerings all belonged to him as a result of their agreement. Whatever their agreement, the two monks do not possess the lay followers or their offerings. Lay Buddhists have the right to show their faith in any monk, visit any monastery or give alms to whom they like. In the lifetime of the Buddha some followers of Niga¼¥hana¥aputta became the Buddha’s disciples because they were much impressed by the Lord. The lay Buddhists in the case of the above writer might have gone to the other monastery because of the defects of their teacher. A teacher should prevent his pupils from doing anything that is harmful to them. He must instruct them to do things that are beneficial to them. He must preach the dhamma that is new to them and repeat the dhamma that they have heard for further understanding. He should point out the good deeds that lead to the deva world; suffuse his lay followers with loving-kindness for their welfare; and do by word or deed everything that does not conflict with Vinaya rules but that is beneficial to them. Most probably the above-mentioned monk was deserted by his followers because he failed to do his duties as a teacher. Then there are four sa³gaha-dhammas, that is, four ways of helping other people. We should give to others what they need. But it is not proper for a bhikkhu to give anything to a layman. The second sa³gaha-dhamma is that we should speak courteously. This is important for some monks tend to speak haughtily and angrily. The third sa³gaha-dhamma requires us to promote the welfare of other people. Monks should instruct young boys and preach to their followers but by and large they fail in their duty. Monks and laymen alike tend to find fault with those who do not come to them without thinking of their failure to do their duties. This is their big mistake. The last sa³gaha-dhamma is that one should associate with a person as one’s equal without looking down upon him but this applies only to relationship among laymen. The monk who wrote to me was deserted by his lay followers probably because he failed to live up to the two sa³gaha-dhamma, viz., speaking courteously and working for the welfare of his disciples. So I sent him a reply, stating my views and advising him to do his duty towards his disciples thoroughly. It is the duty of a head of a monastery to preach. A monk is qualified to be the head of a monastery only after he has spent ten years in the Sangha. But nowadays the abbot may turn out to be a self-styled Sayædaw who was once a married man and has not yet spent even one or two years as a bhikkhu. The head-monk should be well-versed in the twofold Vibha³ga, viz., the Bhikkhuvibha³ga and the Bhikkhunø-vibha³ga, Pæræjika and Pæcitta Pæ¹i texts. At the very least he must have learnt Pætimokkha by heart. Today, however, there are monks and Sayædaws who have not yet studied the four Pæræjika rules. The head-monk must also be familiar with the rules of conduct laid down in Mahævagga and Cþlavagga of the Khandaka (a book of Vinaya-pi¥aka) and the procedures for carrying out the ecclesiastical functions (Sanghakamma). An ignorant head-monk is likely to conduct even initiation, ordination, etc., improperly, thereby doing disservice to Buddhism. The last essential qualification of the head-monk is the ability to explain thoroughly the nature of næma and rþpa. This is very important. Lay Buddhists rely on monks for instructions about the way to the deva-world or Nibbæna. They do not have the time to study scriptures because they have to work the whole day for their living. So it is important for the head-monk to teach the Dhamma according to the Pi¥aka. The head-monk should teach his lay disciples the way to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and Sangha and the way to keep sabbath. He should preach dæna and to those who ask for it, the method of meditation according to scriptures. It is up to the head-monk to fulfil these duties. If he fails to do so, those who wish to hear the Dhamma will go to other monks who can preach. They will seek their interest and this is no reason why their teacher should be embittered. It is regrettable that in some villages the head monks forbid their lay followers to attend lectures on meditation. If the talks on vipassanæ conflict with the Pi¥aka, such a prohibition may be well justified. Other-wise it is a grave misdeed. So the bhikkhus should be on guard against this kind of miserliness. Among lay people, too, it is kulamacchariya to seek exclusive association with certain persons. But it is goodwill and not macchariya to disapprove of a friend’s association with a person of undesirable character. There are many people who have various objects and spread various views. Some preach doctrines that are diametrically opposed to the Buddha’s teaching. The Buddha urged his disciples to avoid evil, do good and develop tranquility and insight-knowledge. Some teachers say just the opposite. They would have us believe that if we realize the truth as proclaimed by them, we are assured of salvation and there is no need to avoid evil, do good and develop the mind. Some call themselves Arahats. Some claim Buddhahood, saying that a knowledge of the four Noble Truths mean enlightenment of the Buddha. Yet they are not free from sensual desires. There are people who encourage such teachers. It is a pity that they are so ignorant and follow the false teachings which they mistake for the true Dhamma. They are led astray in spite of their desire to know the true doctrine. I think it would be better for them to remain ordinary Buddhists by birth without any interest in their religion rather than accept false views. We have been giving instructions in vipassanæ based on Mahæsatipa¥¥hæna sutta and in accordance with the Pi¥aka and commentaries for 32 years. The yogøs who have practised meditation according to our instructions during these years number sixty thousand. Among them are learned monks and laymen by the hundreds. These learned yogøs can evaluate out teaching accurately. Then there are thousands of people who have meditated seriously although they have no knowledge of the scriptures. With their clear insight which they have gained independently, they can distinguish between truth and falsehood. Most of those who meditated at our center wished to attain transcendental knowledge and its result. If I had not preached to them the Satipa¥¥hæna method, some of them would have been misled by false teaching. Those who have seriously practised the Dhamma under our guidance may hear talks by any teacher. We do not prevent them from doing so. They are in a position to think and judge for themselves. It is our business to instruct our disciples in order that they may know the true Dhamma and have spiritual experience. Likewise, those who have a thorough knowledge of our methods propagate it elsewhere. Sometimes we have to point out the mistakes of other teachers. Here our object is to keep the disciples off the wrong path. This is the teacher’s duty and has nothing to do with macchariya. Macchariya in regard to followers is pure selfishness regardless of the interest of others, the only motivation being the desire to have exclusive influence over them. But to point out the mistakes of others for the enlightenment of the disciples is not macchariya but the duty of the teacher. The
Desire For Exclusive Possession Læbha macchariya is the desire to have things only for oneself, to deny them to others, to use a thing selfishly without sharing it with others. Bhikkhus have certain things which may be summed up as food, robes, abode and medicine. Food means all things that we can eat or drink. All articles of clothing are to be regarded as robes. All dwelling places together with the means of transport are to be labelled abodes. Medicine means all things that are relevant to health. It is læbha macchariya for a monk to wish to be the exclusive recipient of these things from the laity, to begrudge the fellow-monks the offerings made by their lay followers or to have no desire to share his acquisitions with other monks or his pupils. Some monks are so miserly that they do not eat the food they have nor do they give it to their pupils so that it has to be thrown away when it becomes rotten. Robes are hoarded up by some monks only to be found useless after their death. Læbha macchariya is also the besetting sin among lay people. There is the story of a married couple who quarrelled while having their meals because one ate more than the other. Businessmen do not want to see their rivals booming. A mill-owner once told me that formerly it was painful to him to hear the siren of another mill, a sign of envy which he overcame only through meditation. But some monks may cause damage to the thing they have acquired; it may rot from want of use, it may be given to improper persons or it may be sold for profit. So we should assume that it is not læbha macchariya to wish to see a monk or a layman denied certain things which he may use improperly. Miserliness
About Virtues Va¼¼a here means any laudable quality and it is va¼¼a macchariya to begrudge a person any laudable quality such as physical beauty, a good voice, fluent speaking, physical strength. intelligence, scholarship or moral virtues. Some people desire these qualities but do not want to see them possessed by others. Some want to distinguish themselves in learning but they do not wish to see others so distinguished. Some want to be virtuous but they do not want to hear of the good moral character of other people. These are examples of va¼¼a macchariya which usually arises in connection with those who are one’s peers or those whom one dislikes. Miserliness
In Respect Of Learning Dhamma macchariya is miserliness in respect of the knowledge of the Dhamma. Some do not wish to see others well-versed in Pæ¹i pi¥akas. So they do not teach their pupils thoroughly but keep something to themselves. They are reluctant to lend important books. These are signs of dhamma macchariya but this kind of macchariya was more in vogue in ancient times when there was not much writing and monks had to rely on memory for their knowledge. Nowadays it is not dominant because of the abundance of books. Still it may assert itself in connection with rare books. If reluctance to lend books is due to respect for them it is not macchariya. But it is læbha macchariya if there is the desire to deny others the use of books and dhamma macchariya if it is to deny knowledge to them. Dhamma macchariya has nothing to do with transcendent knowledge. For the yogø who has attained the Ariyan path and it fruition never stoops to such meanness. On the contrary he wants to share his knowledge with others. So, if a man considers himself an Ariya and yet begrudges others a similar or higher spiritual status he should face the fact that he is not yet really enlightened. The yogøs who have meditated at our center convey the message of the Dhamma to their friends. Some have attained only the lower vipassanæ insight such is udayabbayañæ¼a and yet they urge their friends to seek such illuminations. This augurs well for the future of the Buddha’s teaching. Nowadays, lay people establish meditation centers, build retreats for the yogøs, support meditation teachers, attend talks on meditation and urge others to practise it. This shows that they are free from dhamma macchariya and that they want to share their experience with others. But the yogø who has had unusual experience does not reveal it because he has no desire to pride himself on his attainment. This is called adhigama appicchæ lack of desire in regard to spiritual experience. So we should overcome macchariya by regarding it as an unwholesome, mean and unworthy state of consciousness. For it leads to evil and usually dominates low living beings. It is especially to be found to a high degree in dogs which are very mean in some respects. Other animals are considerate and helpful among their own species but dogs will pursue and bite another dog that comes from elsewhere: or if they do not have courage, they will bark and drive it away. Throw a bone to two dogs that are playing together and the stronger of them will growl and grab it. Macchariya which is latent in such low animals should not be allowed to defile a man of noble character. Bearing this in mind, you should overcome it through mindfulness or seek to uproot it through Ariyan enlightenment. In the Sakkapañhæ sutta the Buddha describes ill-will (issæ) and envy (macchariya) as the two evils that cause suffering and frustration among living beings. Sakka, the king of devas asks the Lord why human beings, devas and animals in the sensual world are suffering although they all want to live happily. No doubt all living beings are at one in their desire for happiness and yet they fight with one another and they are wretched and miserable. According to the Buddha’s reply, the whole world is mired in conflict and suffering because of ill-will and envy. If we can root out these two evils, the world will be a very nice place just like a home where parents and children live happily in an atmosphere of goodwill and harmony. So we should refuse to harbour these two evils after due reflection, remove them through mindfulness, deny them an outlet by watching all psycho-physical phenomena arising from the sense and root them out through Ariyan enlightenment. According to the commentaries, ill-will and envy are done away with at the first stage on the path. So, in my discourse I have described ego-belief, doubt attachment to rites and ceremonies (sølabgbataparæmæsa) and envy as the five fetters that the yogø casts off at the sotæpatti stage. But the Suttanta pi¥aka refers to the conquest of only ego-belief, doubt and rites and ceremonies. A³guttara Nikæya mentions four pairs of evils that are harmful to the yogøs under training (sekkhæ). These are anger and malice, ingratitude and rivalry, ill-will and envy, hypocrisy and deceit. The commentary here explains the Pæ¹i text as implying that these evils rule out the possibility of any advance to a higher stage in the case of the seven kinds of noble disciples (sekkhæ). As for the ordinary man (puthujjana) he will not make a start on the spiritual path if he is beset with these evils. On the authority of the Pæ¹i text and the commentary it is to be assumed that the sotæpanna who is one of the seven kinds of noble disciples will not make any progress if he harbours ill-will and envy. In other words, it means that he is not yet free from ill-will and envy. But it is hard to draw any conclusion for a certainty. For among the seven noble disciples are the four yogøs at the moment of the attainment of the holy stage. At that moment they cannot have anger, malice and other evils; and it is hard to discount the possibility of their higher attainments. In particular, the yogø who has attained the Arahatta stage is never likely to revert to a lower stage. The commentary also includes the four yogøs in the category of seven disciples under training (sekkhæ). Moreover, ill-will, hypocrisy, deceit, etc., are so base that there can be no room for them in the mind of the pure and noble Ariyas. So the commentaries describe them as evils that are done away with at the first stage. We may assume then that a sotæpanna is free from these six evils and if we are not free from them, we should practise mindfulness until freedom is attained. Now we will describe the other remaining fetters. Sætheyya is the tendency to stimulate and boast of virtues or qualities which one does not possess. One may pretend to have moral purity, scholarship and practice in mind-development without having these qualities. The Ariyas do not make such pretensions they do not brag of their attainments because they are straightforward. The worst kind of hypocrisy is to make pretensions to psychic-powers such as telepathy, clairvoyance, recall of past lives and unusual transcendental experience. The bhikkhu who is guilty of this offence ceases to be a member of the Sangha. For the layman, too, it is the most serious of all kinds of falsehood to pretend to have psychic-power or transcendent knowledge. So it is important to be tree from sætheyya or hypocrisy. Ancient scholars translated sætheyya as cunningness this is a good translation but one who cheats is also said to be cunning. So the word is not as exact and appropriate as hypocrisy which lays stress on pretentiousness and empty vaunting that are associated with sætheyya. So I have translated it as hypocrisy. For the meditating yogø sincerity and freedom from hypocrisy are vital to the practice of meditation. Hence sincerity is described as an element of effort. Padhæniyanga – Elements Of Effort There are five elements of effort:– (1) One must have faith in the supreme enlightenment of the Buddha. One must believe that the Buddha’s teaching was based on his omniscience. Nowadays it is necessary for the yogø to have faith in meditation teachers as well as in the method of meditation. Without faith there will be no effort. Faith in the Buddha is essential to effort. (2) One must be healthy and free from disease because only the healthy yogø can exert all-out, strenuous effort regardless of physical strain and discomfort. But the zealous yogø need not bother about minor physical afflictions for he is likely to overcome them while meditating. Some even attain the path and fruition through meditating on their death-bed. Nevertheless an intensive and lifelong effort presupposes good health and the yogø should seek it. (3) One must not pretend to have the quality which one does not have and one should admit one’s defects instead of concealing them. The yogø should make a clean breast of his state of consciousness to his teacher or fellow yogøs. His relation to his teacher is like that of the patient to the doctor. The doctor can cure the patient only if the latter reveals his suffering truthfully. Likewise, the teacher can give the necessary instructions only if the yogø states the facts of his experience. The teacher cannot help him if he fails to give a true account of his experience or to admit his fault such as, say, his dozing off during his meditation hours. So sincerity without any pretence or cover-up is a basis of effort. It is an antidote to sætheyya (hypocrisy). (4) The yogø must apply his energy with steadfastness and intensity in his effort to overcome evil and establish wholesome states of consciousness. He must exert energy regardless of whatever may happen to his physical body. He should resolve to persist in his effort even if, as a result, his flesh and blood wither away, leaving only the skin, nerves and bones. Here the withering away of flesh and blood is one factor while residue of skin, nerves and bones constitute the other three factors of energy. Hence the energy which the yogø needs is called catura³ga viriya or fourfold energy. (5) The yogø must have the insight-knowledge of the arising-and-passing-away of næmarþpa. You cannot have this insight (udayabbayañæ¼a) before taking up meditation or at an early stage. Strenuous effort may ensure it within a week, one percent of the yogøs may attain it within three or four days. It may take some yogøs 10 or 15 days to attain it because of their low intelligence or inadequate effort. Some do not have it even after a month because of other defects. In any event the insight usually dawns on the energetic yogø within a week on the average. It makes the yogø ecstatic as he is then full of joy, faith, vigilance and zeal for further effort. More-over, the yogø who attains his insight is bound to become an Ariya, the Noble One in a few days if he persists in his effort. Thus the five elements of effort are faith, health, sincerity, energy and insight. These five qualities are essential to success in meditation and the attainment of unusual experience in this life. The yogø may initially possess faith, health and sincerity but for some yogøs faith and sincerity get an impetus with the attainment of concentration. Real effort depends on the yogø’s energy. Wholehearted exertion of energy brings about insight into the arising-and-passing-away in a few days. The state of consciousness accompanying this insight is marked by visions of light, ecstasy and joy pervading the whole body. The yogø feels very comfortable, happy in both body and mind. While seated or walking, the body appears to be in the air above the floor and in some cases it actually is. The attention is very keen. The yogø appears to remember everything without much effort. The intellect is quickly aware of every phase of arising-and-passing-away. So the yogø is full of energy and desire to go on with the practice of mindfulness to the end. Some who had to leave our center just after they attained the insight because of unavoidable circumstances are still enthusiastic and they would seize the first opportunity to come back. Most of them do come back and usually complete their training. Some yogøs lack serious effort because their faith is weak and as a result they do not develop concentration and cannot describe the distinction between næma and rþpa. Although they practise meditation for one or two months, they do not have any unusual experience and so they are skeptical about the reported experience of other yogøs. Their attitude is of apiece with the empiricism of modern age but they should take into account their failure to meditate seriously. One who is not serious about a thing cannot have any unusual experience that the thing promises. Moreover, it makes little sense to insist in every case that only seeing is believing. Telescopes make visible those things which one cannot see with the naked eye. We have to believe what some people say about some parts of the world that they have visited but which will forever remain merely geographical names for us. Accounts of man’s landing on the moon have to be accepted although it impossible for us to go there. The nature of spiritual experience is very subtle. One may not have it for want of intellectual basis or of adequate effort. Failure to have the experience may be due to kamma, kammic result (vipæka), unwholesome tendencies (vøtikkama) or beliefs opposed to Ariya path (Ariyapavæda). But it is to be attributed largely to lack of effort and non-attainment of concentration. But the yogøs who thus fail to have experience are not more than two percent. This failure is damaging to their already poor faith and so it would have been better if they had never taken up meditation. Those who meditate seriously are assured of unusual experience. First-hand reports by some yogøs are very clear and such yogøs are to be found among monks, men and women, both young and old. Some are just 11 or 12 years old and have never studied the scriptures. But their report is explicit, clear-cut and in accord with the Pæ¹i texts. It sounds credible to those who have not had the experience and it is indeed an inspiration to those who wish to follow their example. If, thus inspired, a yogø practises mindfulness, he will soon attain the udayabbayañæ¼a that leads to the path and its fruition. “Let a sincere, straightforward person come to me and practise the Dhamma in accordance with my teaching. I assure him of Arahatship at most within seven years or at least within seven days.” Thus the Lord boldly invites every one to give his teaching a trial. In the Bodhiræjakumæra sutta the Buddha even promises that those who receive instruction in the evening and practise will have the unusual experience in the next morning while those who receive instruction in the morning and practise will have the experience in the evening. True to this teaching, the wise and sincere disciples of the Buddha had the experience. They became Arahats or Ariyas at the anægæmi stage, within at most seven years or at least seven days. Those who had the experience within seven years or seven days were, says the commentary on Satipa¥¥hæna sutta, middle class people among the well-guided disciples (neyya puggala). The higher disciples did have the experience in one day or one night as proclaimed by the Buddha. Rarity Of Enlightenment Within A Week So far as we know, nowadays it is very hard to find a disciple, who had the transcendent experience in a week, let alone one who had it within a day or a night. Some teachers claim to be able to give such instructions as will ensure unusual insight at one sitting. We welcome their claim if there is any basis for it. Some even say that one can have insight-knowledge merely by hearing their sermon and knowing the truth, thus making further effort unnecessary. This may be gratifying to lazy people. We must not forget, however, the fact that even the Buddha himself enjoined the practice of the Dhamma on guided neyya disciples, who could not have the insight by hearing his discourses. The First Sermon Of The Buddha The Buddha’s first sermon was the Dhammacakka-pavattana sutta. The only human beings who heard the sermon were the five ascetics. Only one of the five, viz., Quondam attained the first stage and fruition while hearing the dhamma. The other four did not have the insight so easily and so they had to meditate after the end of the sermon in accordance with the Buddha’s instructions. Of the four it took Vappa one day, Bhaddiya two days, to attain the first stage. Ræhula, the son of the Buddha started meditating at the age of seven but he became an Arahat only after ordination at 20. Mahæ-moggalæna attained Arahatship after meditating for seven days at sotæpanna stage while Særiputta attained it after meditating for 15 days as a sotæpanna. Ænandæ won final liberation three months after the Lord’s parinibbæna by walking and meditating strenuously the whole night. In view of these statements in the scriptures it is safe to assume that hearing the sermon or knowledge by itself does not ensure insight, that practice is essential to its development. If it were otherwise, the Lord would not have urged his disciples to practise the Dhamma. Surely Ænandæ had heard and was quite familiar with all the teachings of the Buddha. Yet he had to meditate intensively the whole night for his final liberation. So it is not mere knowledge but the thorough practice of samatha-vipassanæ that enables the yogø to overcome defilements and contact Nibbæna on the Ariyan level. Mindfulness While Hearing The Dhamma Bhikkhu Quondam became a sotæpanna while hearing the first sermon. All the five disciples became Arahats while hearing the Anattalakkha¼a sutta. It was a single verse that made the minister Santati an Arahat and it was also a certain verse that turned bhikkhunø Padæcærø into a sotæpanna. According to the commentary on Satipatthæna sutta, those who attained the path and fruition did so after applying one of the four methods of the sutta. The commentary says:– “There are those who attain the Ariyan path and fruition by merely hearing a stanza. But such an attainment is impossible without contemplation or mindfulness of the body, of the feeling or the consciousness of the mind-object. Those who attain the path and fruition do so and overcome grief and anguish only through the Satipa¥¥hæna way of meditation.” In short, it is true that the minister Santati and Padæcærø became an Arahat and a sotæpanna respectively and got over their sufferings after hearing a stanza. But they attained the Ariyan path only through the practice of mindfulness in accordance with the Satipa¥¥hæna method. The commentary leaves no doubt the paramount importance of Satipa¥¥hæna meditation. There is no scriptural authority for the view that knowledge and understanding suffice to lead a yogø to the path, that there is no need for effort. In fact, this view conflicts with the Buddha’s teaching. In many suttas the Buddha stresses the need for the development of tranquility, insight and mind (samathavipassanæ bhævanæ). In the Dhammacakkapavattana sutta the disciple is urged to realize the truth of the Ariyan path. In the Anattalakkha¼a and other suttas the disciple is exhorted to realize anicca, dukkha and anatta of the five khandhas. Samaññaphala sutta of Døgha-nikæya and other teachings stress the need for the development of samatha, jhæna, samæpatti and vipassanæñæ¼a (insight-knowledge). In Sagæthavagga (section) of Saµyuttanikæya the Buddha says that the development of concentration and insight-knowledge frees one from the entanglement of ta¼hæ or desire. The Satipa¥¥hæna saµyutta urges the disciple to practise the four kinds of mindfulness. In Sacca-saµyutta the disciple is exhorted to realize the four noble truths. Intense exertion of energy as an element of effort is emphasized by the Buddha. “Let there remain only the skin, the nerves and the bones. Let the flesh and blood wither away. I will persist ceaselessly in my effort until I attain the path and its fruit.” With such affirmation of will, the yogø should exert his effort intensely (Saµyuttanikæya, Nidænavagga, Dasabala sutta and A³guttaranikæya, dukanipæta Upaññata sutta). In the Mahægosinga sutta of (Majjhima-nikæya) the Buddha advises the disciples to meditate after affirming his will not to change his cross-legged sitting posture until he is liberated from defilements. On the eve of the full-moon of Kason, the day on which he attained Enlightenment, the Lord sat fortified by such a resolution and strove the whole night; then he attained pubbenivæsæñæ¼a (the power to recall past lives) in the early part of the night, dibbacakkhu (deva-eye) in the middle part of the night and at down he reflected on dependent origination as well as on the arising-and-passing-away of the khandhas and developed insight-knowledge. He perfected his insight by various kinds of mindfulness, e.g., rþpasattaka, næmasattaka as mentioned in Visuddhimagga. Then after passing through the four stages of the Ariyan path and their fruitions he became the Buddha. It was on the basis of his experience that Buddha urged his disciples to strive hard for Arahatship at one sitting. Thus the Buddha’s insistence on strenuous effort in many suttas gives the lie to the view that knowledge by itself ensures transcendent insight, that no effort is needed. So let not your teacher’s verdict or assurance make you complacent. You should examine yourself to see whether your experience brings about the extinction of defilements. I have been giving instructions in meditation for 32 years. To my knowledge those who can fully recount their spiritual experience in a week are hard to come by. Most of them can do so only after 20 or 30 days or even after three or four months. But those who follow my instructions and practise steadfastly usually report their experiences after a month. I now urge the yogøs to regard a month or just over a month as the norm for the period required for the successful practice of meditation. It will not do to think as some people do, that one month is too short for the practising yogø. For the Buddha promised anægæmi stage or even Arahatship to those who followed his advice and so to say that it is impossible to gain insight after a month is to deprecate the Buddha’s teaching and to discourage the yogøs. Right Method, Sincerity And Diligence What is important is that the yogøs should follow the method that is in accord with Satipa¥¥hæna sutta and other teachings. He must be free from hypocrisy, self-deceit, he should be sincere and candid and he should stick to the instructions according to the Buddha’s teaching. The yogø practises mindfulness constantly as instructed and reports his experience to the teacher. The teachers note the yogø’s progress and his account of contact with Nibbæna on the Ariyan level. They urge the yogø to continue his practice. When they consider his progress satisfactory, they tell him about the stages in the development of insight-knowledge, the path and its fruition. Then the yogø assesses his progress on the basis of what he learns from us and determines the stage he has attained. We do not pass judgment on his attainment but let him judge for himself. Yet some people criticize us, thinking that we give verdict but this is a misapprehension. Some look askance at our non-commitment, wondering why the teacher should not be able to specify the stage of a yogø’s progress. But our non-committal attitude is in keeping with the Buddhist tradition in that apart from the Buddha even Særiputta did not declare any yogø a sotæpanna or an anægæmi or an Arahat. Furthermore, a meditation teacher is like a physician. In olden days physicians did not have any instrument to test the physical condition of a patient. They had to diagnose the disease by examining the patient’s condition, feeling his pulse and listening to what he said. If the patient did not speak the truth, the physician went astray. Likewise, if the yogø does not report accurately, the teacher may be mistaken in his judgment. So the practising yogø should be free from pretence and hypocrisy and forthright in reporting his experience. And it is best for the teacher to note all that the yogø says, tell him about the stages of insight and let him judge for himself. Mæyæ is the tendency to hide one’s faults in order to keep others in the dark about them. We made allusions to mæyæ when we talked about sætheyya (hypocrisy). Some seek to cover their moral lapses behind a facade of talks on the evils of immorality and the blessings of a moral life, talks that are designed to deceive other people. The object of some persons who practise austerities (dhuta³ga) and meditation is not to enhance their prestige but to cover up their moral laxity. This is not sætheyya but mæyæ. It is mæyæ on the part of some workers to idle away the time and then to work hard in the presence of their superior or submit tendentious reports. It is mæyæ to speak to a person as if one is interested in his welfare while covertly saying or doing things that are harmful to him. It is mæyæ to tell a teacher that one follows his instruction when in fact one does not. In short, all attempts to hide one’s faults are mæyæ. It is an evil that you should try to overcome. If you have it, you must confess it to your teacher or your fellow-yogøs. According to the commentary, the yogø overcomes mæyæ and sætheyya at the sotæpatti stage. Since they are evils, there is no room for them in the mind of the Noble One (Ariya). Excessive
Conceit (Atimæna) Those who have excessive conceit usually do not have respect for a person who is worthy of respect. If one does not pay respect to or make room for or give way to a worthy person; it is a sign of conceit and arrogance. A worthy person here means a grandfather, a grandmother, a father, a mother, a teacher of any other aged person. It may also mean a person whose moral and spiritual life is much higher than yours. According to the Buddha’s teaching in Cþlakammavibha³ga sutta, those who lack respect for a worthy person land in hell after death and on return to the human world are reborn in the lower classes; while respect for a worthy person leads to the deva-worlds and to rebirth as human beings in noble families. Mæna means self-conceit and a low opinion of other people. Atimæna is excessive self-conceit. Conceit is totally extinct only in the Arahat and so it is an evil that few bhikkhus and yogøs can overcome. Excessive conceit of some people is an obstacle to their social relations and prosperity. Few people wish to have any relation with a conceited person. His friends and followers gradually dwindle, his superiors dislike him and at last he becomes isolated. Among religious teachers, too, there are some who harbour excessive pride. Their sayings and writings clearly betray their conceit. They commit indiscretions and excesses in speaking and writing. A conceited teacher tends to belittle others and portray himself as peerless in respect of moral purity and learning. So although he may be a Sayædaw who is fully qualified in every respect, he will not prosper and have much success in life. His books may be remarkable but few people will esteem them highly. So the best thing is to have little conceit. But the difficulty is that a conceited man is usually unconscious of his conceit. His conceit may be beyond control in spite of other people’s advice. On the other hand, he may impute conceit to those who do not agree with him. As a result, he finds it hard to have cordial relations with others. Such an experience should make him aware of his excessive pride and help him to control it. The humility of thera Særiputta is exemplary. With the Buddha’s permission Særiputta and Moggalæna once set out to visit towns and villages. Seeing Særiputta accompanied by many monks, a certain bhikkhu became envious and just to obstruct their journey he reported to the Lord that Særiuptta bumped against him but went on his way without making an apology. In fact, he made this charge just because of an accidental brush with the end of the thera’s robe. Thereupon the Buddha summoned Særiputta and in the assembly of the Sangha the Lord asked him about the monk’s allegation. Særiputta’s reply was as follows:– “A bhikkhu who is unmindful of his physical body may bump against his fellow-bhikkhu and go on his way without an apology. But I regard myself as the earth,” etc. What the thera meant is this: Many things, both clean and unclean are thrown onto the earth, but the earth accepts everything without complaint or revulsion. So also whatever others may say or do, he exercises restraint. Furthermore, he regards himself as water, fire or air. Just as these elements remain unaffected by dirty things, so also he forbears whatever others may say or do to him. Moreover, he regards himself as a low-caste young man or woman. Caste is very important in India. A low-caste Ca¼dæla must not touch a high-caste brahmin. So when a Ca¼ðæla goes into the village of brahmins, he has to announce his coming by beating with a stick, thereby warning the villagers against physical contact with him. Særiputta says that he has the kind of humility that characterizes the Ca¼ðæla’s way of life. Again, a bull with a broken horn does not molest any living being and is gentle. He (Særiputta) regards himself as that bull. He loathes his body just as a young man or a woman who has bathed and adorned himself would loathe a dead dog or snake hanging round his or her neck. He sees his body as a burden which he has to bear, as a burden that is like a pot of animal fat that is leaking through many holes. Again, a bull with a broken horn does not molest any living being and is gentle. He (Særiputta) regards himself as that bull. He loathes his body just as a young man or a woman who has bathed and adorned himself would loathe a dead dog or snake hanging round his or her neck. he sees his body as a burden which he has to bear, as a burden that is like a pot of animal fat that is leaking through many holes. Then the accusing monk was smitten with conscience and he apologized to Særiputta for his wrong allegation. The latter forgave him and even told him not to take his reply amiss. We should emulate Særiputta’s example as far as possible. Even if we cannot overcome pride, we should try to overcome excessive conceit. This conceit (atimæna) is of two kinds, viz., conceit arising from possession of certain qualities such as intelligence, knowledge, moral character, etc., and conceit due to illusion of a quality which one does not have, as when one wrongly considers oneself intelligent or noble. Ordinary persons are not free from these two kinds of conceit. We should seek to do away with the conceit due to illusion. It becomes extinct at the sotæpatti stage but even then the yogø is not yet free from conceit over the real possession of a quality. It is rooted out only on the attainment of Arahatship. Docility is one of the qualities which the Buddha enjoined on his followers because it helps to lessen defilements. Many people are far from docile. They do not care for the advice of their teachers and superiors. Some children disobey their parents, some pupils disobey their teachers, some disobey their superiors or leaders and some ignore the advice of their friends. Arrogant, strong-willed and impulsive, they are notorious for their intractability. Charges of disobedience against some persons stem from ill-will and so they are not to blame for their attitude of mind. What is important is to heed the advice that is rational and motivated by love and compassion. Moreover, we should follow the teaching that tells us not to molest others. A person who disregards sound advice is termed a dubbaca (intractable) person. The bhikkhu who was especially notorious in this respect in the time of the Buddha was Channa. Bhikkhu Channa was not an ordinary person. He was Prince Siddhattha’s attendant who accompanied the bodhisatta when the latter set out to become an ascetic. Later on he joined the holy order. He did not live in accordance with the Vinaya rules and so he was taken to task by his fellow-monks. But he would not welcome their admonition. He retorted that he was not an ordinary bhikkhu, that he was the personal attendant of bodhisatta when he renounced the world, that he went along with the prince as far as the bank of Anomæ river and that he served the needs of the prince at that time. As the veteran follower of the Buddha, he would not heed the advice of upstarts like Særiputta and Moggalæna. This led the Buddha to lay down a rule and what the rule says about admonition to a fellow-monk in the Sangha is very remarkable. If a monk turns out to be willful and disobedient when he is reasonably admonished by his fellow-monks, they should say to him thus: “Sir, do not regard yourself as above the admonition of your fellow-monks. Consider yourself to be in need of admonition. Admonish other monks if necessary. Other monks will admonish you on occasion. Mutual admonition will contribute to the prosperity of the Buddha-dhamma.” But bhikkhu Channa remained intractable. So he did not attain enlightenment until the Buddha passed away. After the Lord’s parinibbæna the Sangha imposed the penalty called brahmada¼da on him as instructed by the Master. The penalty called upon the bhikkhus to let Channa say what he liked and to avoid admonishing or speaking to him. The penalty brought Channa to his senses. He realized how social ostracism would be disastrous to him. He ceased to be arrogant, practised the Dhamma faithfully and at last became an Arahat. Docility Essential To Moral Progress Among laymen and in the holy order of bhikkhus docility is vital to good manners and moral welfare. If we resent admonition and do not speak to one another, we will remain barbarous like animals and make no moral progress. Once when some bhikkhus were about to spend the rain-retreat (lent) at a certain place in Kosala country, they vowed to avoid speaking to one another so that there might be no friction and disharmony among them. At the end of the lent they went and paid respect to the Buddha. They told the Lord that they had fared well during the lent because of their vow of silence. On hearing this the Lord blamed them, saying “You say you fared well when in fact you did not do so. To live together without speaking to one another is the way of life among animals such as sheep or goats. It is the life-style of heretics, of enemies living together.” So saying the Buddha laid down a rule that forbade the bhikkhus to adopt the practice of the dumb and the heretics. So the vow of silence which is undertaken by some yogøs nowadays needs consideration. It is not advisable to commit oneself to total silence while under the vow. It is better to avoid talking on worldly or unimportant matters. The yogø should make exceptions and occasionally talk on matters that concern the Dhamma or that are vital to his interests. Such talks may be conducive to his material and spiritual welfare. So those who live together should talk to one another. What a person says should be considered seriously and accepted if need be. We must welcome criticism that points out our mistakes and defects. This is more important for the practising yogø. He should change his behaviour or life-style in the light of what the fellow yogøs say. Needless to say, he should pay special attention to the advice of his teacher. Hence the Buddha’s emphasis on the need for docility that contributes to unity and prosperity of a society. Pæpamitta means bad, evil friend. Friend is here to be understood in the sense of a person whom one regards as one’s teacher. So evil companionship means dependence on an evil teacher. Kalyæ¼amitta means good friend, someone dependable in the role of a teacher and so to have a good friend is to have a good teacher. Dhammasa³ga¼ø, a book of the Abhidhamma pi¥aka differentiates a good friend or a good teacher from a bad friend or a bad teacher as follows. A bad friend or teacher is one who has no faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha; he does not believe in kamma; he has no moral integrity; he is given to sensual pleasure even though he may be giving profound lessons in mind-training. He has little knowledge of the Buddha’s teaching; nor has he any experience in real tranquility and wisdom. You must beware of those who tell you not to follow the wrong teacher when they, in fact, have little knowledge. Furthermore, the bad friend or teacher is full of envy. He fears lest his followers should have faith in other teachers. He has no transcendent knowledge such as insight into the arising-and-passing-away of all phenomena. In short, one who has no faith, moral character, knowledge and wisdom but who is envious is a bad friend or a bad teacher. We may seek the friendship of such a person in business or worldly affairs but he should be given a wide berth as a teacher for our guidance. For, since he does not believe in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, his words and behaviour tend to undermine our faith. He does not accept the kammic law and his skepticism is infectious. Preaching the futility of a moral life, he avoids no evil and does no good. His disciples follow suit and the result is their moral degradation. Thus one who relies on and immoral teacher is misled morally. One who relies on an alcoholic teacher tends to become an alcoholic. An ignorant teacher has no respect for knowledge. Because of his ignorance, he does not have a high regard for learned persons. When he is criticized for statements that do not agree with the scriptures, he cannot argue persuasively and then he is apt to belittle the sacred books. He would have us believe that either the books or the learned persons are wrong. His disciples accept his views and they tend to scoff at the scholars and ancient writings. Theirs is, indeed, a terrible misdeed. The jealous teacher prevents his disciples from giving alms elsewhere. Nor does he let them hear and practise the true teaching. The teacher who lacks real insight-knowledge cannot help his disciples to develop it. He is likely to misrepresent the truth and create misunderstanding. One who has faith in such a teacher will never attain the right path. He tends to speak ill of those who point out the right path. The evil teachers in the lifetime of the Buddha were Puræ¼akassapa and other leaders of the six heretical sects. Those who followed their teachings did not have the opportunity to see the Buddha. Some disparaged the true Buddha, the true Dhamma and the true Sangha, thereby committing unwholesome acts of kamma. A man like Devadatta is also described as an evil teacher in the commentary. Those who followed Devadatta suffered terribly. Prince Ajætasattu was a follower of Devadatta. Devadatta said to the prince, “In ancient times people lived long. So, although princes became kings only after the death of their fathers, they had a lot of time to indulge in royal pleasure. Nowadays people do not live long and by the time you succeed your father, you will have become very old and there will be only a few years left for your pleasures. So why not kill your father now and become king?” Acting on the advice of his evil teacher, the prince imprisoned his father, starved him and finally had his heels cut with a razor, covered with salt and heated. So the king died and Ajætasattu had to bear the grave kammic burden for the murder of his father. Later on he became repentant and saw the Buddha. The Lord gave a talk on the advantages of a bhikkhu’s life (Sæmaññaphala sutta) and but for his parricide the king would have attained the first stage of the path after hearing the talk. As it was, the heinous crime against his father stood in the way and on his death he landed in Lohakumbhø hell. Thus calamity befell Ajætasattu because of his faith in an evil teacher. Devadatta planned a schism after consultation with his three followers. He went to the Buddha with three monks and requested the Lord to lay down five rules of conduct for the bhikkhus. These rules were (1) that all bhikkhus should live permanently in the forest. If they lived in villages they were to be declared guilty. (2) They should eat only the food that they obtained by begging. They were to be declared guilty if they accepted the food offered by a layman who had invited them. (3) They should dwell at the foot of trees. If they took shelter, they were to be declared guilty. (4) They should wear only cast-off rags. They were to be declared guilty if they accepted robes offered by the laymen. (5) They should be vegetarians. Those who ate fish or meat were to be declared guilty. It is, of course, not improper for the bhikkhus to follow any of these rules. But if these were prescribed by the Buddha, it would be hard for them to abide by all the rules. During the first year of the Buddha’s ministry the bhikkhus lived only in forest retreats. They are only what they got by begging and spent their time at the foot of trees. But seeing that it would be difficult for some of them to live so austerely in future, the Lord made these ascetic practices voluntary. Monks were permitted to dwell at the foot of trees except during the four months of rainy season. It was not improper for them to eat meat provided they did not see the animal being killed or hear or had reason to suspect that it has been killed expressly for their meals. Thus the Buddha had permitted the monks to choose some ascetic practices as they saw fit and so he turned down Devadatta’s proposals. Taking advantage of the Buddha’s disagreement with him, Devadatta requested the assembly of Sangha to express their opinion by votes on his proposals that, he said, were conducive to the lessening of desire. The ignorant young monks of Vajjø state supported him. He took the monks numbering five hundred to Gayæsøsa. In compliance with the wish of the Buddha. Særiputta and Moggalæna went there to enlighten the misguided monks. When they arrived there, Devadatta was preaching to the young monks. On seeing the two theras, he said to his disciples, “Look! The two chief disciples of sama¼a Gotama like my teaching so much that they are coming to me.” Then Kokælika, one of his followers warned him, “These two monks have evil desires. They follow the dictates of evil desires and so do not be intimate with them.” Here Kokælika was projecting on the two theras the evil desires which he had as the follower of the evil-minded Devadatta. It was like a lunatic calling others lunatics. Despite this warning, Devadatta welcomes the two chief disciples of the Lord because he thought he had won them over to his teaching. He gave them seats but they seated themselves elsewhere. He preached far into the night and then he told Særiputta to give a talk since the monks were not sleepy and he wanted to take a rest. He lay down with his right shoulder on the robe. Here he was imitating what the Buddha usually said and did on similar occasions. The Buddha did not fall asleep when he lay down to rest. He used to express approval of the disciple’s sermon when it came to an end. But Devadatta was unmindful and he fell asleep in a moment. Særiputta pointed out what was passing in the minds of the monks and told them to practise self-discipline. Moggalæna performed miracles and taught the Dhamma. The talks might have been very interesting for while hearing these talks the five hundred monks attained the sotæpatti stage. With the two chief disciples they all went back to Ræjagaha city where the Buddha resided. Then Kokælika was furious and he awakened Devadatta by kicking him in the breast. “Now all your disciples are gone,” he shouted at his teacher. “Didn’t I tell you that Særiputta and Moggalæna are evil-minded, that you should not trust them.?” Here Kokælika’s words need consideration. As the follower of evil-minded Devadatta, he imputed evil motives to pure and noble Særiputta and Moggalæna. This shows that he was infected by the evil mind of his teacher, that he wronged noble persons verbally because he had relied on an evil teacher. So you should avoid an evil friend or teacher, one who is envious and lacks faith, moral virtues, knowledge and wisdom. On the other hand, a good friend or teacher has just the opposite attributes. He has faith, moral integrity, knowledge, a generous heart and wisdom. The best teacher and friend in the world is the Buddha. To rely on the Buddha is to rely on the best teachers. Although the Buddha has attained parinibbæna, those who hear his teaching and revere his memory have the best teacher to rely on. In the lifetime of the Buddha, Særiputta and Moggalæna ranked as second best teachers, Mahækassapa Anuruddha, etc., as third best teachers. Later on the real Arahats, anægæmi, sakadægæmi and sotæpanna persons are best teachers in that order. Good ordinary persons with faith rank below them as good teachers. Nowadays it is hard to identify an Arahat or a Noble One who has really attained the other stages of the path. Only the real and well-informed Ariyas can assess the spiritual attainment of a person. If, as an ordinary student, one wants to find out a good friend or teacher, one must apply the criteria of the Dhammasa³ga¼ø Pæ¹i text that we have mentioned, viz., faith, morality, knowledge, a generous heart and wisdom. The good friend or teacher must have faith. He makes devotions to the Buddha whole-heartedly and reverentially. Some people say that an Arahat need not make such devotions. But, according to the commentary, an Arahat devoutly worshipped Mahæcetiya (the great relic-shrine). The good friend or teacher has also faith in and respect for the Dhamma and the Sangha. He believes in kamma, avoids evil and does good deeds. He urges others to be morally good like him. He has knowledge. He must be well-equipped with worldly knowledge if he is to be a good teacher in worldly life. The bhikkhus who do not meditate should have enough knowledge to teach their pupils such things as reading and writing without violating the Vinaya rules. Some bhikkhus are well-versed in Pæ¹i literature but are poor in writing. They do badly even in spelling and their writing is likely to lower them in the estimation of school teachers. Of course, the knowledge that the bhikkhu should primarily seek is knowledge of the Dhamma. It is up to the meditation teacher to have two kinds of knowledge, that is, knowledge of the scriptures and knowledge based on practice and experience. If the teacher is thus intellectually well-equipped, the disciple with inadequate knowledge can attain true insight by practising meditation according to the teacher’s instructions. It is easy to know the marks of a generous heart. A generous teacher gives away everything which he does not need to his disciples and fellow beings. Wisdom (paññæ) is that which a good teacher gets by learning, reflection and the practice of meditation. The teacher must have insight-knowledge such as insight into the arising-and-passing-away of all phenomena (udayabbayañæ¼a). A teacher’s talk clearly shows whether or not he has insight-knowledge. It is hard for an ordinary man to identify such knowledge. A well-read man may be in a better position to do so but still it is not easy for a man without experience to recognize it. He may misunderstand what a teacher says on the basis of his experience or he may mistake purely bookish knowledge for reality. More difficult to understand are insights associated with the path and fruition as well as retro cognitive insight (paccavekkhanañæ¼a). So we should regard a person as a good teacher if he has faith, knowledge, etc., and describes the nature of insight-knowledge on the basis of experience and in accordance with the Pi¥akas. Visuddhimagga, “The Path of Purity” describes a good meditation teacher as an affable person. He endears himself to others by virtue of his moral integrity, good-will and loving-kindness (mettæ) that motivates his speech and action. He must be worthy of respect. He will have this attribute if he has morality, tranquility and wisdom. He must be worthy of loving-kindness suffused by others. It is easy to suffuse mettæ to one who has good moral character and is inspired by mettæ in his speech and action. He must know how to teach and discipline other persons. If a disciple has defects and faults, the teacher must not connive at them but reprove him. This is an important qualification of a good teacher. His indifference on matters that call for reproof is harmful to the disciple’s interest. He must be able to face criticism. Whatever the age of his critic, if the criticism is justified, he should welcome it and act accordingly, as in the case of Særiputta who accepted the advice of a young novice. On one occasion Særiputta was so busy that his robe was slipping down. The way he wore the robe was out of keeping with Vinaya rules but since he had no desire to violate them, he was not guilty of any offence. Seeing his robe slipping, the young sæma¼era drew his attention to it. Særiputta took the reminder in good grace, adjusted his robe and even asked, “Would this do, Sir?” A good teacher must be able to speak on profound subjects such as khandha, æyatana (the bases of mental process,) dhætu (elements), saccæ (truths), pa¥iccasamuppæda (Dependent origination), vipassanæ and so forth. Unless the teacher is able to talk on these subjects, the disciple will not have the opportunity to practise meditation effectively despite his desire to do so. He does not urge the disciple to do improper things. Some tell their disciples to do unwholesome things for their selfish ends. If the disciple acts on the instruction of such teachers, he usually comes to grief. If he speaks improperly, he is at the very least in for censure. If he commits crime, he is punished for it. If he does unwholesome deeds, he is likely to land in one of the four nether worlds after death. So the teacher should not encourage the disciples to do improper things. These then are the essential qualifications of a good meditation teacher mentioned in Visuddhimagga. These qualifications are implicit in the five qualities, viz., faith, morality, etc., suggested in Dhammasa³ga¼i of Abhidhamma Pi¥aka. Thus affability and the quality of deserving the loving-kindness (mettæ) of other people presuppose morality (søla). Respectability is the attribute of those who have moral virtues, knowledge and wisdom and so are the ability to discipline others and the ability to accept advice. The ability to talk on profound subjects is based on knowledge and wisdom. Thus the qualities of a good teacher according to Visuddhimagga and Dhammasa³ga¼i are basically the same. Pamæda – Forgetfulness In Doing Good We have often talked about forgetfulness (pamæda). We are apt to forget in worldly life as well as in matters of spirit. We put a thing at a place and lose it because we forget to take it when we leave the place. We lose articles that we forget to keep with us while travelling by car, train or steamer. We suffer financially or otherwise when we forget to do certain things. Such forgetfulness in everyday life is harmful. To forget in regard to alms-giving, morality, etc., is unmindfulness in matters of higher life. It is called pamæda and explained in Khuddaka-vibha³ga as follows:– “What is the nature of pamæda? It means lack of self-control in regard to unwholesome deeds, unwholesome speech, unwholesome thoughts and five sensual objects.” Lack of self-discipline in regard to misdeeds is a kind of pamæda. By misdeed we mean taking life, stealing and indulging in illicit sex. So when you think of killing or when you are killing, you give reins to your desire to kill. At that moment you forget that you should avoid killing. The same may be said of other two kinds of misdeeds, viz., stealing and illicit sex. Likewise, unfettered mind in respect of the four kinds of evil speech means forgetfulness. It means forgetting the fact that one should avoid lying, slandering, abusing and frivolous talk. Hence it is a kind of pamæda. So is lack of control over evil thoughts such as the intention to get another man’s property unlawfully, the desire to kill or doubt about the law of kamma. It means forgetting the fact that it is good to have no desire for other people’s property, to cultivate goodwill and to believe in action (kamma) and its result. These are the worst of all kinds of pamæda for a person imbued with them is bent on evil and wholly blind to moral and spiritual values. Still another kind of pamæda is licentiousness in respect of five sensual objects. Sensual objects are objects of desire. They form the basis of mutual attraction between men and women. The objects of men’s desire are largely to be found in women and vice versa. These objects are form, sound, smell, taste and sensation. Of these taste also means the taste of prepared food as well as the comfort of clothes, bed, etc. Also to be identified with sensual objects are material goods such as gold, silver, houses, vehicles, clothing, etc., which one needs to fulfil one’s sensual desires. Uncontrolled thoughts about sensual objects, uncontrolled desire for them and uncontrolled enjoyments of them mean pamæda. It is like having no control over cattle that are let loose on grazing ground. If you give a free rein to sensual desires instead of restraining them by mind-training (bhævanæ) you will certainly forget to do good deeds. Such obsession with sensual desire may be regarded as middle grade pamæda in that it is not as serious as the pamæda that leads to misdeeds. People who do not develop their minds are imbued with the middle grade pamæda all the time. From the moment they wake up in the morning they think of sensual objects and the obsessive desires dominate them the whole day. They never get fed up with sensual objects. They delight in thinking of them and suspend their sensuous thoughts only when they fall asleep. They may think of sensuous objects the whole day, the whole night, the whole year, nay, it may be their life-long preoccupation. This makes them unmindful of the dhammas within. So to give vent to sensuous desire without self-restraint is pamæda in respect of good deeds. Pamæda is unconsciousness but it is not unconsciousness due to falling from a high place, drowning or affliction with a disease. It is total unmindfulness while one goes about, eats or indulges in pleasure. To give vent to evil desire in terms of evil deed, evil speech or evil thought is pamæda at its worst. Less serious is obsession with sensual objects. Then there is another kind of pamæda that is subtle and mild. It is pamæda, too, to forget to develop or cultivate the good dhammas sincerely, constantly and ceaselessly. The good dhammas here mean in brief alms-giving, morality and mind-development (bhævanæ). One must devote oneself to them sincerely and appropriately. Alms should be given on certain occasions to the best of one’s ability. Commitment to five precepts should be permanent and one should observe the eight precepts and others whenever it is possible to do so. The mind should be developed as far as possible. This is to be done seriously and steadfastly. Half-hearted practice means lack of sincerity and unmindfulness of many things. The good dhammas essential to mind-development are the four applications of attentiveness (satipa¥¥hæna), four right efforts (sammappadhæna), four roads to power (iddhipæda), five ethical powers (indriya), five mental powers (bala), seven elements of enlightenment (bojjha³ga) and the eightfold path (magga). The yogø should develop these dhammas sincerely and seriously. To watch every bodily behaviour such as walking, sitting, lying, etc., whenever it occurs is to contemplate the body. To watch cramp, heat, etc., is to contemplate the feelings; to watch thoughts and imaginations that arise is to contemplate the states of consciousness; while to watch the acts of hearing, seeing, etc., is to contemplate mind-objects. To attend meticulously to everything that arises and to be aware of it mean careful application of attentiveness. The four applications of attentiveness lead to four right efforts and the application of other elements of dhamma for enlightenment (bodhipakkhiya-dhamma). Therefore, to watch the abdominal rising and falling and so forth thoroughly is to cultivate the good dhammas thoroughly. Any unmindfulness is lack of thoroughness which means pamæda. Moreover, if you do the watching by fits and starts instead of doing it steadfastly, you will be unmindful occasionally and all such unmindfulness is pamæda. To watch for only one or two hours means pamæda for the rest of the day. In that case your concentration is arrested and it will be hard to develop insight-knowledge perfectly. Again, if you relax your effort or if your enthusiasm wanes, you tend to become forgetful. If, in the course of your practice in meditation, you give up owing to lack of progress or ill-health or for any other reason, you cease to be mindful and free from pamæda. This kind of pamæda is obvious in the case of many people. Some never think of taking up meditation. Some even prevent others from meditating. Such persons are steeped in pamæda throughout their lives. To tell others to give up meditating is pamæda at its worst. Some monks do not meditate even though they have joined the Sangha with the object of practising meditation. Yet instead of meditating themselves they discourage others from doing so. This is the most serious pamæda. In short, it is pamæda if a person fails to cultivate the good dhammas seriously, ceaselessly and whole-heartedly. The opposite of forgetfulness is mindfulness or vigilance (appamæda). It is appamæda to avoid wrong deeds, wrong speech and lead a good life; or to deny wrong thoughts an outlet through concentration and insight-knowledge; or to divert the mind from sensual objects through bhævanæ or mind-development; or to overcome sensual thoughts through mindfulness, or to give alms or to think of giving alms or doing good deeds. In particular, the best appamæda is to watch and be aware of everything that arises from six senses. Appamæda is applied to daily life by yogøs who are practising mindfulness at this center. Their commitment to moral precepts makes them free from unwholesome deeds and speech. Constant mindfulness excludes unwholesome thoughts and keeps the mind away from sensual objects. If the mind occasionally goes astray, it is promptly noted and checked. Since the yogø is always watching the mental images that arise, there can be no sensual, retrospective thoughts. This means mindfulness that is being developed through sincere, constant, steadfast and unfaltering practice. Their cultivation of appamæda is indeed very good and really gratifying to us. “Work out your own salvation with appamæda (mindfulness).” Thus the Buddha exhorted his disciples every day. It was his last advice before his parinibbæna. The substance of his advice is that the disciple should exert effort to achieve the object which is Arahatship, the goal of a bhikkhu’s life, the attainment of which leads the Arahat to reflect, “Kara¼øyam katam. What is to be done has been done.” It is not easy to attain Arahatship. The yogø needs help or means for the accomplishment just as a man needs tools or instruments for carrying out a job. So, in order to help his disciples achieve the goal of Arahatship, the Buddha pointed out the appamæda as the best tool for the purpose. By means of appamæda the disciple is to devote himself to søla, samædhi and paññæ till Arahatship is won. Appamædena Sampædetha: Its True Meaning We have referred to the instrumental nature of appamæda in relation to the subject because the way most people understand the last saying of the Buddha is not in accord with the explanation given in the commentaries. They believe that the Buddha’s last advice was: “Keep yourselves wholly mindful.” This interpretation is fairly plausible but it does not bring into focus what is to be accomplished by the disciples. On the other hand the commentary elaborates it thus: “Satiavippavæsena sabba kiccæni sampædeyyætha”. The Pæ¹i sentence contains the object “sabba kiccæni” which means “all purposes, all matters”. Hence the verbs sampædetha and sampædeyyætha should be transitive verbs rather than objectless or intransitive verbs. Appamædena means, by means of appamæda and as it is used in conjunction with transitive verb, it is to be understood not in the sense of an object but in the sense of a means for achieving the object. So the Pæ¹i passage in the commentary may be translated as “By means of mindfulness (appamæda) you should accomplish all the tasks (sabbakiccæni) relating to morality, etc”. So the last saying of the Buddha means that one should do with mindfulness all that is to be done in connection with søla, samædhi and paññæ. The same interpretation applies to appamædena sampædetha recited by the bhikkhu who presides over the ceremony for the commitment of the lay Buddhists to moral precepts. The last saying of the Buddha on the eve of his purinibbæna contains the words “vaya dhamma sa³khæra”. It means that all phenomena of existence are subject to decay and undependable; that mind matter are impermanent and always passing away; that everything will come to an end eventually and that we should therefore, practise søla, samædhi and paññæ thoroughly. Consider, for example, a house you have built. In spite of its solidity as a new house, it will surely disintegrate in due course and before its final dissolution it will decay gradually. A house that is expected to last 100 years decays one per cent every year and it decays proportionately for every period of time down to a second. We usually do not speak of a time-unit that is less than a second but according to the scriptures, there are many thought-moments in a second during which dissolution takes place ceaselessly. Just like a well-built house, a man’s body is also subject to the law of impermanence. It is apparently robust at the age of 16 or 20. He is then attached to his body and mind, confident of his strength and virility, and self-assured about his knowledge, understanding and skill. He considers himself immune to destruction but in fact mind and body do not endure even for the twinkling of an eye. Even when he is sleeping, eating or working, all psycho-physical phenomena arise and pass away ceaselessly. This can be realized by the yogøs who practise constant mindfulness by Satipa¥¥hæna method. It is not an experience beyond the reach of the average man’s intellect. Some say that it is impossible to have such an experience nowadays but this is a misconception due to lack of sustained practice. So, because of this ceaseless dissolution even a man who lives 100 years eventually becomes a corpse. Hence the insubstantiality of life and the Buddha’s emphasis on the need for the practice of søla, samædhi and paññæ on which we should rely for liberation. The yogøs who watch all phenomena at every moment of seeing, etc., are mindful in accordance with the Buddha’s advice “Appamædena sampædetha”. As concentration develops, there arises the insight into the only two phenomena of existence, viz., the known corporeality and the knowing consciousness (næmarþpaparicchedañæ¼a). Then the yogø reflects on the anicca, dukkha and anatta of all phenomenal existence (sammasanañæ¼a). This is followed by insight into the dissolution of all phenomena at every moment (udayabbavañæ¼a). At this stage the yogø sees light, has ecstasy and believes that his insight is complete. But it is not and after that he finds both the næma and rþpa vanishing (bha³gañæ¼a). Then constant mindfulness leads to fear (bhayañæ¼a), awareness of defects (ædønavæñæ¼a), weariness (nibbidæñæ¼a), the desire to repudiate næmarþpa and existence (muccitukamyatañæ¼a), reflection (patisa³khærañæ¼a) and equanimity (sa³khærupekkhæñæ¼a). Still it does not suffice to bring the yogø to the ultimate goal. When it is developed, there arise adaptation-knowledge (anulomañæ¼a) and maturity-knowledge (gotrabhþñæ¼a) followed by sotæpatti path-knowledge and its fruition. The yogø must, however, continue the practice where-upon udayabbaya and other kinds of insight-knowledge occur again in the same order until he attains the sakadægæmi stage and its fruition. Still he must keep on with the practice repeat the same process of development and reach the anægæmi stage. Then continued practice and repetition of the same spiritual journey will bring him to Arahatship. Only then does the disciple attain full liberation in accordance with the last advice of the Buddha. So, while other people may be forgetful, absorbed in sensual objects and divorced from good deeds, let us avoid forgetfulness, overcome evil deeds through morality, remove the pamæda of evil thoughts and sensual objects through mind-development. Appamæda is central to Buddhism. Indeed, according to the commentaries, it is the epitome of the Buddha’s teaching during his 45-year ministry. Saddhæ means faith but it is not saddhæ to hold a view that is not sound and reasonable. Saddhæ refers only to acceptance of the right beliefs about the true Buddha, the true Dhamma, the true Sangha and the law of kamma. The belief in kamma is the right belief based on faith. In the exegesis of the three Refuge (sara¼a) the commentaries describe the belief as di¥¥hijukamma, that is rooted in saddhæ. Like the belief in kamma, the belief in the true Buddha, the true Dhamma and the true Sangha is a matter of faith. Every religion has God or supreme teacher, the doctrine revealed or taught by the founder and the disciples who follow the doctrine. How are we to know whether they are genuine or not? The answer is that a true Buddha must have nine attributes. One of the attributes is Arahan which means freedom from hatred, ignorance and other defilements and as such it suffices to reveal the genuineness of the teacher. It is said that the so-called God or Creator wants human beings to revere and worship him and punishes those who fail to do so. This shows his craving for power and ill-will. But the Buddha teaches that we will fare according to our kamma, that good deeds will produce good results and bad deeds bad results. He does not say that worshippers will be saved and non-worshippers punished. There is no sign of greed or ill-will in his teaching. He only exhorts his disciples to free themselves from such defilements. As for the teaching its test is experience. It must possess six attributes one of which is sandi¥¥hika which means the quality of being realized or experienced. So we can know whether it is true or false on the basis of experience. Other religions do not tell us what their followers can experience; all their teachings have to be accepted on blind faith. But the Buddha’s teaching lends itself to empirical investigation. Spiritual experience is attained in a couple of weeks if you practise according to our instructions and you will have extraordinary insight if the practice extends to five or six weeks. The Sangha, too, is genuine if it has nine attributes such as suppatipanna which means good training. Of course every religion recognizes the importance of good training but we must distinguish a good training from a bad training. A good training means freedom from ill-will, greed and other evils. Such a training is not to be found generally in non-Buddhist teachings. The non-Buddhist systems do not help us to root out the evils whereas the Buddhist training ensures their total extinction. The Sangha is committed to this training. Faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha is immensely beneficial. Owing to lack of such faith, some people do not do good deeds and some even do evil. Then there are those who reject kamma and the idea of a future life. They do not avoid evil and they do not do much good. Because of their lack of faith, their few good deeds that stem from love or compassion are outweighed by bad deeds. They have almost nothing to rely on for their welfare after death. On the other hand, men of faith avoid evil and do good as far as possible. So they make spiritual progress and are assured of a good afterlife. Ahirika and Anottappa – Lack of moral shame and dread Shame and dread are what we experience in everyday life. But it is not moral shame to feel unhappy for lack of good dress or prestige. Hirø is the shame associated with evil-doing. Likewise, ottappa means fear of evil-doing. Lack of moral shame or conscience is called ahirika and lack of fear in regard to evil-doing is called anottappa. Lack of shame and lack of moral fear go together but these two kinds of moral defects differ in quality. Just as a clean man does not want to be tainted with dirt, so also a good man does not want his conscience (hirø) to be defiled by evil. But it is ottappa to dread the consequences of an evil deed. To put it another way, hirø makes a man reluctant to do evil because it leads him to reflect: “Only the cowards, fools and low class people do evil. As a man of noble family, wise, good and courageous, I should do no evil.” But it is ottappa that makes a man afraid of public opinion and unwilling to do evil. So a bhikkhu or yogø or a good man motivated by hirø will avoid evil because of his sense of self-respect or he may do so out of regard for society or for fear of being censured by devas if not by some people who are aware of his misdeeds. Thus we shrink from doing evil when our moral conscience makes it abhorrent to us or when its immediate and post-mortem consequences make us afraid. It is when we are devoid of shame and fear that we tend to do evil, in other words, evil deeds are rooted in the absence of these two moral deterrents. Men’s moral progress is due to them and were it not for them men would morally sink to the level of wild animals. Hence the Pæ¹i name given to them, viz., lokapæla–dhamma, the dhamma that serves to guard human society. Appassutatæ – Poverty Of Knowledge According to the Buddha, poverty or lack of knowledge is also a defect which we should remove in order to lessen defilements. Knowledge is of two kinds, one which we acquire by hearing (ægamasuta) and one which we acquire by independent understanding (adigamasuta). While many people may remain ignorant, we should seek knowledge. Some kinds of knowledge are relevant to worldly affairs while others bear on our spiritual life. Whatever its kind, every knowledge is good. Worldly knowledge is beneficial and so the more, the better. Some are ill-informed on worldly matters. Their knowledge is confined to their locality; they have never been elsewhere. Such ignorance will do them no good for, when they have to visit distant places, they do not know what to do. So one should seek as much worldly knowledge as possible. But what we should emphasize is spiritual knowledge. Some people have little knowledge about the Buddha-dhamma. Some have never heard of the Buddha, let alone know anything about his teaching. There are many such people all over the world. Even in Myanmar, the Dhamma is wholly foreign to those living in border areas. There are preachers in some villages but serious sermons are hard to come by. The talks deal largely with almsgiving, morality, death and funerals. Even so the way they preach is not comprehensive but perfunctory and little more than what is required by tradition for the happy or unhappy occasions in life. Here is a sample of their sermons: “bujjhatøti buddha yo bhagavæ – the bhagavæ is called the Buddha because he clearly realized the four noble truths. The Buddha was on one occasion residing at Jetavana vihæra in the city of Sævatthi. At that time...” and so on. The preacher usually speaks in an authoritative tone. He seldom tells the people exactly what attitude they should have when giving alms or what thoughts they should cultivate when keeping sabbath. In some places such instructions have not yet come to the notice of the people who still regard the traditional sermons as the only teachings of the Buddha. Talks on vipassanæ are indeed very rare among them. The so-called vipassanæ instructions of some teachers are hardly precise and comprehensive. They do not ensure concentration, insight or success in meditation. Some instructions lack the authority of scriptures. By and large people are ignorant of vipassanæ and it is up to the yogøs to fill their spiritual needs. Through talks by well-informed teachers they can increase their knowledge gradually. They should also study authoritative books and consult learned teachers about matters which they do not understand. Nowadays there are Myanmar translations of Pæ¹i texts which can give you a good knowledge of the Dhamma. But the sentence construction is archaic and so you may need the help of a teacher in your study. Complete Knowledge In One Stanza The extent of knowledge which the yogø should have is explained by the commentary when it describes a well-informed yogø as one who understands only a single stanza but lives in accordance with it. So a thorough understanding of even a single stanza means complete knowledge. Of course, if one understands more, so much the better. But it is necessary to practise rightly what we understand. You may be will-versed in scriptures but your knowledge counts for little unless you live up to it and practise søla, samædhi and paññæ. Practice is of paramount importance in religious life. Even a knowledge of morality is useless if you do not apply it to daily life. It is superfluous and you are no better than one who knows little about moral values. There is, for example, the story of two bhikkhus in the commentary on Dhammapada. In the time of the Buddha two friends in Sævatthi city joined the holy order. After learning the Vinaya rules for five years, they were told by the Buddha that it was up to a bhikkhu to do one of the two things, viz., the practice of vipassanæ or the study and teaching of the Dhamma. One of the monks chose to meditate as he was too old to learn the Dhamma. So under the guidance of the Buddha, he went to a forest abode, meditated and finally became a full-fledged Arahat. The other monk studied the Dhamma, preached here and there and gave courses to 500 bhikkhus. A large number of monks went to the forest retreat, meditated and after attaining Arahatship, they took leave of the elderly bhikkhus to go and see the Buddha. The aged bhikkhu told them to pay respects on his behalf to the Buddha and his disciples as well as to his friend, the teacher of the Dhamma. They did so and the Pi¥aka-teacher was struck by the number of bhikkhus who claimed to be the disciples of his friend. He did not have a high opinion of his friend. He wondered why the forest-dwelling monk who had never studied the Dhamma had so many disciples. So he decided to question the forest-bhikkhu when he came to the city. Later on, the forest-bhikkhu came to see the Buddha. He left the bowl and robes with the Pi¥akateacher and went to the Buddha. After paying respects to the Buddha, he came back to his friend. The Pi¥aka-teacher had then prepared some questions to test the forest-dweller. The Buddha then having divined his intention came to the meeting to forestall any attempt on his part to snub the forest-dwelling Arahat by irrelevant questions. For such an attempt was fraught with serious kammic consequences. The Buddha asked the Pi¥aka-teacher about the jhænas, samæpatti and rþpanæma. The monk could not answer the questions. He was baffled when he was questioned about the sotæpatti path. But the question did not present any difficulty to the forest-bhikkhu. The Buddha asked them about the other three higher paths, the Pa¥aka-teacher was again baffled but the forest-bhikkhu answered all questions. The Buddha praised the forest-bhikkhu but not the Pi¥aka-teacher. This, of course, did not please the disciples of the latter. Thereupon the Buddha declared, “Although a learned person may preach the Dhamma bearing on the welfare of human beings, if he does not practise it, he is not free from defilements; he does not attain any stage of the holy path. So he is like a cowherd who makes his living by counting and guarding the cattle of other people.” The cowherd has to look after the cattle and hand then over to their owner. He gets only money for his job, he does not get milk from the cows which is consumed by the owner. Likewise, the monk who teaches the Dhamma is attended on and offered food by his followers for his service. Without practice he cannot enjoy the fruits of the Dhamma such as jhæna, vipassanæ, the path and fruition. The fruits of the Dhamma are meant only for those who having heard it from a learned monk practise it just as milk is consumed only by the owner of the cows. If a person preaches the five moral precepts, but does not practise them, he may be respected as a teacher but he will not benefit by them. Only those who apply them to daily life will enjoy the fruits of morality in this life and hereafter. Likewise, the fruits of higher dhammas are to be enjoyed only by those who practise samatha and vipassanæ. Of course the practice must be correct. The yogø who takes up meditation seriously may not be able to talk much about the Dhamma but he is assured of the fruits of the Ariyan path and the extinction of defilements and suffering. Hence the Buddha’s emphasis on the need for practice. “A person may be able to talk only a little about the Dhamma but if he practises søla, samædhi and paññæ in accordance with the Dhamma, he realizes the truth, overcomes craving, hatred and ignorance, and having no attachment to this or the other world, his mind is fully liberated and he is one who has done away with defilements.” This is the translation of the Pæ¹i text in support of the statement in the commentary that a single stanza that is heard, remembered and practised will benefit us and that it may mean complete knowledge. Again in the Cþlakammavibha³ga sutta the Buddha says that a spirit of inquiry contributes to knowledge and good deeds, speech and thought in this life and that one who has an inquiring mind is likely to attain the deva-world after death and to be reborn as a highly intelligent human being. So we should seek knowledge through investigation. “If you do not know, inquire; if it is not clean, cleanse it,” as the Myanmar saying goes. It is up to you to inquire if you do not know the methods of meditation or if you do not clearly grasp something about the Dhamma or if the study of scriptures leaves you still confused and unenlightened. The meditation teachers help even those who do not inquire them. The yogø may be ignorant at the outset but he can gain much knowledge under the guidance of a teacher. You should not think that the practice of vipassanæ is impossible without a knowledge of khandha (aggregates), æyatana (sense-bases) and so forth. For everyday the vipassanæ teachers tell the yogøs all that they should know while examining them about their progress. Moreover, while meditating, the yogø has unusual insights. Thus the yogøs at this center gain both the knowledge imparted by the teacher and the knowledge based on experience. A man may be lazy in worldly affairs or in his religious life. By and large the two kinds of laziness go together. The latter kind of laziness makes a man reluctant to do good, to hear the Dhamma, to study scriptures or to meditate. We should overcome such laziness and exert unstinted and strenuous effort. There are four kinds of right effort (sammappadhæna), viz., (1) the effort to prevent the arising of evil (deeds, words and thoughts) which one has not yet committed, (2) the effort to avoid the repetition of an evil that one has committed, (3) the effort to cultivate good deeds, words and thoughts that have not yet arisen. (4) the effort to perpetuate and develop the good that one has done. So we should avoid the evil that we see or hear of in others but that has not yet occurred to us; see that an evil that has occurred is not repeated; do the good that we have not yet done, especially vipassanæ that we have not yet practised and maintain and develop the good that we have done; in particular the samædhi and vipassanæ insight that we have already gained. Meditation involves all the four kinds of right effort. If you do not watch your senses you will be beset by old and new evils. Every moment of attentiveness means the effort to forestall both evils; it means also the effort to develop new insights as well as the effort to increase and perfect the insights that have already occurred to you. Some lazy people do not wish to give alms personally and so they tell others to do so on their behalf. This alms-giving by proxy does not benefit them kammically as much as possible. Some lazy Buddhists do not wish to make devotions at the Buddha-shrine or to hear the Dhamma or to study scriptures or to meditate. Even if they do meditate, they do not exert much effort. They do so only half-heartedly and so they make little progress. All these deficiencies are due to their laziness. So they should be energetic and do these things that are essential to their religious life. Absent-Mindedness (Mu¿¿hassacca) Absent-mindedness and forgetfulness (pamæda) are basically the same and so are circumspection and mindfulness. So what we have said about pamæda applies equally to absent-mindedness. Absent-mindedness in worldly affairs or in religious life is harmful while mindfulness in both areas of life is beneficial It never occurs to some rich people to give alms. They are in for an unhappy future after their death because of their deficiency in dæna. Some do not care for morality; they do not observe even the five precepts strictly. They say that they are not yet old and lead an easy-going life. But young people are also mortal and if they die without søla, they are likely to land in the lower worlds. We should bear in mind the importance of søla even in the case of young people. Samatha, vipassanæ and bhævanæ are foreign to most people. Those who know something about them think that these high dhammas are not meant for their generation. But if they die young, they are bound to miss valuable religious experience. Vipassanæ is especially important. If a Buddhist does not attain the fruits of vipassanæ, his profession of the Buddha-dhamma has served little purpose. For whereas dæna, søla and samatha are to be found in other religions, vipassanæ is the exclusive teaching of the Buddha. It is not easy to practise vipassanæ in the right way. Some have the desire to practise it but they die with their desire unfulfilled because there is no one to guide them. Some people do not miss the opportunity to meditate. Initially there may be many things that escape their attention. They should watch such things and remove them. With the development of insight into momentary arising-and-passing-away of all phenomena, their attention becomes very keen and is focused on every phenomenon that arises. There is nothing that escapes their notice. Through such mindfulness they can finally attain the four stages of the Ariyan path. The mindfulness that the yogø gains by watching centers on the sense-objects that are emphasized in Satipa¥¥hæna sutta, viz., physical body, feeling, consciousness and mind-objects. As it is said in the sutta, “Sabbam abhiññeyya – All ought to be known, etc.” they refer to all psycho-physical phenomena that arise from six senses. It involves directing the mind to what is seen and being mindful of the fact of seeing and the same may be said of hearing, smelling, etc. The attention is focused on the objects as they arise one after another. If, while watching the rising and falling, you hear or smell a thing, you may switch your attention to it. There is nothing that escapes your attention or that you forget. Such especially keen attentiveness emerges with the development of udayabbayañæ¼a. The attention falls spontaneously on the objects just like the birds picking the grains of rice one after another, a state of consciousness called upa¥¥hitassati (clear mindfulness). Duppannata –Lack Of Vipassanæ Insight One should practise Sallekha dhamma with the object of attaining vipassanæ insight. Non-Buddhists are devoid of vipassanæ insight and so are the Buddhists who do not meditate according to Satipa¥¥hæna sutta. Even those who follow the Satipa¥¥hæna method do not have it if their object is only to attain samædhi and jhæna. Some people hold that what the Satipa¥¥hæna sutta teaches is not vipassanæ but samædhi since satipa¥¥hæna means mindfulness which is included in samædhikkhandha and as such implicit in sammævæyama (right effort) and sammæ-samædhi (right mindfulness). This view is based on a superficial study of the sutta and over-emphasis on the word satipa¥¥hæna. In the early part of the sutta it is said, “Sampajano – know truly by analysis” and these words surely refer to vipassanæ insight. The later part of the sutta says – “samudayadhammænupassø – watching the arising and the cause of dissolution”. Samatha bhævanæ is not concerned with insight into the arising and passing away and their causes. It requires the yogø to confine his attention to objects that remain stable. The sutta also speaks of anissito ca viharati – the state of being free from craving and belief; “na ca kiñci loke upædiyati – detachment from anything in the world.” Samatha bhævanæ has nothing to do with freedom from craving, belief and non-attachment that are relevant to vipassanæ. Even the section on samatha, that is on in-and-out breathing, etc., is designed not merely to develop concentration but to contribute to vipassanæ insight on the basis of samatha. There is no need to comment on the vipassanæ section of the sutta. As for the contemplation of feeling, consciousness and mind-object, these have nothing to do with samatha-jhæna and there is no doubt about their importance in vipassanæ practice. The yogø should know that he is walking when he is walking. This teaching of the Buddha in Satipa¥¥hæna sutta may be belittled by ignorant people. To them the teaching is not in the least remarkable since the knowledge it refers to is possessed by animals like dogs. To remove such misunderstanding, the commentary explains the statement and the explanation is not a revision of the Pæ¹i text or an addition to it but an endorsement that accords with the spirit of the Buddha-dhamma. According to the commentary, it is true that even a dog knows that it is moving when it is moving. But to know that one is moving in accordance with Satipa¥¥hæna sutta is diametrically opposed to the consciousness of an animal. For animals as well as common people who are unmindful do not know that they are moving at every moment of taking a step. Nor do they know the successive steps involved in the process that is caused by the desire to move. A man may be at times momentarily aware of what he is doing but by and large he is absent-minded and absorbed in thoughts irrelevant to what he is doing. Moreover, his consciousness is bound up with his belief in ego-entity. He believes that his body and mind remain the same irrespective of time and place. He cannot overcome this illusion through ordinary awareness that does not make him mindful. Ordinary awareness may even strengthen the ego-belief. It has nothing to do with the mindfulness which the Buddha emphasizes in the Satipa¥¥hæna sutta. As concentration develops, the yogø who practises mindfulness learns to make a distinction between mind and body. He differentiates the physical elements of solidity and motion from consciousness; he knows how solidity and motion appear because of the desire to move about, he sees the vanishing of desire and motion at every moment. While walking, he watches and clearly perceives the discontinuity and dissolution in six or more parts at every step he takes. This clear insight provides answers to three questions, viz., (1) Who goes? Is there an ego-entity that goes? (2) Whose going is it? Is there the agent who does the going? (3) Why does the going occur? (1) There is no ego-entity that goes for obviously it is only a successive arising-and-passing-away of the desire to go and solidity and motion. (2) There is no subject or agent who does the going. (3) There is only the collection of physical elements, viz., solidity, motion, etc. There is no agent that causes the going, anything other than the desire to go and the successive physical elements. Thus the yogø who practises constant mindfulness at every moment of walking, etc., develops vipassanæ insight in accordance with Satipa¥¥hæna sutta. Unmindful persons who lack such insight go about with the kind of consciousness characteristic of animals. The distinction between næma and rþpa never occurs to them. On the other hand the mindful yogø distinguishes between the physical elements of rigidity and motion and the watching consciousness at every moment of doing something. The emergence of the insight into næma and rþpa depend on constant mindfulness in regard to what one is doing and bodily behaviour. This insight is called næmarþpaparicchedañæ¼a and introspection is absolutely essential to its development. It will not do to depend on speculation or reflection for this insight. To hold that there are only næma and rþpa, the former comprising eighty-one types of mundane consciousness and fifty-two mental elements and the latter being composed of 28 physical elements is a matter of conceptual knowledge. It is not independent insight-knowledge. For what are eighty-one types mundane consciousness? Do they all occur in the mind of an average man? The nine types of Mahaggata vipæka consciousness are to be found only in rþpavacara and arþpavacara Brahmæs. Mahaggata kusala, kariyæ consciousness is the attribute of those who have attained jhæna. Even the kæmæracara kiriyæ javana consciousness is to be found only in Arahats. Can you really know these types of consciousness that do not exist in your mind? Of the 28 physical elements one is i¥¥hibhævarþpa or female form that belongs only to women. Can men know this physical element from experience? Is the knowledge born of reflection on the unknowable to be regarded as the knowledge of reality? One will have to concede honestly that it is merely the knowledge of names and concepts applied to ultimate realities. Obviously conceptual knowledge is a far cry from insight into the distinction between næma and rþpa, the lowest vipassanæ insight that is foreign to those who do not practise mindfulness. Continued practice of mindfulness brings about the insight into the causal relation between consciousness and corporeality (næmarþpa). As your concentration develops, you become mindful of whatever you do as well as what happens before you do anything. For example, you feel itchy somewhere as you watch the rising and falling. You wish to scratch, you note your desire, the stretching, the bending, etc., of your hand. In this way you become aware of the causal relation between your consciousness and the changes in the behaviour of your body. Moreover, with your mindfulness at the moment of seeing you realize the causes of your eye-consciousness, viz., the eye-organ, the visual form and attention to it. For the yogøs such realisation usually begins with hearing. He comes to realize that hearing depends on ear-organ, sound and attention to it. This is more obvious in the case of unpleasant sounds which the yogø cannot ignore. As the yogø watches the rising and falling, his mind begins to wander elsewhere. If he does not watch this inclination, it turns into discursive thinking. Sometimes he notes it and redirects his attention to the rising and falling. Then he knows the cause, viz., unwholesome reflection (ayonisomanasikæra) and the wholesome reflection (yonisomanasikæra) that prevents his mind-wandering. At times his mind seems to be empty. Rising and falling are not apparent, the body appears to have vanished and the yogø thinks that there is nothing for him to watch. Later he notes every sense-object that arises. He knows that mindfulness occurs because of the object of attention. Furthermore, he realizes that the ceaseless becoming of næmarþpa in the present life is conditioned by past kamma. His knowledge is extensive and here only a few obvious facts will be mentioned. His insight into the causal relation between næma and rþpa is associated with ki³khævitara¼a visuddhi (purity of escape from doubt). This insight is born of experience and you cannot gain it by reasoning. According to Visuddhimagga, it ensures good rebirth and the lower stage of sotæpanna path. But the yogø must not remain content with it; he should carry on with his meditation. As he continues to practise meditation, the yogø becomes aware of the dissolution of psycho-physical phenomena from beginning to end. While watching each phenomenon, his mind wanders, he notes it, and stray thoughts disappear. Formerly he could not follow every thought instantly. Now he attends to it at once. So he knows its origin, its process and its dissolution thoroughly. The thoughts usually vanish when he focuses them, thereby gaining a clear insight into the law of impermanence. The objects and signs that arise in his mind gradually disappear. Here the mental images such as trees, men, bhikkhu, etc., are concepts but the consciousness which sees them is real. Consciousness, too, vanishes and he becomes aware of these visions. As he walks, the yogø finds one stride vanishing before he takes another stride. For each stride, too, the lifting of the foot, putting it forward and dropping it, each of these step appears as a distinct movement. Each is disconnected and so its transitoriness is apparent. The same is true of the abdominal rising and falling. When you thus realize the impermanence of every phenomenon, you have sammasanañæ¼a. This insight makes you aware of the unpleasant, painful, conditional and insubstantial nature of all existence. It is called sammasanañæ¼a because it makes you reflect again and again on anicca, dukkha and anatta, the three marks of existence that you have just discovered. It is the first of the ten kinds of vipassanæ insight. If you continue to watch without reflecting on the marks of existence, your perception and awareness become sharp and fast. Without special effort you become constantly mindful. Whatever happens to the object of attention is also fast and clear. There is only the arising and insight into the arising and vanishing. You do not see anything in between. This insight into only the arising and vanishing, only the beginning and end is udayabbayañæ¼a. At this stage your perception and intellect are so sharp that you can follow all the sense-objects that are arising fast. There seems to be nothing that escapes your notice. You see extraordinary light become rapturous and jubilant. This experience is the by-product of vipassanæ practice. You will not have it if you have not attained udayabbaya insight and you cannot have that insight if your practice is incorrect or if you practise only by fits and starts. Ceaseless practice day and night barring a few sleeping hours is essential to the attainment of this insight that leads to higher path-knowledge. The joyful experience that results from this insight gives rise to abundant faith that in turn ensures rebirth in the higher worlds. In the Alagaddþpama sutta of Majjhima-nikæya the Buddha says: “All the persons who have faith in me are assured of rebirth in the deva-worlds”. The commentary explains this canonical passage as follows: “This saying of the Buddha refers to those who practise vipassanæ. These yogøs have no fruits of Ariyan Path other than the vipassanæ practice and faith. They have only faith in the Buddha. While they are striving for vipassanæ insight, there wells up in them a certain kind of faith in the Buddha and this faith lands them in the deva-world as if it takes them by the hand and elevates them there.” Here the faith referred to in the Pæ¹i text is the strong faith that arises again as a result of vipassanæ insight. This faith usually wells up during the momentary flash of lower order of insight. But it is not then very manifest. It shows itself clearly with the emergence of udayabbaya insight. According to the commentary, the yogø who has this kind of faith is called Cþ¹asotæpanna. This seems to have been quoted by Visuddhimagga. Continued practice leads to gradual diminishing and final vanishing of light, rapture, joy and other unusual experiences. The mental events become more distinct and clearer than ever. The phenomena show no sign and vanish rapidly. It seems as if they vanish before the yogø watches them. In watching the rising and falling, etc., the yogø does not have a mental picture of the belly or the body or the leg. The objects of attention do not move from one place to another but vanish instantly in their own place. The phenomenon that is watched vanished together with the vanishing consciousness. The realization of these facts is called bhangañæ¼a or insight into dissolution of everything. The yogø attains this insight not by thinking but by introspective intuition. For example, when he watches bending and stretching, he does not have an image of the hand nor does he picture any of its movement. He sees only the vanishing of his attending consciousness and the object of attention as disjointed units. The same may be said of the abdominal rising and falling. Since the yogø thus sees every object of his attention passing away, he sees no reason why he should be attached to anything as permanent, good and substantial. He realizes the nature of existence, that is, its anicca, dukkha and anatta. So, according to Visuddhimagga, it is only bha³gañæ¼a that enables the yogø to overcome thoroughly the illusions of permanence, pleasantness and ego-entity in regard to his existence. Bhayañæ¤a, Ædønavæñæ¤a and Nibbidæñæ¤a With bhangañæ¼a, the yogø is fairly assured of further progress. Continued practice helps him to develop other insights. Seeing only dissolution, he becomes scared, (bhayañæ¼a). He sees defects (ædønavæñæ¼a). So he becomes sick of existence. The ordinary man enjoys life because he is blind to its evils. If he were aware of its ceaseless dissolution, he would become disgusted and weary (nibbidæñæ¼a). This insight is important. In the suttas, the Buddha, after pointing out the three marks of life, usually says, “So the Ariyan disciple becomes weary of his body” and then goes on to say, “Being weary, he is free from attachment and attains the Path (magga) insight”. We must assume that the Buddha identifies with his nibbidæñæ¼a all the preceding insights as well as the others that follow it. Muccitukamyata And Other Insights Being weary of life, the yogø does not want to cling to body and mind or his existence any longer and he has now the desire to renounce them (muccitukamyatañæ¼a). In order to fulfil his desire, he must continue the practice (pa¥isa³khæñæ¼a). As his concentration develops, he is able to ignore all phenomena that arise. Without any effort he remains barely aware of them (sa³khærupekkhañæ¼a). At this stage the yogø exerts effort only initially. Later on without any special effort he is barely aware of all that arise and all that vanish one after another. He remains in this state for two or three hours but does not feel cramps, heat or pain. His posture is unchanged. If he has any physical affliction, it does not appear at this time. Some diseases even disappear. With the full development of this insight, there arises anupatilomañæ¼a (adaptation-knowledge) and after that the yogø sees Nibbæna on the level of the path knowledge and its fruit. So, if you wish to see Nihbbæna or the path and its fruit in this life you should seek vipassanæ insight beginning with næmarþpapariccheda to anulomañæ¼a. To this end you must watch all psycho-physical phenomena that arise from six senses and see them as they are. For those who are not mindful, every sense-object which they do not really know means the latency of ignorance as a defilement. Under favourable circumstances this potential defilement finds an outlet. The seeds of ignorance usually bring the seeds of greed and hatred in their wake, and under certain conditions the sense-objects are recalled and as a result there burst forth the fires of craving and ill-will. Ignorance, craving and ill-will give rise to bad or good kamma which in turn leads to rebirth together with old age, death, worry, grief and suffering in its wake. These fires of life engulf unmindful people and have their origin in seeing, hearing, thinking and so forth. So the Buddha says in Aditta sutta: “The eye is burning, the form is burning, etc.” The fires are totally extinct in the case of the yogøs who are mindful of everything that arises from six senses whenever they see, hear, etc., and so have vipassanæ insight. We should, therefore, do away with ignorance through insight into the real nature of næma and rþpa (mind-body complex). Sandi¥¥hiparæmæsa literally means wrong reflection on one’s view but it is to be understood in the context of other terms viz., ædhænaggæha: clinging firmly and duppa¥inissagga: being hard to renounce one’s view. Hence the three words collectively mean bigotry. According to the commentary, the Buddha deals, especially with this kind of belief as bigotry is detrimental to spiritual effort on the Path. The Buddha says: “Other people believe that theirs is the only right view. They cling fast to their view and it is hard for them to change it. But we will not be self-opinionated and cling our view blindly. We are prepared to renounce it on reasonable grounds. We will adopt the practice that help to lessen the defilements.” The commentary describes bigotry as the attitude of mind that makes a man strongly attached to his view as the only right view. He will not give up his view even though the Buddha and other enlightened ones try to reason with him. Bigotry is to be found in everyday life, too, but it is not so serious in that it does not pose a threat to spiritual life. For example, there are popular beliefs about the positions of earth, the sun, the moon and other planets as described in ancient writings. These beliefs run counter to the discoveries of modern science. The ancient accounts of the Himalayas and the five major rivers also do not accord with geographical facts. Bigotry in regard to these beliefs is not harmful to spiritual life because they have nothing to do with the practice of søla, samædhi and paññæ. But bigotry concerning the practice of the Dhamma is serious. It makes one blindly attached to a wrong belief. If a man is so dogmatic that he cannot give up the belief in ego-entity and its continued existence or annihilation after death, he will be hampered in his spiritual progress. One of the false beliefs is the belief which rejects kamma and future life. Those who hold fast to this belief do not avoid doing evil or do good at the expense of their well-being. Nor will they practise the Dhamma that leads to the Path and Nibbæna. Another false belief is the belief that rejects the Buddha and the Arahats who attain unusual insights. Those who believe firmly in the ego and its eternity assert that the ego exists forever; and that, after surviving the dissolution of the gross physical body, it moves on to another body and continues to exist there. They do not accept the teaching that the næmarþpa of the new existence arises as the result of defilement and kamma, that the extinction of defilement and kamma leads to the extinction of næmarþpa which means the total extinction of suffering. Because of their disbelief they do not follow the holy Path to the end. Thus this eternity-belief is an obstacle to spiritual progress. However, since it does not reject kamma and its fruit, it is possible for the good believer to attain the deva-world. On the other hand those who hold the annihilation-belief cannot attain the deva-world because they reject the law of kamma. Their wrong view rules out the possibility of rebirth as a deva or the attainment of the Path. Another obstacle to spiritual progress is sølabbataparæmæsa or the obsessive belief that a certain practice or conduct in itself ensures liberation from samsæric suffering. It is sølabbatapæramæsa to believe that salvation depends entirely on living, eating and sleeping like animals. The worship of animals, too, is sølabbataparæmæsa and so is the worship of the sun, the moon, the sea-gods, devas, Brahmæs and so forth. In short, any practice that has nothing to do with the Four Noble Truths or the Eightfold Noble Path but that involves acting like animals or worshipping them is sølabbatapæramæsa and to look up to it as the way to the end of samsæric suffering is sølabbataparæmæsa. Most of the non-Buddhist practices that are intended to bring about the end of suffering and permanent happiness are all sølabbataparæmæsa. Some believe that they can cleanse themselves of all kammic impurities by bathing in the Ganges river. Some even thought that the worship of devas, Sakka or the God Brahmæ will assure them of rebirth in heaven and happiness after death. Some hold that sacrifice of oxen, goats or other animals will free them from sins and make them happy. Such practices are a far cry from the effort to realize the Four Noble Truths or to cultivate søla, samædhi and paññæ and so it is sølabbataparæmæsa to regard such practices as a way to salvation. Those who are firmly attached to them do not follow the Eightfold Path and never attain the Path-knowledge and its fruit. Religious beliefs are always right in the eyes of their adherents but they are all wrong from the stand-point of the non-believers. But you cannot charge a man with bigotry if he seeks truth without being dogmatic. Nowadays some people who are non-Buddhists by birth study Buddhist scriptures and some of them have become Buddhist converts. Some have come to Myanmar from Europe and America to practise meditation. Some can describe their vipassanæ insights from experience. These Westerners are wholly free from bigotry. Following the third Buddhist Council there appeared Kathævatthu, and Abhidhamma book which records the teaching of Mahæmoggali-puttatissa. This book gives an account of different beliefs. Some of these beliefs concern practice and as such they form a barrier to the spiritual progress of the person who hold them firmly. The belief in the ego is a case in point. Today some people believe that it is not necessary to contemplate the psycho-physical phenomena that arise from six senses and realize their anicca, dukkha and anatta. Some say that mere knowledge of the Four Noble Truths means the realization of their truth. Some hold that mere contemplation of Nibbæna ensures special insight. Some believe that concentration by itself can make a man attain the path and its fruition although he may not realize the arising-and-passing away of næmarþpa and their three chief marks. If these beliefs are so deep-rooted that one cannot renounce them, they give rise to bigotry. Some insist that nowadays it is impossible to attain vipassanæ insight in spite of all the efforts to practise meditation. These skeptics do not practise and so they never attain the path. Some hold that it would be in vain to meditate without first overcoming the ego-belief. We do not accept this view. For, although Myanmar Buddhists who wish to meditate may not be wholly free from the ego-belief, they accept the teaching that existence means only næmarþpa, that it is subject to anicca, dukkha and anatta. They show no sign of bigotry that may hamper their spiritual effort. When, in the course of meditation, they realize the distinction between næma and rþpa, the common ego-belief is done away with. With the emergence of vipassanæ insight, they realize the insubstantiality of life more deeply till at last they get rid of the ego-illusion through the Ariyan path-knowledge. If the ego-belief is so deep-rooted that you cannot overcome it, it may endanger your spiritual life as in the case of bhikkhus Sæti. In the lifetime of the Buddha a monk named Sæti studied the jætakas and concluded that consciousness was the ego or attæ. He came to this conclusion on the basis of the identification of the main character in the stories with the Buddha. Thus King Mahæjanaka became the Buddha and so did the Næga King Bhþridatta, the elephant King Saddana and King Vessantaræ. Certainly the physical body of Mahæjanaka or any other Bodhisatta did not pass onto the life of the Buddha nor did his feelings, perceptions and kamma-formations (sa³khæra) in his previous lives. It is only the consciousness of Mahæjanaka, etc., that became the consciousness of Bodhisatta Prince Siddhattha. That consciousness is embodied in the present Buddha. Reasoning in this way, he concluded that it was consciousness that wandered from one life to another without being subject to destruction. Sæti’s view is mentioned in Mahætanhæsankhaya sutta of Majjhima-nikæya as follows: “The consciousness (viñña¼a) which existed in the previous lives passes on from one life to another. The present consciousness is no other than the consciousness of previous lives. Thus I understand the Lord’s teaching.” So bhikkhu Sæti identified consciousness with the ego and believed in its immortality. Other bhikkhus told him that was not what the Buddha taught; that an individual’s mental process is only a stream of consciousness with the new units constantly replacing the old; that as the process was continuous, King Mahæjanaka was identified with the Buddha; and that consciousness being impermanent, it was not the old consciousness that came into existence. But Sæti did not give up his view. He stuck to it as the true teaching of the Buddha. Then as they could not bring him to his senses, they reported to the Buddha. So the Buddha summoned Sæti and questioned him. Sæti stated his view and the Buddha asked him about his concept of consciousness. Sæti replied, “Lord, there is atta or ego-entity which speaks and feels. This ego fares well or ill in the course of its existence according to its good or bad kamma. I identify that ego with consciousness.” Then the Buddha said, “You fool! When did I ever teach anyone like that? Haven’t I told you in many ways about the consciousness that arises from causes? Haven’t I said that no consciousness arises without a cause? You have misunderstood my teaching and laid me open to charges by others. You have destroyed yourself. Your mistaken view will be detrimental to your interests for a long time.” Then the Buddha asked the bhikkhus whether Sæti was likely to attain any spiritual insight. The bhikkhus answered, “No, Lord.” The Buddha then stressed the conditionality of consciousness with examples. The fire that starts with timber is called timber-fire, that starts with bamboo is called bamboo-fire, that starts with grass is called grass-fire. Similarly the consciousness that is conditioned by the eye and the visual form is called cakkhuviñña¼a (eye-consciousness); that conditioned by the ear and the sound, sotaviññana (ear-consciousness) etc. Thus the Buddha explained how each unit of consciousness is distinct and separate in itself and how it passes away and is replaced by a new one. But Sæti did not give up his ego-belief and he missed the holy Path because of his bigotry. A person may be overly attached not only to the ego-belief but to other beliefs as well. In the time of the Buddha there was a bhikkhu called Ari¥¥ha. He was not an ignorant monk like Sæti. On the contrary he was well-informed and because of his wide knowledge he was inclined to criticize the Buddha’s teaching. He argued thus: “The Buddha’s lay followers lead a married life. They do not avoid sensual pleasures. But they occasionally hear the Dhamma, ponder and practise it and some attain one of the first three stages of the Path. Likewise, bhikkhus can enjoy the pleasant colour of their robes, hear pleasant voices, eat good food, etc. If they can thus enjoy the five sense-objects, there is no reason why they should not indulge in the pleasure of a woman’s beauty, voice, smell and so forth. In the final analysis, a woman’s visual form does not differ from that of a robe nor is the sense of physical contact with a woman essentially different from the sense of touch afforded by bed or clothing.” Reasoning in this way, he insisted that it was proper for a bhikkhu to have sexual pleasure. To put it another way, he challenged the Vinaya rules to the point of declaring that there is nothing to justify the ex-communication of a bhikkhu who had sexual intercourse with a woman. Ari¥¥ha’s argument was somewhat like that of some modern philosophers who say that it is as proper to drink alcohol as it is to drink water since they are both made up of the same physical element (æpodhætu). It is like the argument of those who insist that one who is fully aware of the reality of elements and free from attachment to conventions and concepts should have no more qualms about killing a fowl than about cutting a gourd inasmuch as both are made up of the same physical elements. Such sophistry is indeed terrifying. It results from an excess of independent thinking and those who rely on such teachers are in for moral disaster. Other bhikkhus remonstrated with Ari¥¥ha but it was in vain. Ari¥¥ha held fast to his view and so they reported to the Buddha. The Buddha summoned Ari¥¥ha and said, “When did I teach anyone like that? Haven’t I said that any sexual act by a bhikkhu is a hindrance on the holy Path, that all sensual pleasures tend to do more harm than good, that they are like a meat bone being gnawed by a dog or a piece of meat that is a bone of contention among the kites? Yet you misunderstand my teaching and have discredited us in the eyes of the public. Further, you have uprooted and made yourself devoid of all support.” But notwithstanding the Buddha’s repudiation of his view, Ari¥¥ha stuck to it and did not make any spiritual progress because of his bigotry. Erroneous Views In Modern Times Today there are misconceptions about the Dhamma. Once a woman said that there was an error in my book. In my book I have made it clear that with the development of udayabbayañæ¼a (insight into arising and vanishing) there arises pøtipæmojja (rapturous joy), that although this pøtipæmojja is not the deathless Nibbæna, it is indeed the deathless Nibbæna for the yogøs who have attained udayabbayañæ¼a because such yogøs will realize the real Nibbæna if they continue to practise vipassanæ meditation. My statement is in accord with Dhammapada and the commentary’s explanation of the verse which says: “Amatam tam vijænatam – That pøtipæmojja is the deathless Nibbæna of the yogø who has gained an insight into the arising-and-passing-away of næmarþpa.” Yet I was accused of having made pøtipæmojja synonymous with Nibbæna. The woman admitted he mistake when her meditation teacher pointed out how my writing accorded with the Pæ¹i Pi¥aka and the commentaries. Fortunately she was not bigoted like Sæti or Ari¥¥ha. Another woman criticized the method of meditation that I recommended in one of my books but which she found unacceptable. She contended that “concentration (samædhi) is possible only if the attention is focused on a single object,” that “to attend to whatever one sees, hears, etc., means restlessness (uddhacca)”. So she raised the question of whether it would not undermine samædhi if the yogø, after having emerged from a jhænic state, made himself mindful of everything that arose from the senses. In fact, my statement was based on the exegesis of Dvedhævitakka sutta as given in the commentary on Majjhima-Nikæya. But as my book was a short description of meditation methods, I did not quote the Pæ¹i text. There are two kinds of samædhi, viz., samatha samædhi and vipassanæ samædhi. Of the two, samatha jhæna samædhi requires the mind to be confined to a single object. If the practice of this samædhi involves kasi¼a exercise, the yogø must focus his mind on a single object, say, earth in order to develop upacæra (neighbour-hood) samædhi or appanæ (access) samædhi. If the device is to reflect on loathsomeness (asubha) the mind must also be focused on a single object such as a dead body. When the 32 parts of the human body form the object of concentration, the yogø has to concentrate on all the 32 parts initially. Only at the later stage he focuses on the well-known parts and ignore the unknown. Finally he confines his attention to a single part to attain the two kinds of samædhi. So it is certainly true that one can develop samatha samædhi only by attending to a single object. But the same cannot be said of vipassanæ samædhi. It is possible for some yogøs with sharp intelligence to attain the path and its fruition in a moment while being mindful of a single object. But presumably such yogøs are very rare. For in vipassanæ meditation you should attend fully to at least consciousness and corporeality (næmarþpa). As the Buddha says. “Sabbam abhiññeyyam: One should be aware of everything” the yogø should watch all the psycho-physical phenomena arising from six senses. So a jhænic yogø may enter into jhæna, watch that jhænic state, again enter into jhæna, watch that jhænic state and by thus practising jhæna and Vipassanæ alternately attain the Path and its fruition. Or he may enter into jhæna and watch the phenomena arising from six senses. When he is physically and mentally tired, he again enters into jhæna. When he emerges from jhæna, he watches everything that arises. Repeating this process, that is, entering into jhæna and then practising mindfulness when out of it, he developes vipassanæ insight and attains the Path and its fruition. This way of contemplation is described as follows in the commentary on Dvedhævitakka sutta. “Thus the Buddha described the duration of vipassanæ that was conditioned by the jhænic state of the Bodhisatta. Both the samædhi and vipassanæ in a person may be in an embryonic state. Practising vipassanæ, he sits for a long time and feels tired. He feels heated in his body, he sweats and his forehead seems to exude vapour and gas. He is mentally tired, too. The yogø then enters into jhæna again and after alleviating his physical and mental fatigue, he feels at ease and practises vipassanæ. When, after sitting for a long time, he gets tired again, he repeats as before. Thus absorption in jhæna is immensely beneficial to the practice of vipassanæ.” This is the way to contemplate the phenomena that are worthy of contemplation after arising from jhæna. In the practice of vipassanæ you should begin with obvious forms of corporeality, especially with the four physical elements. Then you have to contemplate the nature of feeling and consciousness. It is clear from what the Buddha says in Saµyutta-nikæya (“The yogø knows that the eye is impermanent, that the visual form is impermanent and that seeing is impermanent, etc.,”) that the yogø should attend to various phenomena at the moment of seeing, etc. Moreover, Visuddhimagga and other commentaries tell us how a yogø attains the path and fruition by contemplating not jhæna but obvious phenomena. In my book I described the post-jhænic: practice of vipassanæ according to Pæ¹i commentaries. No doubt, it is not hard to understand if one has a knowledge of Pæ¹i texts and grasp something about vipassanæ. The samatha that occurs while one contemplates various phenomena is called kha¼ika samædhi, the samædhi that lasts momentarily during contemplation. No vipassanæ insight is possible without this kha¼ika-samædhi. The yogø who has no basic jhænic experience and relies on vipassanæ contemplation alone develops vipassanæ insight through kha¼ika samædhi and attains the Ariyan path. This vipassanæ samædhi is not confined to a single object. The yogø practising it watches all the næmarþpa that arise. But at the moment of watching, his mind is fixed on the object and free from distraction. This is obvious to the yogø who practises effectively. Presumably the writer who criticized my book did not understand vipassanæ kha¼ika samædhi thoroughly through books or from experience. If he still clings to his view, it is bigotry that will hamper his spiritual effort. In the time of the Buddha there was a Licchavi bhikkhu called Sunakkhatta. He sometimes acted as a personal attendant of the Buddha. After having attained through the practice of samatha (concentration) the four jhænas as well as the paranormal power of deva or divine eye, he asked the Buddha what he should do to attain the divine ear (dibba-sota) or the power of hearing all sounds heavenly and human, far and near. Seeing that there was on obstacle to his attainment of divine ear, the Buddha declined to help him. He suspected that the Buddha did not reveal the secret because he did not want anyone to have as many psychic powers as he had. This suspicion was a set-back to Sunakkhatta’s faith in the Buddha. Moreover, because of his lack of vipassanæ practice he did not have a firm faith. He evil practices because he had evil predispositions that he acquired in his previous existences. So one day he was much pleased when he saw the ascetic Korakhattiya living naked and behaving like a dog. Thinking, “This Korakhattiya is a true saint. He eats like a dog without holding the food with his hand. He is a true Arahat without defilements,” he adored the naked ascetic. The Buddha divined his thoughts and said, “It’s a wonder that a man like you professes to be my disciple.” The Buddha went on to predict the fate of the ascetic. “This man Korakhattiya will die of over-eating after seven days. He will be reborn as an “asura” – evil ghost. His corpse will be dumped in the cemetery. If you go and ask the corpse, it will rise up and tell you about his rebirth in the asura world.” Sunakkhatta wished to charge the Buddha with falsehood and he frantically did his utmost to make the prediction false. However, he had to admit afterwards that everything happened as predicted by the Buddha. Still he did not have much faith in the Buddha and continued to be attached to wrong practices. Because of his bigotry he left the holy Order three years later and denied that the Buddha had any transcendent knowledge. Since he failed to practise vipassanæ and attain the Path, he could not give up his view and remained steeped in bigotry and evil thoughts. Today there may be one or two persons like Sunakkhatta among those who came and practised at our center. Such a person may have been prompted not by faith but by other motives to come to the center. He does not practise seriously and so he does not have any unusual experience. He does not develop samædhi fully, let alone vipassanæ insight. He tends to belittle meditation, saying that he does not experience anything extraordinary despite his practice. But he will cling to erroneous views and so long as he is mired in bigotry, he will do evil and endanger the spiritual life of those who pin their faith to him. There is also the belief that only jhæna makes one mentally pure. In Myanmar this view prevails only among a few people for it is clearly stated in the commentaries that purity of mind also depends on upacæra samædhi (neighbourhood concentration). Moreover, the commentary on Satipa¥¥hæna sutta refers to the 19 sections on bodily postures, etc., excluding in-and-out breathing, etc., as the subjects of mind-training that leads to upacæra samædhi. Again, according to Visuddhimagga, of the 40 kinds of samatha kamma¥¥hæna (mind-training) the one called catudhætuvava¥¥hæna is the dhætumanasikæra kamma¥¥hæna of Satipa¥¥hæna sutta, and the yogø who practises pure vipassanæ begins with contemplation of 18 dhætus, 12 æyatanas (bases), 5 khandhas and two næma rþpa. Hence it is clear that the yogø can attain upacæra samædhi by contemplating the four physical elements and the upacæra or vipassanæ kha¼ika samædhi by overcoming the hindrances and that upacæra samædhi leads to purity of mind as well as to five kinds of paññæ (wisdom) and purity such as purity of belief. This is clear from the ancient books and the complete purity of mind and belief is borne out by the experience of yogøs who meditate seriously according to Satipa¥¥hæna method. To our knowledge such yogøs number by the thousands. There is no doubt that upacæra samædhi or vipassanæ kha¼ika samædhi ensures mental purity. Those who firmly believe that the practice of jhæna is vital to mental purity will find their spiritual effort futile if they cannot attain jhæna and have doubts vipassanæ samædhi. Such an extreme view is a hindrance to vipassanæ and should be avoided. The Bigotry Of An Ascetic Teacher After attaining sotæpanna stage through a stanza which they learnt from thera Assaji, the wandering ascetics (paribbajika) Upatissa and Kolita who were later to become Særiputta and Moggallæna respectively decided to go to the Buddha. They invited their teacher Sañjaya to come alone with them. Sañjaya declined, saying that as the leader of a sect for a long time, it would not be proper for him to become the disciple of sæma¼a (ascetic) Gotama. On being told that people would desert him in favour of the Buddha, he replied that he did not worry about that since the fools who formed the majority of mankind would still come to him. This is an instance of bigotry for the sake of offering, attendants and fame. Therefore, we should avoid over-attachment to views that are opposed to the realization of true Dhamma. Some people believe firmly that they are indispensable at home and so they do not seek the opportunity to practise meditation and this means a great spiritual loss for them. In worldly life, too, it will not do to cling blindly to an irrational belief. We should think rationally and change or reject our view if necessary. But a self-opinionated person usually does not give up his view despite the rational teaching of sages like the Buddha and so he has to suffer in this life as well as hereafter. In every day life, too, over-attachment to a belief is detrimental to our welfare. At the very least, a person who denies what others have experienced will be blamed as a bigot. But bigotry in worldly life is not harmful to spiritual life whereas religious bigotry may be damaging to chances of rebirth in the deva-world or spiritual attainment. So we should reflect rationally on what the wise and learned scholars say and give up old-established but erroneous views instead of clinging blindly to them. Now we have dealt with all the defilements that the Buddha spells out in Sallekha sutta. The Buddha concludes the discourse by exhorting the disciples to contemplate under a tree or at any other quiet place. According to the commentary, we should contemplate 38 kinds of subjects of mind-training in order to develop concentration and for the development of vipassanæ insight the object of contemplation are anicca, dukkha and anatta of the næma rþpa as well as the same three marks of the five khandhas, the twelve bases, etc. In short, we should practise both the samatha and vipassanæ. Thus the Buddha himself stresses the need for the practice of samatha and so we should not belittle samatha. Arahats of the higher order practise vipassanæ on the basis of samatha. But contemplation of khandha, etc., is vipassanæ and not samatha. It is not true to say that contemplation of bodily postures, etc., as suggested in Satipa¥¥hæna sutta is the practice of samatha. In reality contemplation of the nature of næmarþpa as distinct from the 40 subjects of mind-training (samatha kamma¥¥hæna) is pure vipassanæ. Concluding his discourse, the Buddha urges the disciples to contemplate at the foot of a tree or in some quiet retreat. The Buddha has given full instructions for the conquest of defilements. It is up to the disciples to follow them and practise accordingly. They should not forget what to do for their spiritual liberation. Otherwise when it is too late, they will feel unhappy, tormented by regret and remorse.
|
