EXCERPTS

SUFFERING AND THE CESSATION OF SUFFERING

After six years of recluseship, the Buddha attained deliverance. When becoming enlightened, he knew what suffering was and what the cessation of suffering was. And in his forty-five years of his teaching he taught what suffering was and what the cessation of suffering was. He said to Anur(dha: Good, good, Arun(dha! Formerly, Arun(dha, and also now, I make know just suffering and the cessation of suffering. The word Nibb(na means no craving; craving, as we see later, leads to suffering; so Nibb(na means the cessation of suffering. The Buddha said to the wandering ascetic Uttiya: Having directly known it, Uttiya, I have taught the Dhamma to my disciples for the purification of beings, for getting beyond sorrow and lamentation, for the ending of pain and grief, for attaining to the method of liberation and for realizing Nibb(na.

The question Is the cessation of suffering in this life or is it in the next life? is raised because the cessation of suffering is often understood as happening in the next life. The Buddha was enlightened and so after death he entered Nibb(na and was not born again in the round of births and deaths, in the round of suffering. Therefore Nibb(na in the next life is the ultimate goal of his followers.

But are the Buddhas teachings about the next life?

The Buddha says that he does not teach (1) After death, a Tath(gata exists, (2) After death, a Tath(gata does not exist, (3) After death, a Tath(gata both exists and does not exist and (4) After death, a Tath(gata neither exists nor does not exist. Briefly, he does not teach the rebirth in the after life.

Why does he not talk about the next life? It is possible to say that he, as a human being, sees truth in this life. If he talks about the next life, he does it in guessing, according to his faith. He says that the Tath(gata is not apprehended as real and actual in this very life, let alone the Tath(gata in the next life.

IMPERMANENCE
Impermanence is often understood as change, existing today and vanishing tomorrow, like a flower that blossoms in the morning and withers in the evening, like a shadow of a horse running past a window. All things are so impermanent. So impermanent indicates ephemeral, non-eternal. Indeed the idea of impermanence had existed in Hinduism before the Buddha. Indeed that idea exists everywhere and has begun since unknown point of time, maybe since the beginning of man. Who does not know that a flower blossoms in the morning and withers in the evening? Who does not know that some day he will leave this world?

Thus such an idea of impermanence is only universal knowledge. Whoever thinks a little knows all things are impermanent. If the Buddha talked about that kind of impermanence, his thought would not be so deep.

So what is the difference between the impermanence of an ordinary person and that of the Buddha? The impermanence of an ordinary person is that to which he attaches himself. Why is that? An ordinary person sees impermanent things and he sees them alone and nothing else. The impermanence of an ordinary person is of no important meaning. In other words, an ordinary person sees only the material shore.

A number of scholars interpret that the Buddha teaches impermanence in order that (1) people know it and (2) so they do not attach to things any longer. But, as we have just said, without the Buddhas teaching they know that all things are impermanent. And it is incorrect to say that the knowledge of impermanence leads people to the non-attachment to things. They know all things are impermanent and they still attach to them. The attachment to the material world is evident and the knowledge of impermanence is not less evident. We have this saying: Even a drop of rain on a rock would be better than no rain at all. So it seems that not because of the above reason that the Buddha talks about impermanence.

The impermanence of the Buddha is the impermanence to which he does not attach. Why is that? For he sees something permanent and this is beyond the material shore. So the impermanence of the Buddha is of an important meaning. In other words, he sees two shores: the material shore is impermanent and the immaterial shore is permanent.

Therefore the Buddha, when he speaks of impermanence of things, wants to express their non-essentiality. We think that the material world is all or essential. The Buddha wants to teach us that the material world is not all or not essential. We are ignorant when we think such. There is something else and this is permanent and essential. Here let us understand this something else as the other shore. The Buddha tells us to go to the other shore, for the other shore is essential.

REBIRTH

Rebirth is often understood as birth after death, or next life. Buddhism believes in rebirth. In numerous popular books about Buddhism, rebirth is understood in that meaning. But if the Buddha talks about suffering and the cessation of suffering here and now or in this life, how can he talk about a rebirth in that meaning?

In the perspective of the Dhamma, two aspects of life are ignorance and enlightenment. We can change from ignorance to enlightenment and from enlightenment to ignorance. The Buddha uses the term rebirth to indicate the change from enlightenment to ignorance. So rebirth has a mental or spiritual meaning, not a bodily one. The recurrent round is perpetual wandering on this shore. We continually reach the other shore and then we continually return to this shore. This return is called rebirth. We have to know what the Buddha talks about birth in order to know the meaning of rebirth. And what, bhikkhus, is birth? In whatever beings, of whatever group of beings, there is birth, coming-to-be, coming forth, the appearance of the aggregates, the acquisition of the sense bases, - that is called birth. Birth means coming into existence on this shore.

So enlightenment is going from this shore to the other shore and rebirth is going from the other shore to this shore. To understand the Buddhas thought, we have to overcome the concept that for the Buddha rebirth means rebirth after death, even though this might be what people naturally understand by rebirth. When the Buddha said that he would no more be reborn, he wanted to say that he would no more return to this shore, and not that he would not be reborn after death.

In the Basket of Discourses the following sentence is repeated numerous times: Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what was to be done is done, there is no more rebirth (no more of this to come). The Buddha was enlightened and would not return to ignorance. An ordinary person lives sometimes, one day, one month in ignorance, sometimes, one day, one month in enlightenment. He always returns to this shore. So if a person always lives in ignorance (never, even in one minute, in enlightenment), can he be regarded as living in the round of rebirths? Of course, if that is true, he is not subject to rebirth: he is always immersed in the ocean of suffering. However, because the Way is always within the heart of each person, it is hard to find a person who is always immersed in the ocean of suffering. But in our time of utmost decadence, it is possible that there are numerous such persons; they are called men of lost conscience.