From Bodha Gaya to Ultimate Truth

 

"For example..., think about it.

Let's hear something we've never heard before.
Take Bodha Gaya city.

About Bodha Gaya city, let's search for it by motorcycle...
A car can't go where the road is narrow.
But a motorcycle can go, you see?
Let's search by motorcycle.

Do you find Bodha Gaya city or houses?
Do you find Bodha Gaya city or people?
You don't find the city.

You only find houses, buildings, and people, right?

Well, don't we still call it Bodha Gaya city? Think about it.
People call it Bodha Gaya city,
But what we actually see - is it the city or human dwellings?

Human dwellings.
Do you still find 'Bodha Gaya city'?
When you look for a village too, you'll only find human dwellings.
Do you find the village or houses? Only houses, right? Isn't this worth examining? Study this.

Now, in your mind and wisdom,
These houses have tin roofs. Mentally remove all the tin roofs and pile them up.

Then remove the floorboards, take out the beams and rafters, pull up the floor, remove the joists, pull out the posts, pile them up.
Is it still a house or just a pile of wood and bamboo?

You can't even find the house anymore, can you? Isn't this worth examining? You just find piles of wood and bamboo.
Touch these piles with your hand
Do you find wood piles or hardness?
That hardness is the earth element, isn't it worth examining?

Is the knowing of hardness a self or body-consciousness? Isn't body-consciousness a mental phenomenon?
Isn't hardness a physical phenomenon?
So, mind and matter.

Is a village mind and matter?
Is a city mind and matter?
Is a house mind and matter?
Is a pile of wood mind and matter?

You only find mind and matter, isn't this worth studying?

So, we call a collection of wood and bamboo arrangements a 'house,' and we call a collection of human dwellings a 'city' or 'village.' Isn't this worth examining? Think about it.

When you think you see a person, put on the wisdom glasses the Buddha gave:
Do you see a person or visible form?
You see visible form.

Perception covers what is seen.
Isn't it taught that doubt is cleared only when perception is understood?

What is seen is visible form element.
Perception labels it as human, deity, or brahma. Isn't this worth contemplating?"

"When perception removes the aggregates, is there still a person elsewhere?
No, there isn't.
That's why all Buddhas taught that people, devas, brahmas, and beings are concepts of what does not exist.

People, devas, brahmas, and beings are concepts of what does not exist.
'Person' is just a designation
'Deva' is just a designation
'Brahma' is just a designation
'Being' is just a designation
There are designations and names

What exists whether designated or not is mind and matter.
Isn't it worth examining how it exists?
It exists as impermanence
It exists as suffering
It exists as non-self

Isn't this worth studying?

So, we only find mind and matter, right? Do we still find cities, villages, countries?
We find only mind and matter. Do we still find houses? Do we still find people? We find only mind and matter.

Isn't it taught as 'the voidness of mind and matter'?
Search in matter - do you find a city? A village? Persons and beings?
Why don't we find them? We only find mind and matter.

On these two phenomena of mind and matter, didn't they use conventional designations like 'Brother Ananda,' 'Son Rahula,' 'beloved daughter,' 'beloved son'? These are conventional designations.

Did the Buddha reject these conventional terms and designations? No. If he had, how could there be conversation? How could the Dhamma be taught? There are conventions and designations. What did he reject? Isn't this worth examining?

Don't we think 'person' exists? When you think 'person' and touch it, do you find a person or hardness? Is the knowing of hardness a self or body-consciousness? Isn't there mental phenomena? Isn't hardness physical phenomena? These two - mind and matter - is it a person or mind and matter? We only find mind and matter.

Why don't we find a person? That's what's rejected. The conventional designations aren't rejected. Don't we think 'person' exists? Don't we take it as existing? That's what's rejected. Isn't this worth examining?"

"We only find mind and matter - isn't it taught as 'understanding through full knowledge of the known'? When we continue observing, doesn't physical phenomena change and dissolve? Don't mental phenomena know and dissolve? Isn't it taught as arising and passing away? Which truth is this? (It's the Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir) Is it a pleasant or suffering phenomenon?

When we truly understand it as suffering, does the ignorance (avijja) that wrongly perceives happiness in human, deva, and brahma realms cease or not?

When ignorance ceases, will craving come? Will clinging come? Will kamma come?
Don't the three types of Dependent Origination break?

- Dependent Origination of Craving
- Dependent Origination of Clinging
- Dependent Origination of Kamma

When these three break, doesn't the story of future aggregates end? Isn't this called Nirodha (cessation)?

#Nirodha_means_cessation_of_defilements_and_aggregates
When there are no aggregates, isn't there peace?
When there are no defilements, isn't there coolness? What do we call this state of peace and coolness? (Nibbana, Venerable Sir)

Let's examine this.
The present aggregates are arising and passing away
Which truth is this? (Truth of Suffering, Venerable Sir)
The knowing is (Path Truth, Venerable Sir)
The origin is (Truth of Origin, Venerable Sir)
No future aggregates coming is (Truth of Cessation, Venerable Sir)

How many squares are in Dependent Origination? (Four squares, Venerable Sir)
How many factors in each square? (Five factors, Venerable Sir)
Five times four equals (Twenty)
These eight factors (Should be easily memorized as the way to liberation from samsara)

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu"