cyanic-selkie/wikianc huggingface dataset:
សុញ្ញតា
ការ​បកស្រាយ​សុញ្ញតា​ដោយ ភិក្ខុ ថានីស្សារោ​​(Thanissaro Bhikkhu)​
នៅពេលយើងព្យាយាមស្វែងយល់ និង ដោះស្រាយបញ្ហាទុក្ខ (suffering) ។ សូម​លើក​យកឧទាហរណ៍ជាក់ស្តែងមួយ ឧបមាថានៅពេលអ្នកកំពុងអង្គុយប្រតិបត្តិសមាធិពិចារណាលើវេទនាក្ខន្ធ (feeling) មួយ ពោលគឺកំហឹង ដែល​កំពុង​កើត​ឡើង​នៅ​ក្នុងចិត្តអ្នកចំពោះម្តាយរបស់អ្នក ។ មួយរំពេចនោះ ប្រតិកម្មរបស់ចិត្តគឺរកឲ្យឃើញឬសម្គាល់កំហឹងនោះថាជាកំហឹង (anger) របស់ “អញ” ឬ និយាយ​ថា “អញកំពុង” ខឹង ។ បន្ទាប់មក ប្រតិកម្មនៃចិត្តនោះក៏បំប៉ោងពង្រីកវេទនាក្ខន្ធអ្នកឲ្យកាន់តែរីកធំឡើង ដោយ​វា​លួចបន្លំ​ចូល​ទៅ​ក្នុង​រឿងរ៉ាវ​នៃ​ទំនាក់ទំនង​របស់អ្នក ជាមួយនឹងម្តាយអ្នក ឬ វាលួចចូលទៅក្នុងទិដ្ឋិទូទៅរបស់អ្នកអំពីពេលវេលា និង ទីតាំងមួយ ដែល​អ្នក​ខិតខំ​បកស្រាយ​ឬ​ការពារ​ខ្លួន​អ្នក​ថា​ការ​ដែល​អ្នកខឹងនឹងម្តាយអ្នកនោះ គឺជាការត្រឹមត្រូវ ។ តាមទស្សនៈរបស់ព្រះពុទ្ធ បញ្ហាជាប់នឹងរឿងទាំងអស់នេះ គឺ​ថារឿងរ៉ាវ និង​ទិដ្ឋិ​ទាំងនេះ​នាំ​ទៅ​ដល់​សេចក្តី​ទុក្ខ​ដ៏ច្រើន​អនេក ។ ពេលអ្នកចូលខ្លួនទៅពាក់ព័ន្ធជាមួយនឹងរឿងរ៉ាវ ឬទិដ្ឋិទាំងនោះច្រើនកាលណា ពេលនោះអ្នកនឹងត្រូវបានរំខាន ឬ​បង្វែរ​ចិត្ត​ឲ្យ​ចាក​ចេញ​ឆ្ងាយ​ពី​ការពិចារណា​ឃើញមូលហេតុពិតនៃសេចក្តីទុក្ខ ឬនិយាយម្យ៉ាងទៀតថា អ្នកបង្កើតស្លាកសញ្ញាថា “អញ” ឬ “របស់អញ” ដ៏ច្រើនសន្ធឹក ដែល​វា​ជា​គ្រឿង​បង្វិល​កង់​នៃ​ដំណើរការទាំងមូលឲ្យវិលទៅមុខ ។ ជាលទ្ធផល អ្នកមិនអាចរកឃើញរបៀបស្រាវរកមូលហេតុពិត ដើម្បីរំលត់សេចក្តីទុក្ខនោះឡើយ ។
ទោះជាយ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយ ប្រសិនបើអ្នកអាចអនុវត្តវិធីពិចារណាតាមបែបសុញ្ញតា (emptiness mode) ពោល​គឺ​ការ​មិន​យក​ចិត្ត​របស់​អ្នក​ទៅ​ពិចារណា​លើ​កំហឹង​នោះ ឬ មិនប្រតិកម្មតបនឹងកំហឹងនោះ ប៉ុន្តែអ្នកគ្រាន់តែប្រើចិត្តរបស់អ្នក តាមមើលកំហឹងនោះ ដោយចាត់ទុកវាថាជាព្រឹត្តិការណ៍ជាខ្សែចង្វាក់ (គឺ​ជា​ចង្កោម​នៃ​ព្រឹត្តិការណ៍ និងបង្កឡើងដោយព្រឹត្តិការណ៍ទាំងឡាយ) ពេលនោះអ្នកអាចមើលឃើញថាកំហឹង គឺជាភាពទទេឬសូន្យ ដែលគ្មានតម្លៃគួរឲ្យអ្នកត្រូវចំណាយពេល ដើម្បី​សម្គាល់​ថាវាជារបស់អ្នក ឬគួរឲ្យអ្នកយកវាមកទុក ជាថាជាកម្មសិទ្ធិរបស់អ្នកសោះ ។ ខណៈពេល​ដែល​អ្នក​ហ្វឹកហាត់​អនុវត្ត​វិធី​ពិចារណា​តាម​បែប​សុញ្ញតា​បាន​យ៉ាងស្ទាត់ជំនាញ ដែលអ្នកអាចយកទៅប្រើបានគ្រប់ពេលហើយនោះ អ្នកនឹងមើលឃើញថាសេចក្តីពិតនេះ មិនត្រឹមតែអាចគ្រប់គ្រងសង្វេគធំៗ (gross emotions) ដូចជាកំហឹងប៉ុណ្ណោះទេ ប៉ុន្តែវាថែមទាំងជួយអ្នកឲ្យអាចគ្រប់គ្រងព្រឹត្តិការណ៍ដ៏តូចល្អិតជាច្រើន នៅក្នុងវិស័យនៃការពិសោធន៍ផងដែរ ។ នេះ​គឺ​ជា​ឥន្ទ្រីយ៍ ដែលនៅក្នុងនោះអ្វីៗគ្រប់យ៉ាងគឺជាទទេ ។ ពេលអ្នកពិចារណាឃើញយ៉ាងនោះ អ្នកសម្គាល់ដឹងថាស្លាកសញ្ញាថា “អញ” ឬ “របស់អញ” ដ៏​ច្រើន​សន្ធឹក​នោះ នឹងលែងសក្តិសម លែងចាំបាច់ ហើយវានឹងមិននាំឲ្យបានប្រយោជន៍អ្វីទាំងអស់ក្រៅតែពីការបង្កឲ្យមានអារម្មណ៍តានតឹង (stress) និង ឈឺចាប់ (pain) ប៉ុណ្ណោះ ។ ដូច្នេះអ្នកអាចទម្លាក់វាចោលបាន ។ ពេលអ្នកទម្លាក់វាចោលទាំងស្រុង អ្នករកឃើញវិធីនៃការពិសោធន៍ (mode of experience) ថ្មី​មួយ​ទៀត​ដែលកប់នៅយ៉ាងជ្រៅ ពោលគឺបទពិសោធន៍ដែលជាសេរីភាព ឬ ការរួចផុតស្រឡះទាំងស្រុង (totally free) ពី​ចំណង​ឬ​ការ​ជាប់ជំពាក់​ទាំង​ឡាយ ។
ដើម្បីហ្វឹកហាត់ឲ្យស្ទាត់ជំនាញ នូវរបៀបគិតតាមបែបសុញ្ញតានៃសញ្ញាក្ខន្ធ (emptiness mode of perception) ទាមទារនូវគុណធម៌ (virtue), សមាធិ (concentration) និង សុភវិនិច្ឆ័យ (discernment) ។ បើគ្មានការហ្វឹកហាត់នេះទេ ចិត្តមានទំនោរងាកចេញពីមាគ៌ា (mode) ត្រឹមត្រង់ រួច​ទៅ​បង្ក​បង្កើតរឿងរ៉ាវ និង ទិដ្ឋិអំពីពិភពលោក ដ៏ច្រើនសន្ធឹកសន្ធាប់ ។ បើសំលឹងមើលពីជ្រុងជ្រោយនៃមាគ៌ានោះ ការបង្រៀនអំពីសុញ្ញតា ហាក់បី​ដូចជា​មាន​ទ្រង់ទ្រាយ​ស្រដៀងគ្នានឹងរឿងរ៉ាវ ឬទិដ្ឋិមួយទៀតអំពីពិភពលោក ដែលមានបទវិន័យថ្មីផ្សេងទៀត ។
បើពិចារណាអំពីទំនាក់ទំនងរវាងអ្នកជាមួយនឹងម្តាយរបស់អ្នក វាហាក់បីដូចជាអាចនិយាយបានថា ការពិតគឺគ្មានម្តាយ ឬ រូបអ្នកសោះ ។ បើ​ពិចារណា​អំពី​ទស្សនៈ​របស់​អ្នក​អំពីពិភពលោក វាហាក់បីដូចជាអាចនិយាយបានថា ការពិតគឺគ្មានពិភពលោក ឬនិយាយម្យ៉ាងទៀតថា សុញ្ញតា គឺជាមូលដ្ឋានគ្រឹះដ៏អស្ចារ្យ ដែល​មិន​ប្រកាន់​ភាពខុសគ្នា (undifferentiated ground) នៃវត្ថុសព្វយ៉ាង ដែលជាប្រភពកំណើតនៃយើងទាំងអស់គ្នា ហើយក៏ជាទីកន្លែងដែលយើងទាំងអស់គ្នា នឹង​វិល​ត្រឡប់​ទៅវិញនៅពេលស្លាប់ ។
ការបកស្រាយទាំងនេះមិនត្រឹមតែផ្តល់អត្ថន័យរបស់ពាក្យ សុញ្ញតា មិនគ្រប់គ្រាន់ប៉ុណ្ណោះទេ វាថែមទាំងបង្វែរចិត្តមិនឲ្យឈានទៅកាន់មាគ៌ាដ៏ត្រឹមត្រូវ (proper mode) ផងដែរ ។ ប្រសិនបើគ្មានពិភពលោក និង គ្មានរឿងរ៉ាវរបស់អ្នកទេ ដូច្នេះរាល់សកម្មភាព និង ប្រតិកម្ម​ទាំងឡាយ​នៅ​ក្នុង​រឿងរ៉ាវ​ជីវិត​របស់​អ្នក​ប្រៀប​ដូច​ជា​គណិតវិទ្យា ឬការគណនានៃលេខសូន្យ ហើយអ្នកនឹងឆ្ងល់ថា តើមានប្រយោជន៍អ្វី ដែលយើងទាំងអស់គ្នាត្រូវខិតខំធ្វើអំពើជាគុណធម៌នោះ ។ យ៉ាងណាមិញ ប្រសិន​បើ​អ្នក​ពិចារណាឃើញ សុញ្ញតា ថាជាមូលដ្ឋានគ្រឹះនៃវត្ថុសព្វយ៉ាង ដែលយើងទាំងអស់គ្នានឹងត្រូវត្រឡប់ទៅកាន់ទីនោះនៅពេលស្លាប់ ដូច្នេះ​តើ​យើង​ចាំបាច់​ត្រូវ​ហ្វឹកហាត់ចិត្តរបស់យើង តាមវិធីសមាធិ (concentration) និង សុភវិនិច្ឆ័យ (discernment) ធ្វើអ្វី ព្រោះយើងដឹងថា យើង​ទាំងអស់​គ្នា​គង់​តែ​ទៅ​ដល់​ទីនោះទាំងអស់គ្នាដដែល ? ហើយបើទោះបីយើងត្រូវការហ្វឹកហាត់ ដើម្បីទាញនាំយកចិត្តត្រឡប់មកកាន់មូលដ្ឋានគ្រឹះនៃវត្ថុសព្វយ៉ាងនោះក៏ដោយ តើ​មាន​អ្វី​ដែល​ជួយគ្រប់គ្រងចិត្តរបស់យើង មិនឲ្យងើបចេញពីទីនោះ និងរងសេចក្តីទុក្ខជាថ្មីម្តងទៀត ? ដូច្នេះនៅគ្រប់សេណារីយ៉ូ (scenarios) ឬ​ស្ថានការណ៍​ប្រតិដ្ឋ​ទាំងអស់ គំនិតអំពីការបង្វឹកបង្ហាត់ចិត្ត ឲ្យស្ថិតនៅលើមាគ៌ាត្រឹមត្រូវនោះ ហាក់ដូចជារឿងអសារឥតការ និង គ្មានគោលដៅពិតប្រាកដសោះ ។ ដោយ​ផ្តោតចិត្ត​ទៅ​លើសំណួរថា តើមានអ្វីពិតប្រាកដនៅពីក្រោយឆាកបទពិសោធន៍មួយ អ្នកហ្វឹកហាត់ទាំងឡាយនាំយកចិត្តរបស់ពួកគេ ទៅ​ជាប់ជំពាក់​សាំញ៉ាំ​ជា​មួយ​នឹង​បញ្ហាទាំងឡាយ ដែលបង្វែរចិត្តមិនឲ្យឈានចូលទៅដល់មាគ៌ាបច្ចុប្បន្ន (present mode) ។
ឥឡូវនេះយើងដឹងហើយថា យើងអាចយករឿងរ៉ាវ និង ទិដ្ឋិទាំងឡាយអំពីពិភពលោក ទៅប្រើប្រាស់ក្នុងគោលបំណងមួយ ។ ព្រះពុទ្ធបានប្រើប្រាស់រឿងរ៉ាវ និង ទិដ្ឋិ​ទាំង​នោះ​ដើម្បីបង្រៀនមនុស្សម្នាទាំងឡាយ ប៉ុន្តែព្រះពុទ្ធមិនដែលប្រើពាក្យ សុញ្ញតា សោះឡើយ នៅពេលទ្រង់ថ្លែងអំពីមាគ៌ាទាំងនេះ (modes) ។ ព្រះ​ពុទ្ធ​បាន​រៀបរាប់​ដំណាលរឿងរ៉ាវនៃជីវិតមនុស្សទាំងឡាយ ដើម្បីបង្ហាញឲ្យឃើញថា សេចក្តីទុក្ខ កើតមកពីសញ្ញាក្ខន្ធជាអកុសល (unskillful perceptions) ទាំង​ឡាយ ដែលលាក់ខ្លួននៅពីក្រោយអំពើ (actions) ទាំងឡាយរបស់ពួកគេ និង ដើម្បីបង្ហាញឲ្យឃើញថា សេរីភាព ឬការរួចផុតពីសេចក្តីទុក្ខ អាច​ទទួល​បាន​ពី​ការ​ឆាប់​យល់អំពីសញ្ញាក្ខន្ធជាអកុសលទាំងនោះ ។ ហើយព្រះពុទ្ធបានពិពណ៌នាអំពីគោលការណ៍ជាមូលដ្ឋាន (basic principles) ដែល​ស្ថិត​នៅ​ក្រោម​សង្សារ​វដ្ត (round of rebirth) ដើម្បីបង្ហាញឲ្យឃើញថា អំពើជាឆន្ទៈអាក្រក់ទាំងឡាយ (bad intentional actions) នាំ​មនុស្ស​ទៅ​កាន់​ការ​ឈឺចាប់​នៅក្នុងសង្សារវដ្ត ហើយអំពើជាឆន្ទៈល្អទាំងឡាយ នាំមនុស្សទៅកាន់សេចក្តីសុខ (pleasure) ហើយអំពើជាកុសល (skillful actions) ពិតៗ​ទាំង​ឡាយ អាចនាំអ្នកចេញផុតពីសង្សារវដ្ត ។ នៅករណីទាំងអស់នេះ ការបង្រៀនទាំងនេះមានគោលបំណងនាំមនុស្សឲ្យផ្តោតចិត្តទៅលើគុណភាពនៃសញ្ញាក្ខន្ធ (perceptions) និង ឆន្ទៈ (intentions) នៅក្នុងពេលបច្ចុប្បន្ន ន័យម្យ៉ាងទៀត ការបង្រៀននេះនាំពួកគេឲ្យឈានទៅដល់ មាគ៌ាសុញ្ញតា (emptiness mode) ។ នៅពេលឈានចូលដល់ទីនោះ អ្នកហ្វឹកហាត់ទាំងឡាយអាចប្រើការបង្រៀនអំពី សុញ្ញតា ដើម្បីសម្រេចគោលបំណងប៉ងទុក (intended purpose) របស់ពួកគេ ពោលគឺការលះចោលការជាប់ជំពាក់ (attachments) គ្រប់យ៉ាងទាំងអស់ចំពោះទិដ្ឋិ (views), រឿងរ៉ាវ (stories) និង ការ​ដៅ​ស្មាន (assumptions) ទាំងឡាយ ដោយសំអាតចិត្តឲ្យនៅសល់តែភាពទទេ ប្រាសចាកលោភៈ (greed), ទោសៈ (anger) និង មោហៈ (delusion) ដែល​នោះ​ជា​ភាពទទេចុងក្រោយ គឺជាភាពទទេប្រាសចាកសេចក្តីទុក្ខ និង អារម្មណ៍តានតឹង ។ ហើយនៅពេលអ្នកឈានចូលដល់ដំណាក់កាលនោះ ពេល​នោះ​ហើយ​ដែល សុញ្ញតា មានតម្លៃពិតប្រាកដ ។
ការ​បកស្រាយ​សុញ្ញតា​ដោយ​លោក អាឡ័ន វ៉ាត់ស៍ (Alan Watts)
ពិភពលោក​គឺ​ជា​សុញ្ញតា (ភាព​ទទេ)
សិក្ខាសាលា​​ពិសេស​នៅ​ចុង​សប្តាហ៍​នេះ​គឺ​នឹង​និយាយ​អំពី​ពុទ្ធសាសនា ហើយ​ជា​បឋម​​សូម​រំឭក​ផង​ដែរ​ថា​ មាន​មនុស្ស​ជាច្រើន​យល់​ព្រម​ថា ពុទ្ធសាសនា​គឺ​ជា​សាសនា​ហ៊ិណ្ឌូ​ ដែល​ត្រូវ​គេ​រៀបចំ​ឲ្យ​ស្អាត​និង​វេច​ខ្ចប់​សម្រាប់នាំ​ចេញ​ទៅ​បរទេស ។ កាល​ពី​សប្តាហ៍​កន្លង​ទៅ​ នៅ​ពេល​ខ្ញុំ​​បាន​ពិភាក្សា​អំពី​​កិច្ចការ​ជាច្រើន​ដែល​ត្រូវ​ធ្វើ​​ក្នុង​ការ​រៀបចំ​​អង្គការ​នៃ​សង្គម​ហ៊ិណ្ឌូ ព្រោះ​ថា​សាសនា​ហ៊ិណ្ឌូ​មិន​មែន​មាន​ន័យ​ត្រឹម​តែ​ពាក្យ​ថា សាសនា​​ ដែល​យើង​នាំ​គ្នា​ហៅ​នោះ​​ទេ វា​គឺ​ជា​វប្បធម៌​ទាំង​មូល ។ វា​គឺ​ជា​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ច្បាប់ ជា​ប្រព័ន្ធ​សង្គម ជា​ប្រព័ន្ធ​នៃ​​ចរិយាធម៌​ហើយ​វា​រាប់​បញ្ចូល​អ្វីៗ​គ្រប់​យ៉ាង ។ វា​រាប់​បញ្ចូល​ទាំង​ការ​រៀបចំ​ផ្ទះ​សម្បែង រាប់​ទាំង​ចំណី​អាហារ និង​ សិល្បៈ​ផង​ដែរ ។ ផ្ទុយ​នឹង​​​របៀប​គិត​ពិចារណា​របស់​យើង​សព្វថ្ងៃ​ ហ៊ិណ្ឌូបរិស័ទ​និង​មនុស្ស​បុរាណ​ជា​ច្រើន​ផ្សេង​ទៀត​ មិន​បែងចែក​ភាព​ខុសគ្នា​រវាង​សាសនា​និង​អ្វីៗ​ក្រៅពី​សាសនា​ទេ ។ សាសនា​មិន​មែន​ជា​ផ្នែក​មួយ​នៃ​ជីវិត​ទេ ប៉ុន្តែ​វា​គឺ​ជា​អ្វី​មួយ​ដែល​ចូល​ខ្លួន​ទៅ​ក្នុង​ជីវិត​ទាំង​មូល​តែ​ម្តង ។ ប៉ុន្តែ​ដូច​អ្នក​ឃើញ​ស្រាប់​ហើយ​ថា នៅ​ពេល​សាសនា​មួយ​និង​វប្បធម៌​មួយ​មិន​អាច​ឲ្យ​គេ​បំបែក​ញែក​ចេញ​ដាច់​ពី​គ្នា​បាន ពេល​នោះ​វា​ជា​ការ​ពិបាក​​នឹង​នាំ​ចេញ​ទៅ​បរទេស​តែ​វប្បធម៌​មួយ ព្រោះ​ថា​វា​ជួប​វិបត្តិ​ជាមួយ​នឹង​​ប្រពៃណី, របៀបសំដែង​ឫកពារ និង​​ទំនៀមទម្លាប់​​​ដែល​មាន​ស្រាប់​របស់​ក្រុម​មនុស្ស​ផ្សេង​ទៀត ។
ដូច្នេះ​សំណួរ​មួយ​បាន​លេច​ឡើង​ថា តើ​សារៈ​សំខាន់​របស់​សាសនា​ហ៊ីណ្ឌូ​ដែល​អាច​ឲ្យ​គេ​នាំ​ចេញ​ទៅ​បរទេស​នោះ​គឺ​មាន​អ្វី​ខ្លះ ?​ ហើយ​នៅ​ពេល​អ្នក​ឆ្លើយ​ទៅ​នឹង​សំណួរ​នោះ តាម​ការ​ប៉ាន់​ប្រមាណ​ អ្នក​នឹង​ឆ្លើយ​ថា​ នោះ​គឺ​ជា​ពុទ្ធសាសនា ។ ដូច​ដែល​ខ្ញុំ​ធ្លាប់​បាន​ពន្យល់​រួច​ហើយ សារៈ​សំខាន់​នៃ​សាសនា​ហ៊ីណ្ឌូ​ ពោល​គឺ​ឫស​កែវ​ពិត​របស់​វា គឺ​មិន​មែន​ជា​​លទ្ធិ មិន​មែន​ជា​បទវិន័យ​ពិសេស​ណា​មួយ​នោះ​ទេ ទោះ​បី​បទវិន័យ​ក៏​មាន​ជាប់​ពាក់ព័ន្ធ​ផង​ក៏​ដោយ ។ ខ្លឹម​ក្នុង​របស់​សាសនា​ហ៊ិណ្ឌូ​គឺ​បទពិសោធន៍​មួយ​ដែល​ពួក​គេ​ហៅ​ថា មុក្សៈ​ (moksha) ប្រែ​ថា​ ការ​រំដោះ​​ឲ្យ​​រួចផុត ដែល​នៅ​ក្នុង​នោះ​ តាម​រយៈ​ការ​កំចាត់បង់​នៃ​​​កិលេស (ការ​បំភ័ន្ត​​ឬ​មាយា) ដែល​​បុរស​និង​ស្ត្រី​គឺ​ជា​វត្ថុ​ពីរ​ផ្សេង​គ្នា​នៅ​លើ​ពិភពលោក​ដែល​​បង្កើត​ឡើង​ដោយ​បន្សំ​នៃ​វត្ថុ​ផ្សេងៗ​ដាច់​ពី​គ្នា អ្នក​រក​ឃើញ​ដោយ​ខ្លួន​ឯង​ថា នៅ​ក្នុង​ជ្រុងជ្រោយ​មួយ អ្នក​គឺ​គ្រាន់​តែ​ជា​រូបភាព​បំភ័ន្ត​មួយ​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ ហើយ​នៅ​ក្នុង​ជ្រុងជ្រោយ​មួយ​ទៀត​ អ្នក​គឺ​ជា​អ្វីៗ​ដែល​មនុស្ស​ជាច្រើន​ហៅ​ថា អត្ត (ខ្លួន​) វា​គឺ​ជា​ខ្លួន​ដែល​​គ្មាន​អ្វី​ពិសេស​លើស​ពី​នោះ​ឡើយ ។ ចក្រវាឡ​គឺ​ជា​ល្បែង​នៃ​អត្ត (ខ្លួន) ដែល​លេង​បិទពួន​ឥត​ឈប់ឈរ ។ ពេល​វា​​ពួន វា​ពួន​​បាន​យ៉ាង​ប៉ិនប្រសប់​បំផុត ដែល​វា​បន្លំ​ខ្លួន​វា​ថា​ជា​យើង​ទាំង​អស់​គ្នា និង​អ្វីៗ​គ្រប់​យ៉ាង ហើយ​យើង​មិន​ស្គាល់​វា​ទាល់តែ​សោះ​ព្រោះ​វា​កំពុង​លេង​ពួន​ជាមួយ​យើង ។ ប៉ុន្តែ​ពេល​វា​លេង​ជា​អ្នក​ដើរ​រក​វិញ វា​ចូល​ខ្លួន​ទៅ​ក្នុង​​ផ្លូវ​របស់​យោគៈ តាម​រយៈ​គន្លង​ផ្លូវ​នេះ​ វា​ក៏​ភ្ញាក់​ឡើង ហើយ​ពេល​នោះ​​ខ្នាត​ធំៗ​​​ទាំងឡាយ​​​ក៏​របេះ​ជ្រុះ​ចេញ​ពី​ភ្នែក​របស់​បុគ្គល​ជា​យោគី​នោះ ។
ឥឡូវ​នេះ តាម​របៀប​ដូច​គ្នា ខ្លឹម​ក្នុង​របស់​ពុទ្ធសាសនា​ វត្ថុ​សំខាន់​ពិត​ប្រាកដ​តែ​មួយ​​អំពី​ពុទ្ធសាសនា​ គឺ បទ​ពិសោធន៍​ ដែល​ពួក​គេ​ហៅ​ថា "ការ​ភ្ញាក់" ។ ពាក្យ​ថា "​ព្រះពុទ្ធ​​" គ្រាន់​តែ​ជា​គោរម្យងារ​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ វា​មិន​មែន​ជា​អសាធារណនាម ឬ​ឈ្មោះ​របស់​បុគ្គល​ណា​ម្នាក់​ទេ ។ ពាក្យ​នេះ​កើត​ចេញ​មក​ពី​ឫស​ដើម​ក្នុង​ភាសា​សំស្ក្រឹត​ថា "ភធ" (bheudh)​ ដែល​ពេល​ខ្លះ​វា​មាន​ន័យ​ថា "​ដឹង" ប៉ុន្តែ​ន័យ​ប្រសើរ​ជាង​នេះ​គឺ "ការ​ភ្ញាក់" ។ ហើយ​ចេញ​ពី​ឫស​ពាក្យ​នេះ អ្នក​បាន​ពាក្យ​ថ្មី​ថា "ពោធិ" (bodhih) ។ នោះ​គឺ​ជា​សភាព​នៃ​​​ការ​រឭក​ឬ​ភ្ញាក់​" ។ ដូច្នេះ​ពាក្យ​ថា "ពុទ្ធ" គឺ​ "បុគ្គល​ភ្ញាក់​ដឹង​ខ្លួន" ឬ​ "មនុស្ស​ដែល​ភ្ញាក់​ដឹង​ខ្លួន" ។ ដូច្នេះ​ហើយ​ទើប​មាន​គំនិត​ជាច្រើន​នៅ​ក្នុង​ពុទ្ធសាសនា​ថា មាន​ព្រះពុទ្ធ​ច្រើន​អង្គ​ ។ មនុស្ស​ម្នាក់​ដែល​គេ​ហៅ​ឈ្មោះ​ថា​ព្រះ​ពុទ្ធ​គឺ​គ្រាន់​តែ​ជា​មនុស្ស​ម្នាក់​ក្នុង​ចំណោម​មនុស្ស​រាប់​មិន​អស់​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ ។ ដូច​ជា​ហ៊ិណ្ឌូបរិស័ទ​ដែរ ពុទ្ធបរិស័ទ​​អះអាង​ថា​ពិភពលោក​នេះ​គ្រាន់​តែ​ជា​ភព​មួយ​ក្នុង​ចំណោម​ភព​រាប់​ពាន់​លាន ហើយ​ព្រះ​ពុទ្ធ​ទាំង​ឡាយ​កើត​ឡើង​ហើយ​រលត់​ទៅ​វិញ​បាត់​នៅ​ក្នុង​ភព​ដទៃ​ទៀត​ទាំង​នោះ ។ ប៉ុន្តែ​មាន​ពេល​ខ្លះ ដូច​អ្នក​​ឃើញ​ស្រាប់​ហើយ អ្នក​ប្រហែល​ហៅ​ "​ព្រះ​ពុទ្ធ​ធំ​ ឬ មហាពុទ្ធ" ដែល​បាន​កើត​ឡើង​ក្នុង​ពិភព​លោក​នេះ ។ នោះ​គឺ​ជា​ព្រះ​ពុទ្ធ​ដ៏​សំខាន់​មួយ ។ ហើយ​ម្នាក់​ដ៏​សំខាន់​នោះ​ត្រូវ​បាន​គេ​ហៅ​ឈ្មោះ​ថា "គោតម" ជា​បុត្រា​របស់​ព្រះអង្គម្ចាស់​មួយ​អង្គ​​រស់​នៅ​ភាគ​ខាង​ជើង​នៃ​ប្រទេស​ឥណ្ឌា ដែល​សព្វ​ថ្ងៃ​ជា​ដែនដី​របស់​ប្រទេស​នេប៉ាល មនុស្ស​សំខាន់​​ដែល​មាន​ត្រកូល​គោតម​នោះ​រស់​នៅ​​ខ្ទង់​​​ ៦០០ ឆ្នាំ​មុន​គ្រិស្តសករាជ ។ កាលបរិច្ឆេទ​ទាំង​អស់​នៅ​ក្នុង​ប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្រ​ឥណ្ឌា​​មាន​ភាព​ស្រពេចស្រពិល ដូច្នេះ​ខ្ញុំ​មិន​ព្យាយាម​បង្ខំ​ឲ្យ​អ្នក​ចងចាំ​កាលបរិច្ឆេទ​ណា​មួយ​ទេ ឧទាហរណ៍​​ឆ្នាំ ៥៦៤ ដូច​ដែល​មនុស្ស​ខ្លះ​​គិត​ថា​ជាឆ្នាំ​កំណើត​របស់​ព្រះ​ពុទ្ធ ប៉ុន្តែ​ខ្ញុំ​ប្រាប់​អ្នក​នូវ​កាលបរិច្ឆេទ​មិន​ច្បាស់​មួយ ពោល​គឺ​ក្រោយ​ឆ្នាំ ៦០០ មុនគ្រិស្តសករាជ ដែល​នោះ​ប្រហែល​ជា​ការ​ត្រឹមត្រូវ​ជាង ។
ប៉ុន្តែ​នៅ​ក្នុង​លទ្ធិ​របស់​ព្រះ​ពុទ្ធ ផ្អែក​លើ​បទពិសោធន៍​ផ្ទាល់​របស់​គាត់​ទាក់ទង​នឹង​ការ​ភ្ញាក់​ឬ​ត្រាស់ដឹង ដែល​​បាន​កើត​ឡើង​ចំនួន ៧ ឆ្នាំ​នៃ​ការ​សាក​ល្បង​សិក្សា​រៀនសូធ្យ​ជាមួយ​នឹង​យោគី​ផ្សេងៗ​នៅ​សម័យ​នោះ ដែល​យោគី​ទាំង​អស់​បាន​ប្រើប្រាស់​វិធី​ធ្វើ​បាប​រាង​កាយ​យ៉ាង​ធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ​(extreme asceticism) ដោយ​ការ​តម​អត់​អាហារ, ធ្វើ​លំហាត់​ប្រាណ​គ្រប់​ប្រភេទ, ដេក​លើ​គ្រែ​ដែក​គោល, ដេក​លើ​កំទេច​ថ្ម, ឬ​វិធី​អ្វី​ផ្សេង​ទៀត​ដើម្បី​វាយ​កំទេច​​​​ការ​គិត​តែ​ប្រយោជន៍​ផ្ទាល់​ខ្លួន (egocentricity), អាត្មានិយម, ដើម្បី​ផ្តាច់​ខ្លួន​ ដើម្បី​ដុត​កំលោច​តណ្ហា​ចង់​មាន​ជីវិត​ជា​ថ្មី​ទៀត ។ ប៉ុន្តែ​ព្រះ​ពុទ្ធ​បាន​រក​ឃើញ​ថា​ គ្រប់​វិធី​ទាំង​នោះ​គឺ​ជា​​អំពើ​អសារ​ឥតការ នោះ​មិន​មែន​ជា​មគ្គ​ឬ​ផ្លូវ​នាំ​ទៅ​សម្រេច​មោក្សៈ​ឬ​មោក្ខៈ​ទេ ។ ហើយ​ថ្ងៃ​មួយ​គាត់​បាន​បដិសេធ​ចោល​នូវ​ក្បួន​វិន័យ​ជា​តាបស​ឥសី​និង​ព្រម​ទទួល​​អាហារ​មួយ​ត្រឡោក ជា​ប្រភេទ​បបរ​លាយ​ទឹកដោះ​គោ ពី​កុមារី​​គង្វាល​គោ​​ម្នាក់ ។ ហើយ​ភ្លាមៗ​នៅ​ក្នុង​បរិយាកាស​ធូរស្រាល​ដ៏​អស្ចារ្យ​នោះ គាត់​ក៏​ទៅ​អង្គុយ​ក្រោម​ដើម​ឈើ​មួយ ពេល​នោះ​ហើយ​ដែល​បន្ទុក​ទម្ងន់​ដ៏​ធ្ងន់​ត្រូវ​បាន​លើក​បោះ​ចោល ។ គាត់​បាន​មើល​ឃើញ​ថា អ្វីៗ​គ្រប់​យ៉ាង​ដែល​គាត់​បាន​ខំប្រឹង​ប្រតិបត្តិ​កន្លង​មក​នោះ​គឺ​ជា​ការ​ដើរ​លើ​ផ្លូវ​ខុស​ទាំង​ស្រុង ។ អ្នក​មិន​អាច​ដេរ​កាបូប​ធ្វើ​អំពី​សូត ​ដោយ​យក​ត្រចៀក​ជ្រូក​ញី​មក​កាត់ដេរ​នោះ​ឡើយ ។ ហើយ​គ្មាន​ការ​ខិតខំ​ប្រឹងប្រែង​ណា​មួយ​នឹង​អាច​កែប្រែ​បុគ្គល​ម្នាក់​ដែល​កំពុង​ជឿមុតមាំ​ថា​ខ្លួន​គាត់​គឺ​ជា​អាត្មា​អញ ឲ្យ​​ក្លាយ​ទៅ​ជា​បុគ្គល​គ្មាន​ភាព​អាត្មានិយម​បាន​ឡើយ ។ ដរាប​ណា​អ្នក​គិត​ និង មាន​អារម្មណ៍​ថា អ្នក​គឺ​ជា​មនុស្ស​ម្នាក់​កំពុង​ជ្រក​ខ្លួន​នៅ​ក្នុង​ស្បោង​ស្បែក​មួយ ហើយ​ពេល​នោះ​គ្មាន​វិធី​ណា​មួយ​នឹង​ជួយ​ឲ្យ​អ្នក​ប្រព្រឹត្ត​កាយ វាចា ចិត្ត ដែល​គ្មាន​ភាព​អាត្មានិយម​នោះ​ឡើយ ។ អូ​មែន​ហើយ អ្នក​អាច​សំដែង​ឫកពា​ឲ្យ​គេ​ឃើញ​ថា​អ្នក​គ្មាន​ភាព​អាត្មានិយម ។ អ្នក​អាច​​​ឆ្លង​កាត់​គ្រប់​រូបភាព​​នៃ​អាត្មានិយម ប៉ុន្តែ​អ្នក​ត្រូវ​បាន​ចង​ភ្ជាប់​​ទៅ​នឹង​វដ្តសង្សារ​ដោយ​ច្រវាក់​មាស​នៃ​អំពើ​ល្អ​ ប្រៀប​ប្រដូច​ទៅ​នឹង​មនុស្ស​អាក្រក់​ដែល​ត្រូវ​ចង់​ភ្ជាប់​ទៅ​នឹង​វដ្តសង្សារ​ដោយ​ខ្សែ​ច្រវាក់​ដែក​នៃ​អំពើ​អាក្រក់​របស់​ពួក​គេ​ដូច្នោះ​ដែរ ។
ដូច្នេះ អ្នក​ដឹង​​ថា​មនុស្ស​នឹង​ទៅ​ជា​យ៉ាង​ណា​នៅ​ពេល​ពួក​គេ​មាន​មោទនភាព​ខាង​សេចក្តី​ជំនឿ​ខ្លាំង​ពេក ។ ពួក​គេ​ជា​សមាជិក​នៃ​ក្រុម​វិហារ​ ឬ ក្រុម​ជំនឿ​ណាមួយ​ ហើយ​ពួក​គេ​និយាយ​ថា "ជា​ការ​ពិត​ណាស់​ ពួក​យើង​ជា​មនុស្ស​ដែល​មាន​សេចក្តី​បង្រៀន​ពិត ។ យើង​គឺ​ជា​មនុស្ស​នៅ​ក្នុង​ក្រុម​ត្រឹម​ត្រូវ ពួក​យើង​ជា​មនុស្ស​ត្រូវ​បាន​ជ្រើស​រើស មនុស្ស​ដទៃ​ទៀត​ជា​អ្នក​នៅ​ខាង​ក្រៅ" ។ នោះ​គឺ​ជា​សេចក្តី​ជំនឿ​​ដើរ​ខុស​ផ្លូវ ។ប៉ុន្តែ​បន្តិច​មក​ក៏​មាន​មនុស្ស​ណា​ម្នាក់​ចេញ​មក​ប្រកាស​​បដិសេធ​ចោល​សេចក្តី​ជំនឿ​របស់​មនុស្ស​ក្រុម​មុន​នោះ ដោយ​និយាយ​ថា "មើល​មើល៍ នៅ​ក្នុង​ក្រុម​របស់​យើង​ យើង​ទទួល​មនុស្ស​គ្រប់​ជំនឿ ។ យើង​ទទួល​​​គ្រប់​សាសនា និង ទទួល​ស្គាល់​ថា​គ្រប់​វិធី​ប្រតិបត្តិ​​នាំ​ទៅ​ដល់​ព្រះ​ពិត​​" ។ ប៉ុន្តែ​អ្វី​ដែល​ពួក​គេ​កំពុង​ធ្វើ​នោះ​គឺ​ថា ពួក​គេ​កំពុង​លេង​ល្បែង​មួយ​ដែល​ហៅ​ថា "ពួក​យើង​​ចេះ​អត់ឱន​ត្រាប្រណី​ប្រសើរ​ជាង​​ពួក​អ្នក​ឯង" ។ ហើយ​តាម​របៀប​នេះ​ អត្តទិដ្ឋិ (egocentric being) ​ជានិច្ចកាល​គឺ​ជា​អន្ទាក់​របស់​ពួក​គេ​​ ។
ដូច្នេះ​ហើយ​ព្រះ​ពុទ្ធ​បាន​មើល​ឃើញ​ថា លំហាត់ប្រាណ​បែប​យោគៈ​ និង បទវិន័យ​តបសឥសី​ទាំង​អម្បាលម៉ាន​​របស់​គាត់​ គ្រាន់​តែ​ជា​វិធី​ព្យាយាម​នាំ​ខ្លួន​គាត់​ចេញ​ឲ្យ​រួច​ពី​អន្ទាក់​​ដើម្បី​ការពារ​ស្បែក​របស់​គាត់​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ ពោល​គឺ​ដើម្បី​ស្វែង​រក​សន្តិភាព​សម្រាប់​ខ្លួន​គាត់ ។ ហើយ​គាត់​បាន​យល់​ដឹង​ថា វិធី​​នោះ​គឺ​មិន​អាច​ទៅ​រួច​ទេ ព្រោះ​​បំណង​ចិត្ត​បំផ្លាញ​គម្រោង​បាត់​ទៅ​ហើយ ។ ក្រោយ​មក​ គាត់​បាន​រក​ឃើញ​ថា គ្មាន​អន្ទាក់​ដែល​គាត់​ត្រូវ​ខំ​ប្រឹង​លោត​ចេញ​​ក្រៅ​តែ​ពី​ខ្លួន​គាត់​ផ្ទាល់​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ ។ អន្ទាក់​ និង មនុស្ស​ជាប់​អន្ទាក់​គឺ​​វត្ថុ​តែ​មួយ ហើយ​ពេល​អ្នក​យល់​រឿង​នោះ​ច្បាស់ គឺ​គ្មាន​​អន្ទាក់​អ្វី​សល់​សោះ​ឡើយ ។ កំណត់​សម្គាល់ ៖ រឿង​នេះ​បាន​ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​ខ្ញុំ​នឹង​ទៅ​ដល់​កំណាព្យ​ខ្លី​មួយ​របស់​ពួក​អ្នក​កាន់​សាសនា​គ្រិស្ត​និកាយ​អែងគ្លីខឹន ដែល​មាន​សេចក្តី​ថា ៖ ​យើង​​​​​មាន​ទុក្ខ​​​​​ដោយខ្មាំង​​​​សត្រូវ ពួក​គេ​​នៅ​​ឋាន​សួគ៌សុខសាន្ត ​យើង​​​​ជា​ឈ្លើយ​​​ ​​គេ​រស់​សេរី​ យើង​​គេ​​​ក្តី​​​​​ការពិត​គឺ​​មួយ ។ ​​
So, as a result of this experience, he formulated what is called the _dharma_, that is the Sanskrit word for 'method.' You will get a certain confusion when you read books on Buddhism, because they switch between Sanskrit and Pali words. The earliest Buddhist scriptures that we know of are written the Pali language, and Pali is a softened form of Sanskrit. So that, for example, the doctrine of the buddha is called in Sanskrit the 'dharma,' we must in pronouncing Sanskrit be aware that an 'A' is almost pronounced as we pronounce 'U' in the word 'but.' So they don't say 'darmuh,' they say 'durmuh.' And so also this double 'D' you say 'budduh' and so on. But in Pali, and in many books of Buddhism, you'll find the Buddhist doctrine described as the 'dhama.' And so the same way 'karma' in Sanskrit, in Pali becomes 'kama.' 'Buddha' remains the same. The dharma, then, is the method.
Now, the method of Buddhism, and this is absolutely important to remember, is dialectic. That is to say, it doesn't teach a doctrine. You cannot anywhere what Buddhism teaches, as you can find out what Christianity or Judaism or Islam teaches. Because all Buddhism is a discourse, and what most people suppose to be its teachings are only the opening stages of the dialog.
So the concern of the buddha as a young man--the problem he wanted to solve--was the problem of human suffering. And so he formulated his teaching in a very easy way to remember. All those Buddhist scriptures are full of what you might call mnemonic tricks, sort of numbering things in such a way that they're easy to remember. And so he summed up his teaching in what are called the Four Noble Truths. And the first one, because it was his main concern, was the truth about _duhkha_. Duhkha, 'suffering, pain, frustration, chronic dis-ease.' It is the opposite of _sukha_, which means 'sweet, pleasure, etc.'
So, insofar as the problem posed in Buddhism is duhkha, 'I don't want to suffer, and I want to find someone or something that can cure me of suffering.' That's the problem. Now if there's a person who solves the problem, a buddha, people come to him and say 'Master, how do we get out of this problem?' So what he does is to propose certain things to them. First of all, he points out that with duhkha go two other things. These are respectively called _anitya_ and _anatman_. Anitya means--'nitya' means 'permanant,' so 'impermanance.' Flux, change, is characteristic of everything whatsoever. There isn't anything at all in the whole world, in the material world, in the psychic world, in the spiritual world, there is nothing you can catch hold of and hang on to for safely. Nuttin'. Not only is there nothing you can hang on to, but by the teaching of anatman, there is no you to hang on to it. In other words, all clinging to life is an illusory hand grasping at smoke. If you can get that into your head and see that that is so, nobody needs to tell you that you ought not to grasp. Because you see, you can't.
See, Buddhism is not essentially moralistic. The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile. Because what happens is he simply sweeps the dust under the carpet, and it all comes back again somehow. But in this case, it involves a complete realization that this is the case. So that's what the teacher puts across to begin with.
The next thing that comes up, the second of the noble truths, is about the cause of suffering, and this in Sanskrit is called _trishna_. Trishna is related to our word 'thirst.' It's very often translated 'desire.' That will do. Better, perhaps, is 'craving, clinging, grasping,' or even, to use our modern psychological word, 'blocking.' When, for example, somebody is blocked, and dithers and hesitates, and doesn't know what to do, he is in the strictest Buddhist sense attached, he's stuck. But a buddha can't be stuck, he cannot be phased. He always flows, just as water always flows, even if you dam it, the water just keeps on getting higher and higher and higher until it flows over the dam. It's unstoppable.
Now, buddha said, then, duhkha comes from trishna. You all suffer because you cling to the world, and you don't recognize that the world is anitya and anatman. So then, try, if you can, not to grasp. Well, do you see that that immediately poses a problem? Because the student who has started off this dialog with the buddha then makes various efforts to give up desire. Upon which he very rapidly discovers that he is desiring not to desire, and he takes that back to the teacher, who says 'Well, well, well.' He said, 'Of course. You are desiring not to desire, and that's of course excessive. All I want you to do is to give up desiring as much as you can. Don't want to go beyond the point of which you're capable.' And for this reason Buddhism is called the Middle Way. Not only is it the middle way between the extremes of ascetic discipline and pleasure seeking, but it's also the middle way in a very subtle sense. Don't desire to give up more desire than you can. And if you find that a problem, don't desire to be successful in giving up more desire than you can. You see what's happening? Every time he's returned to the middle way, he's moved out of an extreme situation.
Now then, we'll go on; we'll cut out what happens in the pursuit of that method until a little later. The next truth in the list is concerned with the nature of release from duhkha. And so number three is _nirvana_. Nirvana is the goal of Buddhism; it's the state of liberation corresponding to what the Hindus call _moksha_. The word means 'blow out,' and it comes from the root 'nir vritti.' Now some people think that what it means is blowing out the flame of desire. I don't believe this. I believe that it means 'breathe out,' rather than 'blow out,' because if you try to hold your breath, and in Indian thought, breath--prana--is the life principle. If you try to hold on to life, you lose it. You can't hold your breath and stay alive; it becomes extremely uncomfortable to hold onto your breath.
And so in exactly the same way, it becomes extremely uncomfortable to spend all your time holding on to your life. What the devil is the point of surviving, going on living, when it's a drag? But you see, that's what people do. They spend enormous efforts on maintaining a certain standard of living, which is a great deal of trouble. You know, you get a nice house in the suburbs, and the first thing you do is you plant a lawn. You've gotta get out and mow the damn thing all the time, and you buy expensive this-that and soon you're all involved in mortgages, and instead of being able to walk out into the garden and enjoy, you sit at your desk and look at your books, filling out this and that and the other and paying bills and answering letters. What a lot of rot! But you see, that is holding onto life. So, translated into colloquial American, nirvana is 'whew!' 'Cause if you let your breath go, it'll come back. So nirvana is not annihilation, it's not disappearance into a sort of undifferentiated void. Nirvana is the state of being let go. It is a state of consciousness, and a state of--you might call it-- being, here and now in this life.
Now this is particularly cogent when it comes to Buddhist ideas of behavior. Every Buddhist in all the world, practically, as a layman--he's not a monk--undertakes what are called _pantasila[?]_, the Five Good Conducts. 'Sila' is sometimes translated 'precept.' But it's not a precept because it's not a commandment. When Buddhists priests chant the precepts, you know: pranatipada[?]: 'prana (life) tipada (taking away) I promise to abstain from.' So the first is that one undertakes not to destroy life. Second, not to take what is not given. Third--this is usually translated 'not to commit adultry'. It doesn't say anything of the kind. In Sanskrit, it means 'I undertake the precept to abstain from exploiting my passions.' Buddhism has no doctrine about adultry; you may have as many wives as you like.
But the point is this: when you're feeling blue and bored, it's not a good idea to have a drink, because you may become dependant on alcohol whenever you feel unhappy. So in the same way, when you're feeling blue and bored, it's not a good idea to say 'Let's go out and get some chicks.' That's exploiting the passions. But it's not exploiting the passions, you see, when drinking, say expresses the viviality and friendship of the group sitting around the dinner table, or when sex expresses the spontaneous delight of two people in each other.
Then, the fourth precept, _musavada[?]_, 'to abstain from false speech.' It doesn't simply mean lying. It means abusing people. It means using speech in a phony way, like saying 'all niggers are thus and so.' Or 'the attitude of America to this situation is thus and thus.' See, that's phony kind of talking. Anybody who studies general semantics will be helped in avoiding musavada, false speech.
The final precept is a very complicated one, and nobody's quite sure exactly what it means. It mentions three kinds of drugs and drinks: sura, mariya[?], maja[?]. We don't know what they are. But at any rate, it's generally classed as narcotics and liquors. Now, there are two ways of translating this precept. One says to abstain from narcotics and liquors; the other liberal translation favored by the great scholar Dr [?] is 'I abstain from being intoxicated by these things.' So if you drink and don't get intoxicated, it's ok. You don't have to be a teatotaler to be a Buddhist. This is especially true in Japan and China; my goodness, how they throw it down! A scholarly Chinese once said to me, 'You know, before you start meditating, just have a couple martinis, because it increases your progress by about six months.'
Now you see these are, as I say, they are not commandments, they are vows. Buddhism has in it no idea of there being a moral law laid down by somekind of cosmic lawgiver. The reason why these precepts are undertaken is not for a sentimental reason. It is not that you're going to make you into a good person. It is that for anybody interested in the experiments necessary for liberation, these ways of life are expedient. First of all, if you go around killing, you're going to make enemies, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time defending yourself, which will distract you from your yoga. If you go around stealing, likewise, you're going to aquire a heap of stuff, and again, you're going to make enemies. If you exploit your passions, you're going to get a big thrill, but it doesn't last. When you begin to get older, you realize 'Well that was fun while we had it, but I haven't really learned very much from it, and now what?' Same with speech. Nothing is more confusing to the mind than taking words too seriously. We've seen so many examples of that. And finally, to get intoxicated or narcotized--a narcotic is anything like alcohol or opium which makes you sleepy. The word 'narcosis' in Greek, 'narc' means 'sleep.' So, if you want to pass your life seeing things through a dim haze, this is not exactly awakening.
So, so much for the conduct side of Buddhism. We come then to the final parts of the eightfold path. There are two concluding steps, which are called _samyak-smriti_ and _samyak-samadhi_. _Smriti_ means 'recollection, memory, present-mindedness.' Seems rather funny that the same word can mean 'recollection or memory' and 'present-mindedness.' But smriti is exactly what that wonderful old rascal Gurdjieff meant by 'self-awareness,' or 'self- remembering.' Smriti is to have complete presence of mind.
There is a wonderful meditation called 'The House that Jack Built Meditation,' at least that's what I call it, that the Southern Buddhists practice. He walks, and he says to himself, 'There is the lifting of the foot.' The next thing he says is 'There is a perception of the lifting of the foot.' And the next, he says 'There is a tendency towards the perception of the feeling of the lifting of the foot.' Then finally he says, 'There is a consciousness of the tendency of the perception of the feeling of the lifting of the foot.' And so, with everything that he does, he knows that he does it. He is self-aware. This is tricky. Of course, it's not easy to do. But as you practice this--I'm going to let the cat out of the bag, which I suppose I shouldn't do--but you will find that there are so many things to be aware of at any given moment in what you're doing, that at best you only ever pick out one or two of them. That's the first thing you'll find out. Ordinary conscious awareness is seeing the world with blinkers on. As we say, you can think of only one thing at a time. That's because ordinary consciousness is narrowed consciousness. It's being narrow-minded in the true sense of the word, looking at things that way. Then you find out in the course of going around being aware all of the time--what are you doing when you remember? Or when you think about the future? 'I am aware that I am remembering'? 'I am aware that I am thinking about the future'?
But you see, what eventually happens is that you discover that there isn't any way of being absent-minded. All thoughts are in the present and of the present. And when you discover that, you approach samadhi. Samadhi is the complete state, the fulfilled state of mind. And you will find many, many different ideas among the sects of Buddhists and Hindus as to what samadhi is. Some people call it a trance, some people call it a state of consciousness without anything in it, knowing with no object of knowledge. All these are varying opinions. I had a friend who was a Zen master, and he used to talk about samadhi, and he said a very fine example of samadhi is a fine horserider. When you watch a good cowboy, he is one being with the horse. So an excellent driver in a car makes the car his own body, and he absolutely is with it. So also a fine pair of dancers. They don't have to shove each other to get one to do what the other wants him to do. They have a way of understanding each other, of moving together as if they were siamese twins. That's samadhi, on the physical, ordinary, everyday level. The samadhi of which buddha speaks is the state which, as it is, the gateway to nirvana, the state in which the illusion of the ego as a separate thing disintegrates.
Now, when we get to that point in Buddhism, Buddhists do a funny thing, which is going to occupy our attention for a good deal of this seminar. They don't fall down and worship. They don't really have any name for what it is that is, really and basically. The idea of anatman, of non-self, is applied in Buddhism not only to the individual ego, but also to the notion that there is a self of the universe, a kind of impersonal or personal god, and so it is generally supposed that Buddhism is generally atheistic. It's true, depending on what you mean by atheism. Common or garden atheism is a form of belief, namely that I believe there is no god--and Hans Enkel[?] is its prophet. (I'm speaking of a famous atheist). The atheist positively denies the existence of any god. All right. Now, there is such an atheist, if you put dash between the 'a' and 'theist,' or speak about something called 'atheos'--'theos' in Greek means 'god'--but what is a non-god? A non-god is an inconceivable something or other.
I love the story about a debate in the Houses of Parliment in England, where, as you know, the Church of England is established and under control of the government, and the high eclesiastics had petitioned Parliment to let them have a new prayerbook. Somebody got up and said 'It's perfectly ridiculous that Parliment should decide on this, because as we well know, there are quite a number of atheists in these benches.' And somebody got up and said 'Oh, I don't think there are really any atheists. We all believe in some sort of something somewhere.'
Now again, of course, it isn't that Buddhism believes in some sort of something somewhere, and that is to say in vagueness. Here is the point: if you believe, if you have certain propositions that you want to assert about the ultimate reality, or what Portilli[?] calls 'the ultimate ground of being,' you are talking nonsense. Because you can't say something specific about everything. You see, supposing you wanted to say 'God has a shape.' But if god is all that there is, then God doesn't have any outside, so he can't have a shape. You have to have an outside and space outside it to have a shape. So that's why the Hebrews, too, are against people making images of God. But nonetheless, Jews and Christians persistently make images of God, not necessarily in pictures and statues, but they make images in their minds. And those are much more insidious images.
Buddhism is not saying that the Self, the great atman, or whatnot, it isn't denying that the experience which corresponds to these words is realizable. What it is saying is that if you make conceptions and doctrines about these things, your liable to become attached to them. You're liable to start believing instead of knowing. So they say in Zen Buddhism, 'The doctrine of Buddhism is a finger pointing at the moon. Do not mistake the finger for the moon.' Or so we might say in the West, the idea of God is a finger pointing at God, but what most people do is instead of following the finger, they suck it for comfort. And so buddha chopped off the finger, and undermined all metaphysical beliefs. There are many, many dialogues in the Pali scriptures where people try to corner the buddha into a metaphysical position. 'Is the world eternal?' The buddha says nothing. 'Is the world not eternal?' And he answers nuttin'. 'Is the world both eternal and not eternal?' And he don't say nuttin'. 'Is the world neither eternal nor not eternal?' And STILL he don't say nuttin'. He maintains what is called the noble silence. Sometimes called the thunder of silence, because this silence, this metaphysical silence, is not a void. It is very powerful. This silence is the open window through which you can see not concepts, not ideas, not beliefs, but the very goods. But if you say what it is that you see, you erect an image and an idol, and you misdirect people. It's better to destroy people's beliefs than to give them beliefs. I know it hurts, but it is The Way.
ALAN WATTS: THE WORLD AS EMPTINESS, pt 2 of 3 You must understand as one of the fundamental points of Buddhism, the idea of the world as being in flux. I gave you this morning the Sanskrit word _anitya_ as one of the characteristics of being, emphasized by the buddha along with _anatman_, the unreality of a permanant self, and _duhkha_, the sense of frustration. Duhkha really arises from a person's failure to accept the other two characteristics: lack of permanant self and change. You see, in Buddhism, the feeling that we have of an enduring organism--I meet you today and I see you, and then tomorrow I meet you again, and you look pretty much as you looked yesterday, and so I consider that you're the same person, but you aren't. Not really. When I watch a whirlpool in a stream, here's the stream flowing along, and there's always a whirlpool like the one at Niagra. But that whirlpool never, never really holds any water. The water is all the time rushing through it. In the same way, a university, the University of California--what is it? The students exchange at least every four years; the faculty changes at a somewhat slower rate; the building changes, they knock down old ones and put up new ones; the administration changes. So what is the University of California? It's a pattern. A doing of a particular kind. And so in just precisely that way, every one of us is a whirlpool in the tide of existence, and where every cell in our body, every every molocule, every atom is in constant flux, and nothing can be pinned down.
You know, you can put bands on pigeons, or migrating birds, and identify them and follow them, and find out where they go. But you can't tag atoms, much less electrons. They have a curious way of appearing and disappearing, and one of the great puzzles in physics is What are electons doing when we're not looking at them? Because our observation of them has to modify their behavior. We can't see an electron without putting it in an experimental situation where our examination of it in some way changes it. What we would like to know is what it is doing when we're not looking at it. Like does the light in the refrigerator really go off when we close the door?
But this is fundamental, you see, to Buddhistic philosophy. The philosophy of change. From one point of view, change is just too bad. Everything flows away, and there's a kind of sadness in that, a kind of nostalgia, and there may even be a rage. 'Go not gently into that good night, but rage, rage, at the dying of the light.'
But there's something curious--there can be a very fundamental change in one's attitude to the question of the world as fading. On the one hand resentment, and on the other delight. If you resist change--of course, you must, to some extent. When you meet another person, you don't want to be thoroughly rejected, but you love to feel a little resistance. Don't you, you know? You have a beautiful girl, and you touch her. You don't want her to go 'Blah!' But so round, so firm, so fully packed! A little bit of resistance, you see, is great. So there must always be resistance in change; otherwise there couldn't even be change. There'd just be a 'pfft!' The world would go 'pfft!' and that'd be the end of it.
What happens when any great musician plays a certain piece of music? He plays it today, and then he plays it again tomorrow. Is it the same piece of music, or is it another? In the Pali language, they say _naja-so, naja-ano[?]_ which means 'not the same, yet not another.' So, in this way, the Buddhist is able to speak of reincarnation of beings, without having to believe in some kind of soul entity that is reincarnated. Some kind of atman, some kind of fixed self, ego principle, soul principle that moves from one life to another. And this is as true in our lives as they go on now from moment to moment as it would be true of our lives as they appear and reappear again over millions of years. It doesn't make the slightest difference, except that there are long intervals and short intervals, high vibrations and low vibrations. When you hear a high sound, high note in the musical scale, you can't see any holes in it--it's going too fast--and it sounds completely continuous. But when you get the lowest audible notes that you can hear on an organ, you feel the shaking. You feel the vibration, you hear that music [throbbing] on and off.
So this is the nature of change. If you resist it, you have duhkha, you have frustration and suffering. But on the other hand, if you understand change, you don't cling to it, and you let it flow, then it's no problem. It becomes positively beautiful, which is why in poetry, the theme of the evernescence[?] of the world is beautiful. When Shelly says,
The one remains, the many change and pass, heaven's light forever shines, Earth's shadows fly. Life, like a dome of many-colored glass, stains the white radiance of eternity until death shatters it to fragments. Now what's beautiful in that? Is it heaven's light that shines forever? Or is it rather the dome of many-colored glass that shatters? See, it's always the image of change that really makes the poem. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps on life's petty pace from day to day, until the last syllable of recorded time.
Somehow, you know, it's so well-said that it's not so bad after all. The poet has got the intuition that things are always running out, that things are always disappearing, has some hidden marvel in it. I was discussing with someone during the lunch intermission, the Japanese have a word _yugen_, which has no English equivalent whatsoever. Yugen is in a way digging change. It's described poetically, you have the feeling of yugen when you see out in the distant water some ships hidden behind a far-off island. You have the feeling of yugen when you watch wild geese suddenly seen and then lost in the clouds. You have the feeling of yugen when you look across Mt Tamapeis, and you've never been to the other side, and you see the sky beyond. You don't go over there to look and see what's on the other side, that wouldn't be yugen. You let the other side be the other side, and it invokes something in your imagination, but you don't attempt to define it to pin it down. Yugen. So in the same way, the coming and going of things in the world is marvelous. They go. Where do they go? Don't answer, because that would spoil the mystery. They vanish into the mystery. But if you try to persue them, you destroy yugen. That's a very curious thing, but that idea of yugen, which in Chinese characters means, as it were, kind of 'the deep mystery of the valley.' There's a poem in Chinese which says 'The wind drops, but the petals keep falling. The bird calls, and the mountain becomes more mysterious.' Isn't that strange? There's no wind anymore, and yet petals are dropping. And a bird in the canyon cries, and that one sound in the mountains brings out the silence with a wallop.
So, the trouble is, that we have one-sided minds, and we notice the wave of life when it is at its peak or crest. We don't notice it when it's at the trough, not in the ordinary way. It's the peaks that count. Take a buzzsaw: what seems important to us is the tips of the teeth. They do the cutting, not the valleys between the teeth. But see, you couldn't have tips of teeth without the valleys between. Therefore the saw wouldn't cut without both tips and V- shaped valleys. But we ignore that. We don't notice the valleys so much as we notice the mountains. Valleys point down, mountains point up, and we prefer things that point up, because up is good and down is bad.
But seriously, we don't blame the peaks for being high and the valleys for being low. But it is so, you see, that we ignore the valley aspect of things, and so all wisdom begins by emphasizing the valley aspect as distinct from the peak aspect. We pay plenty of attention to the peak aspect, that's what captures out attention, but we somehow screen out the valley aspect. But that makes us very uncomfortable. It seems we want and get pleasure from looking at the peaks, but actually this denies our pleasure, becuase secretly we know that every peak is followed by a valley. The valley of the shadow of death.
And we're always afraid, because we're not used to looking at valleys, because we're not used to living with them, the represent to us the strange and threatening unknown. Maybe we're afraid the principle of the valley will conquer, and the peaks will be overwhelmed. Maybe death is stronger than life, because life always seems to require an effort; death is something into which you slide effortlessly. Maybe nothing will overcome something in the end. Wouldn't that be awful? And so we resist change, ignorant of the fact that change is life, and that nothing is invariably the adverse face of something.
For such purposes, I have to give you a very elementary lesson about the properties of space. Because most people are afraid of space. They ignore it, and they think space is nothing. Space is simply, unless it happens to be filled with air, a nothingness between things. But without space, there is no energy and no motion, and it can be illustrated in this way: in this area is the whole universe, and there's only one thing in it, and that's a ball. Is it moving, or is it still? There's absolutely no way of deciding. None whatever. So it's neither moving, nor is it still, because you can't be aware of or measure motion, except in relation to something that's relatively still. All right, let's have two balls. Ball one, and ball two. Now, these balls--we suddenly notice that the distance between them increases. Which one moved? Or did they both move? there's no way of deciding. You could say the distance, ie, the space between them increased. But who started it is impossible to determine. All right, three balls. Now, we notice for example that one and three stay together, and they keep a constant distance apart. But two goes away and comes back. Now what's happening? One and three, since they stay together, constitute a group. Two recedes or approaches, or does it? Or is the group one and three receding from or approaching towards two? There's one way of deciding. One and three constitute a majority. So if they vote, they can say whether they are going towards two or going away from two. Two doesn't like this. So two decides it can lick 'em by joining them, so two comes and sits here. Now what's going to happen? Neither one and three can say to two, and two can't say to three, 'Why do you keep following me around?' Because again, because they all maintain a constant distance, they have no motion.
All right. We have the same problem on a very big scale, in what we call the expansion of the universe. All the galaxies observable seem to be getting further away from each other. Now, are they going further away from us, or are we going further away from them, or are they all all together going further away from each other? Astronomers have suggested that what is expanding is the space between them. And so we get the idea of expanding space. This isn't quite the right answer. What has been neglected in all this, if I can say either that the objects are moving away from each other, they're doing it. Or it's equally possible for me to say that it's the space they're in that's expanding. But I can't decide which one is which. The meaning of this inability to decide is that space and solid are two ways of talking about the same thing. Space-solid. You don't find space without solids; you don't find solids without space. If I say there's a universe in which there isn't anything but space, you must say 'Space between what?' Space is relationship, and it always goes together with solid, like back goes with front. But the devisive mind ignores space. And it thinks it's the solids that do the whole job, that they're the only thing that's real. That is, to put it in other words, conscious attention ignores intervals, because it thinks they're unimportant.