Every ordinary person has the self-view. Most frequently in our life, we use words “I,” “me,” “my,” “mine” and “myself”. These words are used to express an identity and possession. Yes, this is the EGO. We have developed the self-view from the childhood. It is a part and parcel of our understanding process. As child grows up, the KNOWLEDGE is built up with “I” thought. The child accumulates knowledge with duality, like good and bad etc. Every spiritual teacher says that “I” is false self and illusory self.
Yes, “I” is illusory self. That is true. But on the other hand, when you say “I” is illusion this indicates that there are realities (or truth) too in our knowledge. Most spiritual teachers instruct their followers to recognize illusion as illusion. In other words, they ask to recognize “I” as illusion. They say: if you can recognize illusion as illusion, it (illusion) gets dissolved.
Is knowledge real? If knowledge is real, how does illusory “I” arise from the real knowledge? Many spiritual teachers have no answer for these questions. They say “I” is illusion but “chair” is real!
As I have revealed in my article ‘King Kakille’s Judgment’, all knowledge that is acquired from gurus (teachers parents etc) is illusory. It is a useless attempt if you try to recognize “I” as illusion because you cannot recognize anything without illusory knowledge. You will never be able to eliminate self-view by recognizing the “I” as illusion. You will again be trapped by the illusion “I”. If one is attempting to get rid of self-view, OR attempting to recognize “I” as illusion, he/she will never find the truth”.
The “I” (self-view) is not the problem. The problem is the KNOWLEDGE. All knowledge is illusion. You cannot dissolve the illusion by RECOGNIZING illusion as illusion. Why? because, you cannot RECOGNIZE anything without illusory knowledge.
If you have no self-view, you will never find the truth.
Dr Tissa Senanayake (tissamahima@gmail.com)
End of this article I have written “If you have no self-view, you will never find the truth.” I wrote it purposely, but I know many people confuse with this sentence. Only human beings with good mental condition have self-view. That is why human being can see the truth. Animals have no self-view that they cannot see the truth.
ඇත්ත ඇති සැටියෙන් අදුරගන්නේ නැති නම් කොහොමද දුකින් නිදහස් වෙන්නේ....? ඇත්ත ඇති සැටියෙන් දැකීම තුල අවබොධයෙන් කලකිරීම ඇතිවෙනවා. අවබොධයෙන් කලකිරීම ඇති වුනාම ඇලීම දුරුවෙනවා. ඇලීම දුරුවුනාම නිදහස් වෙනවා. මායාව, මායාව ලෙස හදුනගත්තොත් තමයි ඇත්ත ඇති සැටියෙන් දැක්කා වෙන්නේ.
ඔබ ඇත්ත ඇති සැටි යෙන් දකින්න හදනවා දැනුම තුලින් ගත් අවබෝදයෙන්. හොදයි කියන්න මට එක(1) ඇති සැටියෙන් දකින හැටි.
එක(1) is simply "one". Do we really need to talk about it?
'one' is 'one'.
Again let me ask from you, "Do we really need to talk about 'one' ?
එක (1) යනු, සියලු සත්ත්වයින් පිහිටලා සිටින්නේ ආහාර මතයි. දැන් මම අහනවා ප්‍රශ්නයක්, දෙක (2) කියන්නේ මොකක්ද......? මරණයෙන් නිදහස් වූ අය මේකට උත්තරය දන්නවා. හැබැයි ඒ අය උත්තර දෙන්නේ නම් තමන් තුලින් ඇති වුන අවබොධයෙන් විතරයි. කාගෙන්වත් අහල හො වෙනත් ක්‍රමයකින් සොයාගෙන නෙවෙයි. තමා තුලින් ඇති වෙච්ච අවබොධයෙනුයි.
To Deshan හරි මම ඔය 12 දන්නවා. එතන හොද තැනක් ධර්මය දකින්න. නැවත ඔය 12 කියවල බලන්න. මේ ධර්ම වලින් කුමන ධර්ම ලෝකෝත්තර ද කුමන ධර්ම ලෞකිකද කියල. අංකෙ විතරක් කියන්න ඒ ඇති.
Dear Chamath
I have given one (1) to see some dhamma. This paragraph is part of my article. Pl read it and comment it.
The platform of the all the existence of the theories in the world are postulates (hypothesize). It is not the reality. The physics is based on the time distance and matter. But time cannot be defined. In the geometry, distance is defined as shorted distance between two points. But ‘point’ cannot be defined. The matters are made by atoms. But atom is just only model. Not only theories, all religions are also based on the postulates. Can we find the truth from false base?
"The platform of the all the existence of the theories in the world are postulates (hypothesize)."
So that's what they call as 'Science'.
"It is not the reality."
What is reality then? Standards were defined when they were proven to be accurate. However, most of the things what we know in Physics are superfluous to our requirement to end suffering.
For example, Albert Einstein found E=MC2, but the Buddha didn't reveal it, right? Why? Isn't it because E=MC2 is useless for attaining Nirvana? What (most of the things) we find in science are unnecessary stuff to end suffer.
"The physics is based on the time distance and matter."
Well, physics is the study for understanding how the universe works such as energy, matter, atoms.
I again say that (most of) these are unnecessary for humans to attain Nirvana.
"But time cannot be defined."
Do you really need to define it?
"In the geometry, distance is defined as shorted distance between two points."
It's funny when you define 'distance' using 'distance'.
In physics, 'displacement could defined as shortest distance between two points.'
Anyway, is it really necessary to define distance?
"But ‘point’ cannot be defined."
Do you really need to define point?
"The matters are made by atoms."
And atoms are made by electrons, protons an neutrons and they are made by leptons and quarks. (Well, that's what I've learnt)
So, what's the big deal?
"But atom is just only model."
Well, atom is a planetary model nowadays, with electrons orbiting the nucleus. So?
"Not only theories, all religions are also based on the postulates."
And also belief. However, if postulates are made using proper investigation with evidence and correct facts, then is there a problem?
"Can we find the truth from false base?"
For whatever the base, you need to have wisdom to filter the truth from false.
What I want to emphasize is that we shouldn't make ourselves complicated by going through complicated things such as defining time, universe etc. The Buddha said that thinking about the world too much will make a person mad.
Yes, you can define everything but using something in the knowledge. Again you can define something using something in the knowledge etc. Buddha reveals truth. E=mc2 is knowledge. The truth is beyond the knowledge. Without Guru you can have any kind of knowledge. You have trust knowledge as truth. But you don’t know it is right or wrong. This is the problem with knowledge. The knowledge is enough to live in the world, but the knowledge is not enough to get rid of the jathi jara viyadi marana. You know why? The jathi jara viyadi marana are in your knowledge. Nobody can see it without Buddha. It is not the learning process. Guru’s path is to death. Buddha’s path is to truth. You need to at least understand Guru’s path and Buddha’s path before go middle path.
"E=mc2 is knowledge."
Isn't that also supposed to be a truth? The thing is that, this truth may be disastrous for the world.
"The knowledge is enough to live in the world, but the knowledge is not enough to get rid of the jathi jara viyadi marana."
Yes, the knowledge what we've got from childhood is to help live in the world. But my question is, can't we get knowledge to get rid of jathi jara viyadi marana? After we get the knowledge, then we apply that knowledge to get rid of jathi jara viyadi marana. For example, you say that we have to get rid of knowledge to attain Nirvana.
So,
Knowing that "Getting rid of knowledge is required to attain Nirvana" is also a knowledge. Isn't it? Because, first of all we've got to know what has to be done to get rid of this Sansara.
You cannot find any truth in the words and from the world. But without words you cannot see the nirvana.
Yes, "Getting rid of knowledge is required to attain Nirvana" is also a knowledge”. That is why Buddha cannot preach. After 20 years of preaching, Buddha said “I did not preach any word” in Panna Sutra.
If some one has no knowledge, he/she cannot see the nirvana. We need knowledge to ‘see’ “the knowledge is wrong”. The Buddha’s path is seeing path not the understanding path. PL sees my ogha tharana suthra again to find the middle path.
"After 20 years of preaching, Buddha said “I did not preach any word” in Panna Sutra."
Could you explain it ? Can you give the exact meaning what the Buddha said ?
So, didn't the Buddha preach his first sutra ? (i.e. the sutra about four noble truths)
It is very hard to explain by words Chamath. In one way I can say that ‘You cannot find Buddha’s vision through the words. Buddha gives answer for the Q. If you accept the Buddha’s answer; The Buddha Dhamma (say) “ I did not preach any word” and your acceptance of the Buddha’s word are contradicted. How do you accept Buddha’s word if Buddha did not preach? But Buddha’s Dhamma has no any kind contradictions.
So, didn't the Buddha preach his first sutra ? No, Buddha preach the Damma chakra pavathvana sutra'.
And this 'Damma Chakra Pavathvana Sutra' is still turning.
0 comments:
Post a Comment