 |
| Two years ago, Nepalese Buddhists in Los Angeles had a large celebration. |
.jpg) |
| Dhammakaya has a giant Thai Buddhist temple in Los Angeles (City of Azusa) like Bangkok. |
Vesak: The most important Buddhist holiday?
 |
| Vesak is also called "Buddhist Xmas" |
- 0:00 Intro
- 2:08 Unknown Historical Origins of Vesak
- 3:10 Vesak Rituals and Practices
- 6:06 Buddhist Modernism and Vesak
- 9:57 Growth of Vesak
Ultimate things
What is the point of details, of the minutiae, if scholars can't speak accurately? Vesak (Vesakha, Visakha, Wesak, Buddha Day, Buddha Purnima Jayanti) is a thrice blessed day in Theravada Buddhism.
It was under the same full moon on this day, in three different years (about 2,600 years ago), that
- Siddhartha Gautama was reborn in the human world,
- became the Buddha or the "Awakened One," and
- passed into final nirvana.
Where they are reborn depends on their karma, and that rebirth they endure is instantaneous. (Even allowing for Vajrayana or Himalayan Esoteric Buddhism's 40 days in the Bardo or "intermediary state" between rebirths, one has still gone from this plane to rebirth into that intermediary state, only to be reborn elsewhere 40 days later.
At the instant of passing away from this world and this part of the human plane, one immediately arises in another plane, rarely on this one again. One is reborn (reappears, rearises) in the subtle form of a spontaneously-born (born without parents) gandhabba. (This may look like an "immortal soul" to anyone who cultivates the dibba cakkhu or "divine eye" because it didn't die at death, but it is no such thing; it is a transient assemblage of the Five Aggregates). From there one is likely to be reborn as a (deva), because there are many devic planes, or as a ghost (peta) because there are many hungry ghosts or a being elsewhere in the downfall because most humans most of the time, in history, do not behave keep, namely keeping the Five Precepts, but live in such a way that they go from darkness to darkness unless they have heeded the teaching of a spiritual teacher. The Buddha was extraordinary because he was a teacher of the path to heaven AND the path to the end of all rebirth and suffering. Followers may choose either route, even selecting to engage in the karma that brings one back to the human plane.
But a fully enlightened person or arhat has overcome all of this, and with the end of all rebirths, there is an end to all further suffering. The Buddha is an arhat, a consummate one, so it is very wrong and misleading to loosely say that his passing into final nirvana is "death." We die, our passing away is death, but that term does not apply to those who have made an end of death and rebirth, which is what awakening (bodhi) is.
- One should understand and always bear in mind that in Buddhism there are two truth, conventional and ultimate, and they should never be confused. Things may sound strange, paradoxical, or impossible, but the solution is usually that someone has switched from talking in a normal, customary manner (as happens in the sutras) to using terms in their abstract, ultimate sense. This flips the whole world around, and people reading about Buddhism without bearing this in mind might suddenly misapprehend and think, "The Buddha said so." The Buddha was very good about keeping the conventional conventional and the ultimate ultimate. Ultimate language and phrasing are characteristic of the Abhidharma ("Higher Doctrine" or the "Dharma in Ultimate Terms"). To make this concrete is very easy nowadays because most of us have learned about physics. A car is solid, conventionally speaking; we can all see and test that. But, ultimately, we now know a solid car is mainly composed of empty space; this is true on a higher level. It is more true than the first. But trying to pass through the car, which is really more empty space than matter, will not end well. How could both truths be true? They are, and though we use the same words, they mean different things in ordinary usage than they do in physics. In exactly the same way, it is possible to both say that a solid car is not solid at all, that dense material is composed overwhelmingly (99%+) of empty space, and not be confused in the slightest. If this example is not clear, it is better to go read about modern physics than continuing to read about ancient ultimate truths in Buddhism. We may not be able to prove that physics is true, but we can prove that Buddhism is true. Here even "prove" means two different things. Presumably, scientists can objectively demonstrate to other similarly trained scientists that these claims of empty space in the centers of atoms is true; we can't see that, but they can or they claim they can. Successful Buddhist meditators can see kalapas ("particles" of perception) and can then begin to turn their temporarily purified minds/hearts towards seeing the more subtle constructs known as cittas ("mind moments"). In this way, ultimate materiality and ultimate mentality are reveals, and one sees without a doubt that this is the way things are. With this knowledge and vision, one becomes dispassionate, and lets go, and in this way awakens to the ultimate truth here and now. Nirvana is not for the afterlife. It is experienced and resorted to in this very life. It is the ultimate bliss, the ultimate peace, a true refuge from all suffering. We can prove it for ourselves. Sadly, we cannot then prove it for another. A scientist can throw data at us and interpret it as meaning this or that, empty space or solid matter. A Buddhist is not able to force someone to see things as they really are. There are protections in place in samsara to keep us ignorant of the ultimate truth, to keep is craving and searching for sensual pleasures wherever we can find them, and to constantly not see that all things are impermanent. If we cannot see the three most obvious things about all phenomena, about all planes of existence, about all things, how are we to ever know-and-see what the Buddha realized, what the Buddha taught, and what countless others practiced and enjoyed when they came to see what he saw that made him the "Awakened One"? Buddhism has a point, and it is not to debate or argue with science. Its point is to lead to awakening, enlightenment, and the end of all suffering. Every other teaching may lead to great things, indeed to great places and planes of rebirth, but no other Teaching (dharma), has a means of ending all suffering for once and for all time.
DETAILS CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
 |
| Vesak (Visakha) Day is big every year in California in particular. |
.
One should not fall under the wrong view that nirvana is death, emptiness, nothingness, or nonexistence.
Our minds with their characteristic defilements (greed, hatred, delusion) are quick to conceive of things in accordance with each mind's predominant defilement.
Those with a predominance of greed (passion, preference, lust, clinging) type will tend to view nirvana (amata = "the deathless") will tend to imagine nirvana as eternal life.
Those with a predominance of hate (aversion, revulsion, anger, fear) will tend to imagine it as annihilation.
Those with a predominance of delusion (ignorance, wrong views, doubt, uncertainty) will be confused, doubtful, vacillating.
These views are all wrong, and the Buddha spent years pointing this out to those who asked. The nature of nirvana and the one who enters it after this life was a frequent cause of useless speculation and views. The Buddha found such questions unprofitable because of all the assumptions the questioner came with. No answer would suffice without driving the questioner into holding wrong view. What the Buddha taught instead of answering such speculative things was the path to know-and-see directly.
For instance, if one wanted to know what San Francisco is like, one might ask and hear all about it harbor, bridge, and boats then come under the false impression that is a water world. Or hearing about its winding roads, traffic, and trolleys, one might think it is all dry asphalt. Then, if one were able, one might not answer questions about San Francisco but provide a map, directions, and guidance toward it. Anyone arriving would cease to have any question or uncertainty about it that that person could not answer for oneself without relying on a teacher. That is Buddhism, not a set of theories, dogmas, or beliefs but a path-of-practice to awakening, inviting one to come and see for oneself.
Our categories do not apply, and they are incorrect because of our unquestioned assumptions. We ask, as was asked in ancient times, What becomes of the arhat (an accomplished one or, speaking to the Buddha, one might phrase it, What happens to the Tathagata) after death? Does he (the arhat or the Buddha) exist, not exist, both exist and not exist, or neither exist nor not exist?
This exhausts the logical possibilities to imagine the surprise when the correct answer is "none of the above." All are wrong views holding an unquestioned assumption.
We assume, for example, that there is a being here right now, and that later, after death (or disappearing from the human world), in an afterlife, that being no longer exists. This is incorrect.
Or we assume a being is here now, and later, after death, in an afterlife, that being continues to exist for eternity. This is incorrect.
Well, it can't be both, and it certainly can't be neither, so which is it? It has to be one or the other, right? No.
The Truth is, the being we assume to be here right now is actually not, so how much less does it become eternalized or annihilated when it passes away from here?
Well, okay, that's counterintuitive, but then what happens?
What is arising now, which we take to be a "mortal and changing personality" or an "immortal and unchanging soul," arises dependent on conditions. (This is called Dependent Origination). This is how things arise.
It is wrong to say nothing is here. (It is better to say no thing is here, which is a little different but not different enough for that to make sense to most people). Something is here, but all things (dhammas, phenomena) are passing away.
- What things are here? Constituents. What is not here? What those constituents seem to create or originate. If there are three separate colors, what is there? Three colors. If those colors are combined to make a new color (say by adding red, blue, and another color to make purple), what is there? Conventionally speaking, there are no longer the three colors, and what now exists is a new color. This is obvious. What is not obvious is what really, ultimately speaking, exists. There are three separate colors, what is there? Three colors. If those colors are combined to make a new color, what is there? Ultimately speaking, three colors. Though they seem to have changed, there really are only those things after they've combined. So what to make of the new fourth color? It is not really new but implicit in the others: this is what the combination of those colors looks like. We imagine something new came into being, so logically we are forced to conclude that if we separate them, the new color is "annihilated." Things (everything excluding nirvana, which is not a "thing" and does not have the characteristics of things) come together, turn, and pass away. A living being, or the illusion of one, comes together, turns (changes, transforms), and passes away. What is it that is changing? The Five Aggregates? What is it that passes away? Ignorance (the illusion of it being a being when the constituents are no longer functionally integrated). The being, who did not really come into existence, does not pass away, but the illusion that arose does. Conventionally, we see what's going on, and wrong assessments are made, wrong assumptions, wrong conclusions. And we enter a world of suffering. What if we could let go of it and end the problem? That would be nice but we can't let go, and this is not the extent of it so that even death is not the end. Death means rebirth; rebirth means death. A clever person may ask, "Who" enters into existence? This question is wrongly put. Ignorance arises; a being does not come into existence. "Who" physically forms, feels, perceives, mentally forms, and is conscious? This question is wrongly put. It should not be "who" but "what." If we ask, "What forms?" the answer is very easy and apparent. If we ask, "What feels?" the answer is very easy and apparent. If we ask, "Who is conscious?" the question is wrongly asked. But ask what is conscious and the answer is very easy (if unsatisfying) and apparent: Form forms. Feelings feel. Perception perceives. Mental formations form. And consciousness is conscious. Clinging to these as a "being," "ego," "self," "soul" is the mistake. Undoing that mistake is enlightenment and awakening. The Buddha taught the path to achieve that. In ignorance we cling to the illusion of self; clinging clings. The aggregates cling to themselves as something else, as the whole being more than the sum of its parts. It is, conventionally. But ultimately, it is not. This becomes clear with the purification of the mind. Otherwise, with a defiled mind, this information becomes dangerous. This teaching is like wrongly grasping a venomous snake. Seize it by the tail and get bitten and die in agony. Seize it by the head and all is well.
It is also wrong to say that a "being" is here because that is not quite right. A "being" appears to be here, but that "being" resolves into constituent parts, none of which are real for more than a moment.
In fact, they endure for less than a moment. This is because there are three submoments or phases (arising, turning, and passing) of whatever arises.
It is not that we are born, begin to exist, and then pass out of existence years later; this is, of course, how it seems. But what is really happening, and one may observe this directly as one awakens, is that an impersonal process in a past life reappears in this life and passing from here and wanders on into a future life.
At any moment in any life, one may ask, What is it that is actually arising? The correct answer will not be a "being" but an illusion because Five Aggregates clung to as self are arising, not an actual being who is destined to die and be reborn.
Each of the aggregates -- form (kalapas), feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness (cittas) -- which we assume to be the "being" is, in fact, a momentary process or flux.
Even now a thought or feeling or perception is arising and passing away. What replaces it, what is next, is nearly identical but not identical. Therefore, what was is gone and what came after is about to go, and we nevertheless cling to this process as an unchanging essence or being, when at its core there is no such being. How can it really die? It cannot except in the fact that it is always dying, at every moment and submoment.
How can it really be reborn? It cannot, except that a continuation of the impersonal/empty process gets called a rebirth. In fact, one is at every moment being reborn. This is what it means to say that "all things are impermanent."
This refers to radical impermanence, not casual and apparent decay. Of course, a building is erected and one day falls. This is impermanence, but this is not radical impermanence. Radical impermanence says that at a subatomic level, all of the ions and atoms, quarks and muons, everything (spoken of in ancient Buddhist physics as kalapas or "particles" that constitute materiality), is arising, turning, and passing away, moving, vibrating, decaying, hurtling toward destruction.
This is happening extremely quickly, so quickly that we see no motion, as when a propeller spins so fast it seems to not be moving at all or when hurtling through space something seems to be motionless because there is no apparent contrast or when a smooth river looks like a solid body of water when in fact every molecule of H20 is in constant change and upheaval.
So Siddhartha, passing from a world called Tusita, reappeared on the human plane in this world (because this is far from the only world within the human plane), meditated, awakened, and taught others the path-of-practice to awaken. And in doing so, he made an end of ignorance, an end of wrong view, an end of delusion, and saw things as they really are.
Therefore, the impersonal process of rebirth was brought to cessation and with it all further suffering. Even in seeing things as they really are, before passing away, he (like all arhats) was intimate with nirvana, saw it, experienced it, knew it to be real and a refuge (sarana) so that nothing could really bother him because everything else was understood to be unreal -- passing, incapable of satisfying or fulfilling one, and impersonal -- so, without identifying with this process (the aggregates formerly clung to as self), what suffering could there be?
There could only be apparent suffering, illusory suffering, the burdens of this corporeal phenomena (aging, sickness, death, and hunger), which when no longer identified with, are harmless.
Everything is just as it is, and it is fine the way it is. This is not true for us yet, but it is true for arhats. The Buddha, as all buddhas, in seeing this, was free. So that is why it is incorrect and very misleading to think that Vesak celebrates his "death."
It celebrates the opposite, his freedom from death (the deathless state = nirvana). It is thrice blessed because the birth (rebirth), the great awakening, and the passing into final nirvana all took place on the same full moon day of the month of Vesakha in Year 1, Year 35, and Year 80 of his conventional life.
No comments:
Post a Comment