Ask me your question, Vāsava,
whatever you want.
I’ll solve each and every
problem you have.”
1. Received into audience, Sakka, the king of gods, put the first question to the Bhagavā: “What
bond, O Lord, holds gods and men, Asuras, Nāgas, Gandhabbas and other common folks who
aspire for living in amity, in harmlessness, in clemency, in benevolence, without hostility, but yet
who live in hostility, in violence, in cruelty, in malevolence, not in friendliness?” This was the
question Sakka, the king of gods, put to the Bhagavā. The Bhagavā made answer:
“The bond, O king of gods, is envy and selfishness; bound by the bond of envy and selfishness,
gods and men, Asuras, Nāgas, Gandhabbas and other common folks live in hostility, in violence, in
cruelty, in malevolence; not in friendliness—even though they aspire for living in amity, in
harmlessness, in benevolence, without hostility.” In this manner the Bhagavā answered the
question put by Sakka, the king of gods. Edified, Sakka, the king of gods, approved of the
Bhagavā’s saying and took delight in it, “Thus it is, O Blessed One. Conquered are my doubts, gone
my uncertainty, having heard the Bhagavā’s answer to this question.”
Comment.
Sakka obviously is concerned about the hostility as it exists between a great many
beings of the sensual sphere (kāma-loka); between gods, men, Asuras, Nāgas, Gandhabbas and
other common folk. But also something else did he observe. Animosity of any kind, be it open
warfare or a single malicious thought, is unpleasant to anyone afflicted with it, and so beings
resolve not to surrender to it; but for the most part they fail utterly even as a habitual drunkard
cannot by a mere resolution possibly abstain from intoxicants. And here, in the disparity
between a mental resolution and the inability to follow it up, Sakka saw the problem; and the
Buddha reveals to him that this is due not to something outward, but to conditions inherent in
beings themselves—to envy and selfishness.
Of mental defilements, envy and selfishness (issā-macchariya) are the most vital, existing in
almost all beings of the sensual sphere in some degree or other. These defilements, however
hidden they may be, by their very nature trespass on the domain of others, and so introduce
ill-feeling which, at any occasion, may result in open hostility.
Sakka at once comprehends the importance of the Bhagavā’s answer. He is jubilant to find
the remedy to what so sorely aggrieved him, namely, to purify one’s mind from envy and
selfishness. Hero too his lofty spirit is revealed. It must be remembered that Sakka, as a deity,
extremely seldom, perhaps once in millions of years, personally experiences the harmful result
of envy and selfishness, namely animosity. His life for the most part is full of harmony because
of the comparative weakness of these defilements within him. But Sakka, having once fully
understood that envy and selfishness are evil, is no longer interested in more or less of them;
he wants to see nothing but the final destruction of envy and selfishness.
So deeply concerned is he with the matter that he now begins a radical inquiry into the
conditions which bring on envy and selfishness and the conditions necessary for the
eradication of these defilements. He does this with the admirable skill that was already evident
from his first question.
2. And Sakka, the king of gods, approving of the Bhagavā’s saying and delighting in it, put a
further question: “But what, O Lord, brings on envy and selfishness? What is their origin? From
what do they spring? What gives rise to them? What being present, envy and selfishness appear?
What not being present, envy and selfishness do not appear?”
“What brings on envy and selfishness, O king of gods, are likes and dislikes. Likes and dislikes
are their origin. From likes and dislikes do they spring. Likes and dislikes give rise to them. Likes
and dislikes being present, envy and selfishness appear. Likes and dislikes not being present, envy
and selfishness do not appear.”
“But what, O Lord, brings on likes and dislikes? What is their origin? From what do they spring?
What gives rise to them? What being present, likes and dislikes appear? What not being present,
likes and dislikes do not appear?”
“What brings on likes and dislikes, O king of gods, is desire. Desire is their origin. From desire
do they spring. Desire gives rise to them. Desire being present, likes and dislikes appear. Desire not
being present, likes and dislikes do not appear.”
“But what, O Lord, brings on desire? What is its origin? From what does it spring? What gives
rise to it? What being present, desire appears? What not being present, desire does not appear?”
“What brings on desire, O king of gods, is (wrong) reflection.4
Reflection is its origin. From
reflection does it spring. Reflection gives rise to it. Reflection being present, desire appears.
Reflection not being present, desire does not appear.”
“But what, O Lord, makes for (wrong) reflection? What is its origin? From what does it spring?
What gives rise to it? What being present, reflection appears? What not being present, reflection
does not appear?”
“What makes for (wrong) reflection, O king of gods, is multiplicity of perception. Multiplicity of
perception is its origin. From multiplicity of perception does it spring. Multiplicity of perception
gives rise to it. Multiplicity of perception being present, reflection appears. Multiplicity of
perception not being present, reflection does not appear.”
Comment. In this set of questions and answers the core of the Buddha’s teaching is
represented, the idea of conditionality (paṭicca-samuppāda), in a new formula. The condition of
envy and selfishness (issā-macchariya), likes and dislikes (piyappiyā), the condition of likes and
dislikes is desire (chanda); the condition of desire is (wrong) reflection (vitakka); and the
condition of reflection is multiplicity of perception (papañca-saññā-saṅkha). By the cessation of
multifarious perception reflection ceases; by the cessation of reflection desire ceases; by the
cessation of desire likes and dislikes cease, and by the cessation of likes and dislikes envy and
selfishness are uprooted, and so all animosity.
The idea of conditionality (paṭicca-samuppāda) is known to Sakka; that is evident from the
way he questions. And it is indeed the profundity of Sakka’s quest that has led to such
philosophical heights. For now it has to be understood that envy and selfishness, and the
hostility they imply, are so deep-rooted that their destruction ultimately becomes possible only
when diversified perception ceases; in other words, envy and selfishness and hostility are
inevitable facts of existence.
Multiplicity of perception is a simplified translation of papañcā-sañña-saṅkhā, a Pali term
difficult to translate. Papañca-saññā-saṅkhā includes any perception that enters individual
experience, anything perceived by mind or sense-faculties. Papañca-saññā-saṅkhā is the
continual influx of multifarious perceptions which is evoked by, or finds response in
craving.5
It is the inner and outer world of an individual, dependent on former action
(kamma), and the cause of fresh one.
The cessation of diversified perception thus really means the cessation of existence
itself (= cessation of kamma), the ultimate goal, Nibbāna. And this is evident to Sakka at
once. He has found the comprehensive outlook that appeals to him; now he wants to
know how this can be brought about.
3. “And how, O Lord, must a bhikkhu conduct himself to be endowed with the path fit for leading
to the dissolution of the continual influx of multifarious perceptions?”
“Happiness, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be
followed after. Sorrow too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to
be followed after. And also indifference, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed
after and not to be followed after.
“Happiness, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be
followed after. And why? If one knows of a happiness: ‘This happiness when followed after by me
makes evil states (akusalā dhammā) grow and good states (kusalā dhammā) vanish,’ then that
happiness, the happiness connected with worldliness, should not be followed after. 6
And again, if
one knows of a happiness: ‘This happiness when followed after by me makes evil states vanish and
goods states grow,’ then that happiness, [the happiness that arises from truly understanding the
evanescent nature of all phenomena, and the detachment connected with such an understanding], 7
should be followed after. This may be done with reflection and discursive thinking (savitakka-
savicāra)
8
or without reflection and discursive thinking (avitakka-avicāra). Of the two, that without
reflection and discursive thinking is the better.9
Happiness, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold
as to be followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said, it was said for that reason.
“Sorrow too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be
followed after. And why? If one knows of a sorrow: ‘This sorrow when followed after by me
makes evil states grow and good states vanish,’ then that sorrow [the frustration, sensual
indulgence inevitably results in] should not be followed after. And again, if one knows of a
sorrow: ‘This sorrow when followed after by me makes evil states vanish and good states
grow,’ then that sorrow [the sorrow of a holy disciple who craves for accomplishment but has
not yet achieved the destruction of the taints (āsavā)] should be followed after. This may be
done with reflection and discursive thinking or without reflection and discursive thinking. Of
the two, that without reflection and discursive thinking is the better. Sorrow too, O king of
gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said, it
was said for that reason.
“And also indifference, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold: as to be followed after and not to
be followed after. And why? If one knows of an indifference: ‘This indifference when followed after
by me makes evil states grow and good states vanish,’ then that indifference (the stupidity and
dullness of an ordinary man who remains indifferent, intoxicated by delusion) should not be
followed after. And again, if one knows of an indifference: ‘This indifference when followed after
by me makes evil states vanish and good states grow,’ then that indifference [the true equanimity of
a holy disciple, arising from insight and detachment] should be followed after. This may be done
with reflection and discursive thinking or without reflection and discursive thinking.10 Of the two,
that without reflection is the better. Indifference too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be
followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said, it was said for that reason.
“It is thus, O king of gods, that a bhikkhu must conduct himself to become fit for the path
leading to the dissolution of the continual influx of multifarious perceptions.”
In this manner it was that Bhagavā answered the question put by Sakka, the king of gods.
Edified, Sakka, the king of gods, approved of the Bhagavā’s saying and took delight in it: “Thus it
is, O Bhagavā! Thus it is, O Sugata! Conquered are my doubts, gone is my uncertainty, having
heard the Bhagava’s answer to this question.”
Comment. A task such as the dissolution of diversified perception rooted in diversifying of
craving is but one of the many courses of training towards the same ultimate goal of Nibbāna.
It can be attempted only by a bhikkhu. That much is quite clear to Sakka. That is, he does not
hope for its accomplishment in his present life as a deity, but dedicates himself to the life of a
bhikkhu in a birth to come which will be in the human world, as he himself later announces.
It was said earlier that multiplicity of perception (papañca-saññā-saṅkhā) comprises the
whole of possible experience, for every single perception, be it a form, a sound, an odour, a
taste, a touch or an idea, is connected with one of the three feelings, either with happiness
(somanassa), or with sorrow (domanassa), or with indifference (upekhā). An untrained mind does
neither comprehend this fact nor, and still less so, does he attempt to control the immensity of
impressions, but indiscriminately follows after whatever feeling begets. But the Buddha
declares that not any type of happiness, not any type of sorrow and not any type of
indifference should be pursued, whilst, on the other hand, a certain happiness, a certain
unhappiness and a certain indifference should be cultivated, as indicated in the context above.
This is the standard that a trained mind applies to feelings, whether their pursuit is conducive
to Nibbāna or not.
And so the path which the Buddha shows to Sakka is a radical re-evaluation of all
experience, taking place in a strenuous course of individual application. And this is bhāvanā, a
‘making become; bringing into being; an actualization of the Dhamma which has to be
pursued until what is now dimly perceived or not at all, becomes a dominant mental force
through which one acts effortlessly, in perfect accordance with reality, freed from taints,
(āsava).
And Sakka has understood this too. There remain to be clarified for him the moral conduct
obligatory on a bhikkhu and the restraint of sense faculties.
4. And Sakka, the king of gods, approving of the Bhagavā’s saying and delighting in it, put a
further question: “And how, O Lord, must a bhikkhu conduct himself to be endowed with the
moral restraint obligatory on him.”11
“Bodily conduct, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be
followed after. Conduct by speech too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed
after and not to be followed after. And also pursuit (pariyesanā), O king of gods, I declare to be
twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after.
“Bodily conduct, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold as to be followed after and not to be
followed after. And why? If one knows of a bodily conduct: ‘This bodily conduct when followed
after by me makes evil states grow and good states vanish, then that bodily conduct [killing,
stealing and sexual acts] should not be followed after. And again, if one knows of a bodily conduct:
‘This bodily conduct when followed after by me makes evil states vanish and good states grow,’
then that bodily conduct [abstaining from killing, stealing and sexual acts] should be followed
after. Bodily conduct, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be
followed after. If this was said, it was said for that reason.
“Conduct by speech too, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not
to be followed after. And why? If one knows of a conduct by speech: ‘This conduct by speech when
followed after by me makes evil states grow and good states vanish,’ then that conduct by speech
[lying, slander, harsh words and frivolous talk] should not be followed after.And again, if one
knows of a conduct by speech, ‘This conduct by speech when followed after by me makes evil
states vanish and good states grow,’ then that conduct by speech [abstaining from lying, slander,
harsh words and frivolous talk] should be followed after. Conduct by speech too, O king of gods, I
declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said, it was
said for that reason.
“And also pursuit, O king of gods, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be
followed after. And why? If one knows of a pursuit: ‘This pursuit when followed after by me makes
evil states grow and good states vanish,’ then that pursuit [worldly pursuit—āmisa pariyesanā]
should not be followed after. And again, if one knows of a pursuit: ‘This pursuit when followed
after by me makes evil states vanish and good states grow,’ then that pursuit [pursuit of the truth;
dhamma pariyesanā] should be followed after. And also pursuit, O king of gods, I declare to be
twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after. If this was said; it was said for that
reason.
“It is thus, O king of gods, that a bhikkhu must conduct himself to be endowed with the moral
restraint obligatory on him.”
In this manner the Bhagavā answered the question put by Sakka, the king of gods. Edified,
Sakka, the king of gods, approved of the Bhagavā’s saying and took delight in it. “Thus it is, O
Bhagavā! Thus it is, O Sugata! Conquered are my doubts, gone is my uncertainty, having heard the
Bhagavā’s answer to this question.”
5. And Sakka, the king of gods, approving of the Bhagavā’s saying and delighted in it, put a
further question: “And how, O Lord, must a bhikkhu conduct himself to be endowed with restraint
of his sense faculties?”
“Form, O king of gods, perceptible by the eye, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and
not to be followed after. Sound, O king of gods, perceptible by the ear, I declare to be twofold, as to
be followed after and not to be followed after. Odour, O king of gods, perceptible by the nose, I
declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after. Taste, O king of gods,
perceptible by the tongue, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed
after. Touch, O king of gods, perceptible by the body, I declare to be twofold, as to be followed
after and not to be followed after. Mind-object, O king of gods, perceptible by the mind, I declare to
be twofold, as to be followed after and not to be followed after.”
When this was said, Sakka, the king of gods, spoke thus to the Bhagavā: “The meaning of what
was said in brief by the Bhagavā, O Lord, I understand in full thus: A form, O Lord, perceptible by
the eye, which makes evil states grow and good states vanish, should not be followed after; and
again, O Lord, a form, perceptible by the eye; which makes evil states vanish and good states grow,
should be followed after. A sound, O Lord, perceptible by the ear, which makes evil states grow
and good states vanish should not be followed after; and again O Lord, a sound perceptible by the
ear, which makes evil states vanish and good states grow, should be followed after. An odour, O
Lord, perceptible by the nose, which makes evil states grow and good states vanish, should not be
followed after, and again, O Lord, an odour, perceptible by the nose, which makes evil states vanish
and good states grow, should be followed after. A taste, O Lord, perceptible by the tongue, which
makes evil states grow and good states vanish, should not be followed after; and again, O Lord, a
taste, perceptible by the tongue, which makes evil states vanish and good states grow, should be
followed after. A touch, O Lord, perceptible by the body, which makes evil states grow and good
states vanish, should not be followed after; and again, O Lord, a touch, perceptible by the body,
which makes evil states vanish and good states grow, should be followed after. A mind-object, O
Lord, perceptible by the mind, which makes evil states grow and good states vanish, should not be
followed after; and again, O Lord, a mind-object, perceptible by the mind, which makes evil states
vanish and good states grow, should be followed after.
Thus do I understand the meaning in full, O Lord, of what was said.
Mental proliferation meaning: Probably the first thing you will notice as you meditate is what a busy place the mind is. Sensations, sounds, images, intentions, urges, emotions, memories, plans, reveries, and judgments, all flit in and out of awareness with surprising speed. If the mind is observing itself rather than focused on problem solving, it might appear at first that there is no order in the jumble and chaos that presents itself. The mind may also appear chaotic in that the intention to self-observe does not, in itself, seem very stable. One moment we are observing our minds, and the next moment we are off in a daydream, the intent to observe all but lost. It can be a bit alarming to see how hard it is to keep the mind on track. Whatever our intentions as observers, the mind seems to have a mind of its own.This is the very first lesson of observation: “we,” the observers, are not in control of our minds: the mind is completely untamed and follows its own rules independent of our wills. What is happening, however, is not really chaotic. The mind is following rules. One of those rules is that one event in the mind triggers a variety of associated processes. Imagine for a moment that we are sitting quietly and notice the sound of bird song. This event then triggers a variety of contingent processes:
1) Labeling – Categorizing the sound: Is it a robin? Is it a cardinal?
2) Judgment – Is the sound pleasant or unpleasant?
3) Memory – Remembering facts about birds, images of birds, past memories of having heard birds, etc.
4) Intention – Deciding to look for the bird; Vowing to read up more on birds
No comments:
Post a Comment