Meditation and Health

When my father died a little more than three years ago, I translated the Medicine Buddha Sutra in order to dedicate the merit to him. He was a medical doctor and a professor at Chula and other universities and had devoted all his life for the benefits of others, especially his students. He started out as a neurologist but then after a while became really interested in medical education and medical humanities and ethics. So we had quite a lot in common and we usually discussed together how to improve the quality of education not only medical students but other students as well. I remember that he sometimes asked me all of a sudden: How to teach students so that they know how to think? Well, I was kind of having nothing to say to that. I answered something like — you have to let the students express themselves and not feeding information all the time. He seemed to like that.

When my family was preparing for the funeral, I thought the Medicine Buddha Sutra would be an appropriate gift for those who came to his funeral. This is Thai custom. When you come to a funeral, especially during the cremation, it is customary to give small presents, which are usually Dharma books. This is to remind those who are living that they will one day die too so they had better start studying and practicing the Dharma. Since my father was a professor of medicine, he was both a doctor and a teacher. So the Medicine Buddha Sutra was a very appropriate text to give as present. At that time Krisadawan and I had already established the Thousand Stars Foundation, and we agreed that the Foundation should publish this Sutra, translated into Thai, as a way of making merit for him and for all sentient beings.

The key message of the Medicine Buddha Sutra is that there is a Buddha who lives in a Buddha-field (Bob Thurman prefers to call this a “Buddhaverse” ) in the east. His name is “Bhaisajyaguru Vaiduryaprabha.” This means “The Teacher of Medicine, Whose Light is that of Lapis Lazuli.” When he was still a bodhisattva, he made twelve vows that he was intent on realizing when he achieved Buddhahood. One of these vows is that he will heal all those who are suffering from all kinds of illnesses and establish them in the path to eventual Buddhahood.

This is why he is called the Medicine Buddha. He specializes in curing illnesses. These are not merely physical and mental illnesses, but he also cures “spiritual illness,” which is an illness that happens when one undergoes sufferings and wanders around in samsara as a result.

It is mentioned in the Sutra that one who recites the name of the Medicine Buddha intently and with devotion and single-pointedness of mind will never be reborn in the lower realm, he or she will achieve all the results and will eventually achieve Liberation and Buddhahood. An explanation of how this is possible is that when you recite the mantra, your mind will be automatically be focused and free from all distracting thoughts. So reciting the mantra is one way of doing meditation. And if you recite the mantra and visualize Medicine Buddha with the sincere intention to liberate all beings out of samsara, then the meditation will be really powerful. The Sutra mentions that doing this will result in better health and freedom from illnesses.

I just watched a video where Matthieu Ricard was talking about all these beneficial results of meditation and compassion. Here is it:

In the video (it is quite long, almost an hour), Ricard, who is a monk who has an extensive scientific background, talked about the beneficial aspects of meditation, especially meditation on compassion and loving kindness. He talks about the works being done, among others, by Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist at University of Wisconsin who has achieved world wide fame through his groundbreaking work on the physiological effects on the brain of meditation. Basically the message is that meditation is very good to your health.

But that has been the message of the Medicine Buddha Sutra all along. The Sutra tells us that one who recites the name of Medicine Buddha or his mantra (see my earlier post) will achieve beneficial results one of which is better health and freedom from illnesses. Moreover, one who recites the mantra while visualizes that Medicine Buddha stays inside himself and send out rays of loving kindness and compassion to all sentient beings will achieve the results more effectively.

This is because the mind is meditating and is staying focused and single pointed when it is reciting the mantra and visualizing. The mind is not just wandering around aimlessly as it tends to do in our everyday’s life. According to the recent studies, meditation proves to be very beneficial to health, and the Medicine Buddha Sutra also tells us that the meditating mind focusing on Medicine Buddha will be free from illnesses too.

It is mentioned in the Sutra that Medicine Buddha, when he was a bodhisattva, made twelve vows that he was intent on realizing once he achieved the incomparable Buddhahood. One of the vows was that he would eliminate all kinds of illnesses and diseases from each and every sentient being. So we can imagine that the blessings flow from Medicine Buddha himself to us who are doing to the meditation. The most important thing is that we need to keep in mind that we are doing all this not for our own benefits alone, but so that we will achieve the status of a Buddha since only a Buddha is capable of helping all sentient beings in the world. But the irony is that the more we do things for others, the more benefits we get for ourselves

I hope that by producing another Thai version of the Medicine Buddha Sutra (in fact the text has been translated into Thai before) the work will inspire readers to come to realize what is actually there in the Buddha’s original teachings all along — the mind and the body are intimately interconnected, and it is indeed the mind who is the boss, the leader. So my father’s death kind of became an occasion for a contribution to this realization.

Filed under: meditation , Bodhisattva, Buddhism, compassion, father, health, loving kindness, medicine, Medicine Buddha, meditation, samsara, Sutra

Politics of Translation

I am fascinated with language. Well, this is mainly what I do for a living. What else would you expect a university lecturer in an arts faculty to do? Teaching philosophy has a lot to do with language. J. L. Austin has a book on “How to Do Things with Words,” and teachers of philosophy, literature and history basically have close to nothing to do except manipulating words around.

The recent controversy in Thailand surrounding Jakkrapob Penkhae, the Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Office, when he gave a talk at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club and said something about the desirable, in his view, form of government for Thailand is a case in point. It sparked an uproar, and those of you who are following the events in Thai politics perhaps know about this already.

My point is that Jakkrapob’s speech has become a political issue, but for that to work in this country, the speech, which was given in English, has to be translated into Thai. Now the interesting situation is that there are now several versions of the translations of the same text which are not entirely compatible with one another. Jakkrapob’s own translation has been accused of omitting some key texts which would be damaging to him, and the version prepared by the opposition Democrat Party has also been accused by the other side of not being a fair one. 

So somebody proposed that the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University do the translation themselves. Being regarded as the most trusted authority in linguistic matters, the professors of Chulalongkorn will be asked to decide on the issue. Well, this happens to be the place where I go to work teaching philosophy. I believe I won’t be asked to do the translation myself, as I am not teaching translation or anything. But this is a good point for a reflection.

As those who have even a slight acquaintance with translation know, translating a text from one language to another is an imprecise science at best. Unless you are translating a mathematical statement, you are likely to have to face decisions on word choices and other things which translators have to face everyday. Even translating mathematical texts sometimes requires making such decisions too. And when the translation of Jakkrapob’s speech is such a highly charged political issue, what could happen is that the faculty at the Faculty of Arts, well, my beloved colleagues, will have to bear political brunt. If their translation goes well with one camp, they will be reviled by the other. And if they tweak the translation they will have to suffer loss of credibility and this will harm the reputation of the university. They need to find the most accurate translation. But exactly what is the most accurate translation?

So they are in an unenviable situation. I only wish them all the best. I think what will happen is that when one camp finds an expert to translate the text, the other will find their own expert to translate the text to their own liking. All will be done within the limit of the allowable and interpretable range of meanings of the text. 

Some people would like to resolve political issues through technical means like finding experts to translate the text, but that would not be forthcoming. This is a typical attitude of many in the Thai bureaucracy and other circles. They trust the expert in all areas. But then political issues cannot be resolved through technical means. They have to be resolved politically. It is one thing whether Jakkrapob’s text violates Thai law or not. For that the judge will ask for an accurate translation from expert witness (and both sides can well produce their own expert witnesses). But this has become a political issue and the way to resolve that won’t come from the easy way of asking for expert opinions. Well, translation can be part of politics too, as are many other areas.

Filed under: Language , Language, linguistics, philosophy, politics, Thailand, translation

Tsunamis, Cyclones, Earthquakes and Karma

There is a prominent teaching in Buddhism, which it also largely shares with other Indian religions such as Jainism and Hinduism, and that is the belief in the law of karma.

Basically what the law says is that your present condition is the result of your post actions, and that your future condition will be the result of the combination between past and present actions. The law of karma explains, for example, why you were born in such and such a place and enjoy doing certain things (such as playing the piano) rather than others (such as bowling). It explains the character of who we look for in a mate and many other things.

The law of karma works because our mental continuum is receptive and sensitive to a large variety of influences and has the tendency of carrying over these influences. In a type of Mahayana thought, that of the Yogācāra, there is the teaching on the Ālayavijñāṇa (now I have to force myself to do the diacritical marks), or “store consciousness.” This is a type of consciousness that underlies the workings of the other six types of consciousness that are known in the early teaching, each corresponding to the five senses and one “inner” or mental sense, so to speak. It is the store consciousness that keeps record of our doings in the past and when time is appropriate, or the condition is ripened, the result bears fruit. All these records are kept in the store consciousness, and each individual who is not liberated has his or her own store consciousness that keeps records of everything that person has ever did through bodily, verbal or mental actions.

This is the usual explanation of how karma works. There is a saying that in Buddhism nothing exists by chance, because everything that happens does so as a result of a combination of causes and conditions. So when one wants to have an explanation for natural disasters like the 2006 Indian Ocean Tsunami or the recent cyclone in Burma and the earlhquake in China from a Buddhist, the typical answer would be that of karma.

This immediately brings about discomfort among I think Westerners who are not used to this kind of idea. Asian Buddhists have a much easier time understanding and accepting this. The question that springs up is: If it is karma, then is it ultimately these people’s fault that they have to suffer the Tsunami? What kind of teaching is that? In fact many blogs here in WordPress are reeling after Sharon Stone made a comment referring to the earthquake victims as suffering from “karma.”

Don’t get me wrong on this. Stone is utterly wrong when she said that the Chinese earthquake victim suffer because of their wrongdoings, or because of the wrongdoings of their political leaders. That is very wrong indeed and definitely not a Buddhist thing to say at all. The meaning of Stone’s remark is something like: They deserve it because of what they have done. But that is NOT the Buddhist teaching on karma. So Stone is giving karma a bad name.

Since everything that happens, happens because of causes and conditions, so do earthquakes and cyclones and other events. There are causes and conditions that all together explain why such things happen, even though right now we do not understand them all, since earthquakes and cyclones are extremely complex phenomena. And what about those people who happened to be there when the quake occurred? They clearly do not deserve their death at all. Nobody, absolutely nobody, deserves such a fate. Let me repeat. Buddhism does not teach that victims of earthquakes (or tsunamis, etc.) deserve their fate because of their “bad” karmas.

Before going further let me digress. In the 18th century (I don’t remember exactly the year) a huge earthquake took place in the Atlantic ocean quite close to the Portuguese shore. The quake sent off a huge tsunami rushing to Portugal. I did not look this up, but perhaps around 30,000 people or so died. Being Christians, Portuguese and other Europeans raised this question: What could ever justify such a calamity? If God were a thoroughly compassionate and all powerful being, then how could he let such a thing happen? This is known in theology as the problem of theodicy. The thing is that the people who died were devout Catholics. If anything there were not sinners who might have “deserved” to die. But if they were so faithful, why did they suffer such a fate?

The people in the Irrawaddy delta or in the Chengdu area are not sinners either, at least they are not singled out by a supreme and all powerful being because of their common characteristics. There is no more feature in common among them than in any group of people living together in any other geographical area in the world. So God, being infinitely powerful and loving, did something totally incomprehensible. We mortals cannot fathom His mind; all we can do and have to do is to remain faithful and be mindful that such a calamity could one day strike ourselves too. We can’t help with that, but we can help ourselves because faith does arise within ourselves.

Well, that seems to be the Christian answer, and I am not of a Christian theologian to give any more precise answer to that. But at least it seems to me that way. Now back to Buddhism. I have just said that it is wrong to say that these people deserve to die. That is as bad as saying that the Portuguese Catholics who perished because of the 18th century tsunami were sinners and God punished them. Who are we to judge that these people have sinned? I mean what are the differences between them and us??

So the Buddhist response to this would be something like this. Causes and conditions that explain the occurences of things in the world are so complex that not even a hugely powerful supercomputer (let alone a finite human mind) could comprehend it. Perhaps there might be some reason, or some explanation, as to why this particular person happened to be at the area where the quake hit. But what is the significance of that? Why do we need to single this out and point our fingers at them as Stone seems to be doing? Suppose we find a patient suffering from a serious illness, do we point our fingers to him saying “You deserve it because you did something bad”? What bad manners! And worse, saying things like this means that you feel that you are somehow superior to others. It is this kind of attitude that will quite likely bring you down to the lower realms in your future life. Things just happen. It could happen to you too.

So instead of saying things like Stone does, the Buddhist would extend compassionate hands to the victims and help every way they can. They also take this event as a reminder of how impermanent things are. Human life is so short and so fleeting. There is no time to fool around because no one knows what lies ahead of us in the next life and if we don’t practice the Dharma (which includes helping others in need), then there is a big chance of not being born a human being again. And once you are born as an animal, then you have to wait a LONG time before coming back as a human again….

Filed under: Buddhism , Buddhism, cyclone, earthquake, karma, natural disaster, religion, Sharon Stone, store consciousness, theodicy, tsunami

Nirvana and Samsara

Now back to Buddhism (I will report on the demonstrations occasionally though).

This morning my wife and I went to a Dharma talk organized by my cousin. There were around ten people attending the talk and mostly my wife talked about her experiences in Tibet when she did the prostration there last year. She also talked about her works at the Thousand Stars Foundation that we set up. She also demonstrated how to do prostration the Tibetan way (astangapradistha – sorry don’t know how to do diacritical marks yet). Then there was a question from the floor. The main difference between Theravada and Mahayana seems to be that in the former nirvana (or nibbana in Pali) is totally separate from samsara, whereas in Mahayana they seem to be much closer to each other. How so?

I answered that in Nagarjuna’s main teaching in the Mulamadhayamakakarika, or the Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, he indeed says that nirvana and samsara are very close, in fact they are one and the same. This is quite shocking to the Theravadins, who are taught that nirvana is so remote from everyday living in samsara that it is almost unattainable. So when they listen to Nagarjuna’s talk about the two being one and the same they are understanably shocked in disbelief. How is it possible? They might even think that Nagarjuna is perhaps a perverse master who alters the original intent of the Buddha’s teaching.

It is quite straightforward to see how the Theravadins think that way. The goal of Dharma practice is to attain nirvana; that is, to attain the state whereby traces of suffering are completely eliminated. And the way to realize that state is a very difficult and arduous one. Theravadins usually pray that they will realize that state, when the appropriate time comes, in the very distant future. Notice the phrase “when the appropriate time comes.” This presupposes that the present time when the practitioner is making the wish is not appropriate. This is because it is assumed that most people, almost everybody, is so mired within the samsaric world that it is not possible for them to realize Liberation in a short period of time. Nirvana is a very distant destination, something almost unattainable, and Theravadins think of themselves as not worthy for such a lofty goal. Thus they wish that they achieve the ultimate goal of the entire Buddhist teaching when it is appropriate for them to do so. Who knows exactly when that time actually is. Moreover, not only lay people make a wish like this, but so do monks. Monks are supposed to practice in order to realize nirvana — this is stated explicitly in the Buddha’s own teaching in the Pali — but most monks are content merely to follow the Vinaya rules and to study the language. At least this has been the case in Thailand.

In Thai Buddhism, the traditional teaching is that realizing nirvana is not emphasized at all. The teaching was almost neglected until Ajahn Buddhadasa brought it to the fore and proclaimed it to the Thai public. Which caused tremendous pressure on him from the Sangha establishment. The monks in the forest tradition in the Northeast also received criticisms from the establishment because they were seen to wander around in search of Liberation instead of staying in monasteries and perform their traditional rituals and ceremonies. Nowadays the situation has changed somewhat due to the popularity of Ajahn Buddhadasa and the monks of the Northeast forest tradition like Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Chah, Luang Ta Bua and others. But still the attitude prevails among the typical Thai Buddhism and I believe other Theravadins.

The above serves to show how deeply ingrained the idea of nirvana and samsara being totally separate is. I listened to Bob Thurman’s podcast the other day and he said that the idea was a kind of dualism, nirvana and samsara being two totally distinct worlds. He also said that in the Mahayana things are different. Nirvana and samsara are not separate; they are one and the same. There is no dualism there. What this means is that in Mahayana, especially in Nagarjuna’s teaching, nirvana and samsara are those that could be said to be different aspects of the same thing. This “same thing” is none other than the reality as we know it.

Nagarjuna talks about this point when he discusses the Buddha, or the Tathagata in his terminology. Discussing whether there is any difference between there beling a living and breathing Buddha and a Buddha who has gone to Parinirvana (that is, no longer living and breathing in bodily form), Nagarjuna argues that there is in fact no difference. There seems to be a difference only to those who are attached to the bodily form of the Buddha, such as his height, his complexion, his look, etc. But the point is that the Buddha’s height, complexion, look, etc. are not properties of a Buddha, or an Awakened One at all. This is a very easy point to understand, but somehow many peole have missed it completely. The properties that matter are those that make Siddhartha Gautama an Awakened One, not merely a good looking Nepali prince. And those are universal properties — they must be universal because if there were not, then it would not be possible for anyone except Gautama himself to become a Buddha or in other words to become awakened, which is totally contradictory to the Buddha’s own intention. But if they are to be universal, they have to transcend particular time and space.

Hence, there is no difference between a living and breathing Buddha and a Buddha who has entered Parinirvana because both share these universal properties. Then Nagarjuna goes on saying that if that is so, then there is no difference whatsoever between samsara and nirvana. The living and breathing Buddha lives in samsara, and the Buddha who has entered Parinirvana lives in nirvana. Since they both share all universal properties in such a way that there is no such property that one has and the other does not, then the two are exactly one and the same. So samsara and nirvana are the same.

The way to understand Nagarjuna’s argument here is to see that in fact what makes what appears to be samsara what it is is only due to our own failure to see the real truth. Things are thus and so and will continue to be so. However, when we apprehend those things, we usually do so out of ignorance or avidya. That is, we conceptualize them and capture them as if they were to have real and substantial properties. The most serious conceptualization and capturing is that of the individual ego. This is the root cause of all sufferings. Once this is realized. Once it is realized that what is thought to be “I” or “mine” is in fact an illusion caused by misunderstanding, then the wall breaks down that separates individual ego and the reality outside as well as between the ego and the mental continuum of other people. Nagarjuna calls this sunyata, or Emptiness.

In the world where there is the living and breathing Buddha, we can follow his teaching and make our own effort to practice in order to realize Liberation for ourselves. In the world where there is the Buddha who has entered Parinirvana, we can also follow his teaching and make our own effort to practice in order to realize Liberation for ourselves. There is no slightest difference between samsara and nirvana.

Filed under: Mahayana , Buddha, Buddhadasa, Buddhism, Mahayana, Nagarjuna, Nirvana, sameness, samsara, Thai Buddhism, Theravada

Demonstrations Tonight

For those of you who are in Thailand, you might know already that there will be two large demonstrations tonight in Bangkok. These are the groups who have been confronting each other for more than three years now regarding their differences about which way Thailand should be going. Those who have any vaguest idea of what is going on in Thailand know that the confrontations have been centered around Thaksin Shinawatra. One group, led by media mogul Sonthi Limthongkul, wanted to get him out of office and tried for a number of corruption charges. The other wanted him to continue as Prime Minister.

The coup d’etat on September 2006 changed the picture somewhat, as Thaksin was indeed kicked out out of office through sheer force (though no actual force was used) and a new military-installed government took power and a new constitution drafted. After about a year Thais had their general election and during this time the Thai Rak Thai party, which was led by Thaksin, was disbanded and the entire bunch of party executives were barred from entering politics for five years. The election resulted in an ally of the Thai Rak Thai (some say it is actually a reincarnation – a very Buddhist concept) coming to power, and since the well known names had already been banned from politics, what we have as ministers are some lesser figures who would not have held the minister portfolio otherwise.

The key issue here is that the 2007 constitution has a very strict rule against those who abuse power in politics. And because of this the People’s Power Party (Thai Rak Thai’s possible reincarnation mentioned earlier) itself stands a good chance of being dissolved too. So the demonstrations tonight will be essentially about this issue. The anti-Thaksin group wants to stop the amendment of the constitution, and the other, pro-government group, want to support it.

So you can see the general picture somewhat, I hope. As this is a “mostly about Buddhism” blog, I don’t want to become involved too much in politics here. So I am not taking sides. What I would like to say is that I see this as a symptom of “growing pains,” so to speak, of a real and meaningful democracy. I may be an optimist, but then all Buddhists are . This shows growing pains because in a real democracy conflicts are to be expected, and here in Thailand we are experiencing a real conflict between large segments of the population taking place. In the old days this could be settled by civil wars, but I really hope that things will not turn out that bad. This is why democracy is so necessary and important.

Democracy is necessary as a means of resolving conflicts without violent means. This much is obvious. One who has followed Thai politics for some time might say “But this is already a democracy. We have elections and Thaksin turned out to be duly elected. What is wrong with it?” Well, what is wrong is that it appeared that Thaksin tried to bend the law for his own purposes. A democracy has to be backed up by a strong legal system, so that when one tries to gain unfair advantages the law would prevent that from happening. More specifically there has to be a boundary beyond which even democratically elected government cannot cross. This is a persistent theme in political philosophy. Should there be a limit to the power of a democracy?

No, I am not condoning coup d’etats by any means. This is why I am talking about growing pains of Thai politics. The conflict that is happening now, if handled carefully, will mature into some kind of normal diversity of opinions in a functioning democracy. Both groups who are demonstrating have their own visions of what they want Thailand to become. The diversity could then sort itself out in the normal kind of democratic choice. The problem in Thailand for so long is that this diversity has been kept under the carpet, and those who have the real say in how the country is governed are the bureaucrats and technicians who think that they know more and better than the ordinary people.

So there will be some kinds of conflicts for a time being, and let us hope that there will be no violence. Perhaps Thais are mature enough not to let that happen. Perhaps they will learn from this experience so that they develop strong constitutional and legal framework so as to restrain abuse of the democratic and populist power. This is the key and unless this is in place the growing pains will continue to haunt Thailand for a considerable time to come.

Filed under: politics , confrontation, democracy, demonstrations, need for dialog, philosophy, Thai politics, Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra

France, Zen, and Musings

I still am fascinated by the conference of the Academie du Midi, which was held at the Hostellerie d’Eveche in Alet-les-Bains, southern France. Many of the people there were from Germany and in fact almost one whole day of the four-day conference (one day was off for excursion) was devoted to German papers. I tried to listen to some of them and could possibly understand about a third of one paper, but other than that it was as good as a complete blank.

Nevertheless, I met Guenther Wohlfart, the progenitor of the Academie du Midi and one who actually found Alet-les-Bains as the site of the conference. He is a Western philosopher who is very interested in Chinese and Buddhist thoughts. And in fact the Academie du Midi was found under the principle that there should be more interaction between the intellectual traditions of East and West. 

At the conference Wohlfart gave away his little book on Zen und Haiku, a collection of poems that he wrote. He also wrote a long introduction to the principle of Zen. Wohlfart said that according to Zen, one who does not know anything about it would think of a mountain just as what it is unreflectively. But those who have gone halfway into Zen would think that the mountain is not a mountain. However, those who have mastered Zen would think of the mountain just as what it is, a mountain, nothing more and nothing less. 

This parallels the stages of development of a Buddhist practitioner. One who does not know anything and who is nothing but an ordinary man or woman in the street would think of a mountain just as what it is. What’s the problem about it? But those who have studied the Buddhist thought for a while would think: This in fact is not a mountain at all, but a collection of atoms and the elements. So what looks like a mountain is not exactly a mountain. It only appears that way. This is the same for all other things. The self is composed of the five aggregates — bodily form, feelings, perceptions, mental fabrications and consciousness. So the self is what exactly what it is. This is of course contrary to the thinking of the ordinary man in the street who thinks there is nothing problematic about the self, or the mountain for that matter.

Nonetheless, for those who have mastered Zen and other Buddhist teachings would think that the mountain is in fact the mountain. According to Wohlfart, “everything is none other than what it is. It reminds one of nothing other than itself. It shows itself in its this-unique-thing-ness.” 

This is my translation from the German. When one is realized enough, the mountain returns to being itself. Instead of just a collection of atoms and elements, it *is* a mountain and *is* what it is since the beginning. Instead of there being two levels of thing-ness, one appearing and the other existing hidden behind the appearance, there is only one level. In fact there is no level at all. Just things as they exist as they are, in the very thing-ness of it. (Now I am speaking German style )

This could be thought of as returning to the pre-reflective stage of development. But that is no longer possible. One might think of the awakened one as a baby who is wondering at everything, perceiving everything in its pure bareness. Strictly speaking this is not possible, but there is some grain of truth in it though. One might say that the arahat or the Buddha to see the world as does the baby, but with the full understanding lying behind.

 

Filed under: Bodhisattva, Zen , baby, Buddha, Buddhism, perception, philosophy, reflection, Zen

ความว่างคือรูป

ในโพสก่อนได้พูดเกี่ยวกับความหมายของประโยค “รูปคือความว่าง” ข้อความในพระปรัชญาปารมิตาหฤทัยสูตรยังมีอีกประโยคหนึ่ง ได้แก่ “ความว่างคือรูป” ซึ่งเข้าใจยากกว่าประโยคแรกพอสมควร ในประโยคแรก — “รูปคือความว่าง” — ความหมายก็คือว่า รูปต่างๆ ซึ่งก็ได้แก่วัตถุต่างๆในธรรมชาติ เช่น ดิน หิน ภูเขา ฯลฯ ต่างก็เป็นของว่าง กล่าวคือไม่มีความเป็นอยู่ในตัวเอง ในทางกลับกัน การบอกว่า “ความว่างคือรูป” ก็หมายความว่า ตัวความว่างนั้น แท้จริงก็มิใช่สิ่งใดอื่น ก็คือรูปนั่นเอง

เรื่องนี้ต้องใช้เวลาในการทำความเข้าใจพอสมควร ผู้ที่เพิ่งเริ่มศึกษาพุทธปรัชญาหรือมีพื้นฐานมาจากระบบปรัชญาอื่นๆ มักจะมองว่า สิ่งที่พุทธปรัชญาเรียกว่า “ความว่าง” หรือ “ศูนยตา” (“สุญญตา” หากเขียนแบบบาลี) นั้น เป็นอะไรอย่างหนึ่ง ที่มีความเป็นอยู่เอกเทศในตัวเอง ตัวอย่างแบบนี้มีให้เห็นมากในปรัชญาตะวันตก หรือแม้แต่ในปรัชญาอินเดียเอง ในระบบปรัชญาของเพลโต สิ่งต่างๆที่เราเห็นอยู่ทุกๆวัน เช่น เก้าอี้ ก้อนหิน รองเท้า ฯลฯ ต่างก็มีความเป็นสิ่งๆนั้นมาจากการที่วัตถุเหล่านั้น “มีส่วนร่วม” อยู่ในแบบของสิ่งนั้น อันได้แก่วัตถุในโลกอีกโลกหนึ่ง อันเป็นโลกนิรันดร ไม่มีการเปลี่ยนแปลง ก้อนหินก้อนหนึ่งที่เรามองเห็น เป็นก้อนหินก็เพราะว่า มันไปมีส่วนร่วมอยู่ในแบบของก้อนหิน แบบของก้อนหินมีอยู่เพียงหนึ่งเดียวเท่านั้น แต่ก้อนหินมีมากมายหลายก้อน ซึ่งต่างก็เป็นก้อนหิน ไม่ใช่อย่างอื่น ก็เพราะต่างก็มีส่วนร่วมอยู่ในแบบของก้อนหิน เราไม่สามารถเห็นแบบของก้อนหินได้ด้วยตา แต่เข้าใจได้ด้วยปัญญา

ทรรศนะแบบนี้แตกต่างจากของพระพุทธศาสนาโดยสิ้นเชิง เพราะหัวใจของคำสอนของพระพุทธศาสนาอยู่ที่ “ศูนยตา” ซึ่งหมายความว่า ทุกๆสิ่งต่างก็ไม่มีความเป็นอยู่ในตัวเองทั้งสิ้น ดังนั้นจึงไม่สามารถมีแบบที่อยู่ในโลกนิรันดรแบบของเพลโตได้ ผู้ที่ไม่ค่อยเข้าใจพุทธปรัชญา มักคิดว่า พอมีคำสอนว่า “รูปคือความว่าง” ก็มักเข้าใจว่า ความว่างนั้นเองเป็นลักษณะอันแท้จริงของรูปนั้น หรือพูดอีกอย่างหนึ่งก็คือ ความว่างเป็น ตัวตน ที่แท้จริงของรูปต่างๆ แต่แท้จริงแล้วมิได้เป็นเช่นนั้นเลย เพราะต่อจากประโยค “รูปคือความว่าง” ก็ได้แก่ประโยค “ความว่างคือรูป” ซึ่งหมายความว่า เราไม่สามารถถือได้ว่า ความว่างเป็นลักษณะที่แท้จริงของรูป แบบเดียวกับในปรัชญาของเพลโต แท้จริงแล้ว ความว่างก็คือรูปนั่นเอง คือจริงๆแล้ว ความเป็นจริงทั้งหลาไม่ได้แบ่งกันออกเป็นระดับๆ แต่สิ่งที่เรารับรู้ ก็ได้แก่ความเป็นจริงทั้งหมดแล้ว ไม่ใช่ว่ามีความเป็นจริงที่แท้ซ่อนอยู่ภายใต้ความเป็นจริงที่ปรากฏแก่การรับรู้ของเราเอง

ผลก็คือว่า ทั้งรูปกับความว่างก็ต้องอิงอาศัยซึ่งกันและกัน เช่นเดียวกับสิ่งอื่นๆทั้งหมด รูปเป็นรูปได้ก็เพราะความว่าง ความว่าง (หรือเรียกอีกอย่างว่า “ศูนยตา”) เป็นความว่างได้ก็เพราะรูป

Filed under: Buddhism , Buddhism, emptiness, form, Heart Sutra, metaphysics, philosophy, Sunyata

รูปคือความว่าง

เมื่อไปประชุมที่ Alet-les-Bains ซึ่ง Academie du Midi เป็นผู้จัด มีคนมาถามว่า ข้อความในพระปรัชญาปารมิตาหฤทัยสูตร ที่ว่า “รูปคือความว่าง ความว่างคือรูป” หมายความว่าอย่างไร คนถามเป็นผู้ดำเนินรายการในการเสนอบทความในช่วงบ่าย ปรากฏว่าสนใจเรื่องนี้มาก และตั้งใจจะถามอยู่เป็นเวลานาน แต่ยังไม่ได้โอกาสในช่วงของการประชุม พอกินข้าวเย็นกันก็เลยได้โอกาสถาม คำถามแบบนี้ถ้าถามในที่ประชุม อาจต้องใช้เวลานานจนกินเวลาของคนอื่นไปก็ได้

คำตอบที่ได้บอกอาจารย์ท่านนั้นไปก็คือว่า องค์ดาไลลามะเคยให้คำตอบไว้ในหนังสือเล่มหนึ่งของท่านว่า ที่บอกว่า “รูปคือความว่าง” หรือ “Form is Emptiness” นั้น ได้แก่การที่ “รูป” ซึ่งเป็นศัพท์เทคนิคหมายความถึงสิ่งต่างๆที่เป็นวัตถุ จริงๆแล้วมิได้มีความเป็นอยู่ในตัวเอง ทุกสิ่งทุกอย่างเป็นอยู่อย่างที่เป็นได้เพราะสัมพันธ์กับสิ่งอื่นๆทั้งสิ้น ในขณะที่ตอบคำถามนี้ กำลังกินข้าวเย็นกันอยู่ แล้วบนโต๊ะก็มีแก้วหลายใบ ได้ตอบไปว่า แก้วนั้นก็เป็นรูปอย่างหนึ่ง ซึ่งก็มิได้มีความเป็นอยู่ในตัวเอง การที่สสารก้อนหนึ่งเป็นแก้วได้ก็เพราะว่า มีรูปร่างเป็นแบบแก้ว ดังนั้น สสารก้อนหนึ่งจึงขึ้นอยู่กับรูปร่างแบบเป็นแก้ว จึงทำให้เป็นแก้ว เรื่องนี้เป็นจริงกับแก้วทุกใบ แต่ในขณะที่ตอบนี้ก็ได้เอามือจับแก้วใบหนึ่งไว้ คำถามต่อไปก็คือ แล้วอะไรทำให้แก้วใบนี้เป็นแก้วใบนี้ ไม่ใช่แก้วทั่วไป และก็ไม่ใช่แก้วใบอื่น คำตอบก็คือว่า ในขณะที่กำลังพูดอยู่นั้น มือกำลังจับแก้วใบนั้นไว้ ดังนั้น การเป็นแก้ว ใบนี้ เลยอยู่ที่การที่มือกำลังจับอยู่นั้นเอง นอกจากนี้แก้วใบนี้ก็ยังมีความสัมพันธ์กับแก้วใบอื่นๆ เช่นอยู่ทางขวาของบางใบ อยู่ทางซ้ายของบางใบ อยู่บนโต๊ะ ห่างจากขอบโต๊ะเท่านั้นเท่านี้ หากปราศจากเงื่อนไขเหล่านี้แล้ว สสารก้อนนี้ก็ไม่มีทางเป็นแก้วใบนี้ไปได้เลย

ที่บอกว่า “รูปคือความว่าง” ก็คือตรงนี้นี่เอง รูปทั้งหมด ซึ่งก็คือสสารวัตถุทั้งหมด เป็นสิ่งอย่างที่มันเป็น เช่น เป็นแก้ว ก้อนหิน ก้อนกรวด ภูเขา น้ำ ทะเล ฯลฯ ก็เพราะว่าเรามีคำไปเรียกบางส่วนของมันให้เป็นอย่างนั้นอย่างนี้ ในตัวของมันเองแล้วไ่ม่มีลักษณะอะไรเลย ดังนั้นจึงไม่เป็นอะไรเลย ที่บอกว่า “ว่าง” นั้นก็คือ ว่างจากความเป็นสิ่งนั้นสิ่งนี้ ซึ่งมีอยู่ในสิ่งนั้นเอง ซึ่งลักษณะแบบนี้ไม่มีอยู่จริง แต่เราคิดไปว่าเป็นจริงเพราะมันตรงกับสามัญสำนึกของเรา และเราก็ไม่หยุดคิดว่าจริงๆแล้วมีสิ่งที่ว่านี้หรือไม่ เราคิดถึงแก้ว เรามองเห็นแก้ว เรากินน้ำจากแก้ว โดยทั่วไปเราไม่คิดว่า แก้วนั้นเป็นแก้วได้เพียงเพราะเราไปกำหนดเรียก หรือไป “บัญญัติ” เรียกมันเข้าเท่านั้น นั่นคือ เราไปกำหนดขอบเขตหรือขอบนอกของสิ่งนี้ ว่าเป็นอย่างนั้นอย่างนี้ นอกจากนี้ไม่ใช่ รูปร่างแบบนี้จึงเรียกว่า “แก้ว” ทั้งๆที่จริงๆแล้ว มันเป็นสสารธาตุ หรือเป็นของๆมันเองอยู่อย่างนั้นเอง การเป็นเช่นนี้ก็คือ แก้วเป็นความว่าง ก็คือรูปคือความว่างนั่นเอง…

Filed under: Buddhism , Buddhism, emptiness, form, Heart Sutra, philosophy, Sunyata, Zen

Namo Ratnatrayaya

คราวนี้ขอเขียนบล๊อกเป็นภาษาไทยบ้าง ผมไปเจอวิดีโอนี้ในยูทูบ แล้วชอบมาก คนสวดได้แก่ Ani Choying Drolma ซึ่งเป็นสามเณรีชาวทิเบตที่เกิดในเนปาล บทสวดนี้ได้แก่บท “นโม รัตนตรยายะ” ซึ่งเป็นบทบูชาพระอวโลกิเตศวรโพธิสัตว์แบบยาว

ขอให้พรจากพระอวโลกิเตศวรโพธิสัตว์จงช่วยให้สัตว์โลกทั้งปวงในสังสารวัฏ พ้นจากทุกข์ ข้ามพ้นห้วงโอฆสงสารทั้งหมดทั้งสิ้นด้วยเทอญ!

Filed under: chant , Avalokiteshvara, Bodhisattva, Buddhism, chant, Choying Drolma, song

France and Zen

I have just returned from France for a conference organized by the Academie du Midi, which is a group of philosophers and other scholars in Europe who are interested in Asian philosophy and Asian studies. This is where I presented a paper on Buddhism and Laughter that I talked about in one of my previous posts. The conference was held in a converted abbey in Alet-les-Bains, a small town south of Carcassonne. The hotel itself is situated in a large park and the river Aude flows along its side. An idyllic place for philosophical dialogs and ruminations.

There are about 60 participants in the conference. One of the topics which are discussed the most is Zen and laughter (the most discussed topic is Zhuang Zi and laughter, but I am not going to talk about that one). William LaFleur presented us with this beautiful poem whose original was written in Japan in the 12th century:

I thought I was free
of passion, so this melancholy
comes as a surprise;
a woodcock shoots up from marsh
where autumn twilight fails.

The poem was composed by Saigyo and LaFleur told us that it was a very famous one. Saigyo was a Buddhist monk and we can see the clear Buddhist tone in it. What captured my interest in the poem is how it describes the mind of one who is liberated. According to LaFleur, the word that translates as ‘melancholy’ here is from the Japanese ‘a-wa-re’. This is a three-syllable word and it conveys the meaning of a sudden realization or a surprise. LaFleur said that it meant something like an ‘Aha-ness’ — the feeling you suddenly realize something, so you say to yourself “Aha.”

The speaker in the poem thought that he was free from all the passions; that is, he, as a Buddhist monk, thought that his mind was pure from defilements and was as still as a surface of the water on a windless pond. However, an occasional melancholy thought arose and this came as an a-wa-re. Then suddenly a woodchuck rose up from the quiet water pond when it was dusk in an autumn.

I believe that if the speaker (Saigyo himself) was not a liberated one, he could not have noticed the stillness of his mind in such a way that he could notice the occasional melancholy. In our everyday, confused mind, there are so many things happening at the same time that we could hardly notice an occasional thought. Our minds are like a busy street of Bangkok where everybody is putting out noices, each competing with one another. In that situation it is hardly possible to notice something that happens all of a sudden, because we tend to overlook it. But since Saigyo’s mind was as still as the pond in the autumn dusk, the rise of the woodchuck then came as a surprise. This is how the mind of a Buddha really works.

Filed under: Buddhism, Happiness , Buddhism, France, Japanese poetry, laughter, philosophy, poetry, Zen