"Here's a story you might not have heard before. A man and woman, destined by their past karma, became husband and wife. Both were excellent at their work - the wife was very good at her job, and so was the husband.
In modern times, weren't they doing well financially? They bought gold with their extra money. They lived together for five years without having any children.In the sixth year, they had a son. Weren't the couple overjoyed like cats playing with cloth? They were so happy when their son was born.From then on, over the next five years, they had five sons in total. Could the mother continue working? Their two-person workforce reduced to one, right?When one person stopped working, didn't their food expenses increase by five mouths? After seven or eight years, their income couldn't match their expenses. They had to sell their gold, you see?Later, there was no more gold to sell, and the income wasn't enough. When their living conditions became difficult, the husband became irritable. He complained about excessive kitchen expenses. The wife couldn't take it anymore and argued back.She said, "It's because you're incompetent! Look at Mr. Smith's family next door. They have twelve people in their household. Ten children and two parents - twelve people total. Look how well they manage their food and living!"They argued and eventually divorced. When people argue, is it from love or hate? It's from hate! Isn't this worth thinking about? These are things to consider."
"There are five aggregates of form (rūpakkhandha) related to the five sense doors:
- Eyes and visible forms
- Ears and sounds
- Nose and smells
- Tongue and tastes (sweet, sour, spicy, salty, bitter, astringent)
- Body and tangible objects (earth element, fire element, air element)
These are the five sense doors.
In these rūpakkhandha, there is neither good nor bad inherently. Good and bad arise only through wrong attention (ayoniso manasikāra).
After the couple divorced and two or three months passed, during the summer months of Tabaung and Tagu when schools were closed, people were busy with various ceremonies - some with novitiation ceremonies, some with weddings, some with house-warming ceremonies. Village elders would attend these ceremonies.
The elders would ask, "We heard there's a couple who divorced in your neighborhood, is that true?" Wouldn't they ask that? And wouldn't people respond, "Yes, that's true"? They'd ask, "How long has it been?" "About three months now."
"With all the elders in your neighborhood, should you let it go on this long? You should help reconcile them."
The elders from different villages would discuss this. The neighborhood elders would also bring it up at weddings, novitiation ceremonies, and house-warmings. They'd say, "We don't feel right about this. We should help reconcile them."
They'd say, "You take the wife's side, I'll take the husband's side." They'd ask, "How many times have you two fought?" "Just this once." The elders would respond, "We've had four fights in our marriage. It took four times before things really settled down."
"We fought four times, but now we don't fight anymore. You should be patient at least this one time," wouldn't they say that?"
"Wouldn't they ask, 'When you eat, don't you sometimes accidentally bite your tongue?' Wouldn't they answer 'Yes'? Wouldn't they ask 'Why did you bite it?' 'It was unintentional. Just like this situation - it was unintentional, so you should be patient.'
When they reasoned like this, the couple was able to reconcile. Didn't they get back together? Let's examine this: if there was truly something to love between the man and woman, would they fight?
When there is something to love, there is no fighting. And if there was truly something to hate, could they be reconciled? No, they couldn't. Isn't it clear there was nothing to hate? Isn't it clear there was nothing to love?
That's why it's taught that neutral feeling (upekkhā vedanā) arises in the eye, neutral feeling arises in the ear, neutral feeling arises in the nose, neutral feeling arises in the tongue. Isn't it taught that pleasant feeling (somanassa vedanā) and unpleasant feeling (domanassa vedanā) arise in the mind? This happens because of wrong attention (ayoniso manasikāra).
Now, in what is seen and what is to be seen, is there anything inherently lovable? Is there anything inherently hateful? Isn't this worth examining? These phenomena are free from love and hate. It's wrong attention that creates these feelings.
Therefore, 'Perception (saññā) covers what is seen, and when perception is investigated, doubt is cleared.' What is seen is just visible form-element. Perception labels it as 'princess' or 'prince.' Isn't this a misperception? Perception covers what is seen. Only when perception is investigated can doubt be cleared..."
.jpeg)
