بيدار انديشي و روشن بيني
سام قندچي
اجازه دهيد قبل از هر چيز ذکر کنم که در اين نوشتار من هيچ مذهبي و از جمله بودائيسم را ترويج نميکنم. در واقع، به خوانندگان پيشنهاد ميکنم که فيلم سينمائي "آنا و پادشاه Anna and the King" را ببينند که نشان ميدهد چگونه مذهب بودائيسم به مواردي از ظلم و ستم در تاريخ مرتبط بوده است. همچنين پيشنهاد ميکنم خوانندگان فيلمي به نام "آبWater" را ببينند که نشان ميدهد مذهب هندو نيز چه فجايع انساني را تا به امروز مرتکب شده است. جالب است که مانند همه مذاهب ديگر، هواداران فناتيک بودائيسم و هندوئيسم هم سعي در ممنوع کردن اين فيلم ها کرده اند. مکاتيب ديگر ايدئولوژي غير مذهبي هم از فاشيسم تا کمونيسم موارد مشابه ظلم و ستم را نشان داده اند. اين را نوشتم که روشن باشد هدف من تطهير يک مذهب يا ايدئولوژي معين نيست بلکه هدف بحث برخي ايده هائي است که بودا طرح کرده است و من آنها را جالب يافته ام.
بيش از يکسال پيش در مقاله اي تحت عنوان "ايران و بيدار انديشي[http://www.ghandchi.com/391-Awake.htm]" منظورم از *بيدار انديشي* را به شرح زير توضيح دادم:"منظور من از *بيدار انديشي*، نوع معيني از انديشيدن نيست، و حتي به فکر کردن هم محدود نيست و نحوه توجه ما به همه هستي است. يعني منظور من از بيدار انديشي، بيدارawake بودن، آگاهaware بودن، وبه عبارت بهتر انديشناکmindful زندگي کردن است. حکايت پائين از کريشنا مورتيKrishnamurti، اين تفاوت را خيلي خوب توضيح ميدهد:"توجه داشتن attention با تمرکز حواسconcentration يکي نيست. تمرکز حواس، بيرون نگاه داشتن است؛ در صورتيکه توجه، که آگاهي کامل است، چيزي را بيرون نميگذارد، و همه چيز را شامل ميشود. بنظر من ميرسد که اکثر ما آگاه نيستيم، نه تنها درباره آنچه ميگوئيم، بلکه درباره محيط زيست مان، ابرها، و حرکت آب. شايد به اين خاطر که ما خيلي نگران خوديم ، يعني مشغول با مسائل کوچک جزئي خود، ايده هاي خود، لذت هاي خود، جستجوها و جاه طلبي هاي خوديم، که بطور عيني آگاه نيستيم. اما ما خيلي درباره آگاهي حرف ميزنيم. يکبار در هندوستان من با اتومبيل سفر ميکردم. راننده اي بود که ماشين را ميراند و من در کنار او نشسته بودم. سه آقاي متشخص در صندلي پشت نشسته بودند، و درباره آگاهي بحث ميکردند، و متأسفانه در همان لحظه راننده به جاي ديگري نگاهش رفته و بزي را به زير گرفت، و آن سه جنتلمن کماکان مشغول بحث آگاهي بودند کاملأ ناآگاه از آنکه بزي را به زير گرفته بودند. وقتي اين فقدان توجه به آن آقايان که ميخواستند آگاه باشند ياد آوري شد، خيلي تعجب کردند [کريشنا مورتي، "آزادي از شناخته شدهFreedom From the Known"، متن انگليسي، 1969، ص31]."عبارات بالا نشان ميدهند که بيدار انديشي درباره نحوه توجه به جهان است و نه فقط شکلي از انديشيدن. در نتيجه آگاهي را نميتوان فقط برابر با آموختن دانست، همانطور که بسياري آگاه هستند که سيگار سم مضر است، اما از ترک آن عاجزند. در واقع اين حقيقت، چه توسط متفکرين تيزبين شرق نظير بودا، و چه بوسيله انديشمندان علم گراي غرب نظير رنه دکارت اذعان شده است. در رابطه با بودا، حکايت زير جالب توجه است، که در واقع جوهر تأمل انديشمندانهmeditation بودائي را در بيدار انديشي توضيح ميدهد، لازم به ياد آوري است که اصطلاح "ويپاساناvipassana " که در متن زير آمده است بمعني ديدن همه چيز آنگونه که هست، ميباشد: "ميگويند اندکي پس از روشن بيني enlightenment، بودا از کنار مردي در سر راه گذر ميکرد که آن مرد از تشعشع و آرامش فوق العاده حضور بودا يکه خورده و ميايستد و ميپرسد: "دوست عزيز، شما چه هستيد؟ آيا شما يک موجود زميني هستيد يا يک خدائيد؟" بودا ميگويد، "نه." "خب، پس، آيا شما يک جادوگر يا ساحريد؟" دوباره بودا پاسخ ميدهد، "نه." "آيا شما يک انسانيد؟" "نه." "خب، دوست من، پس شما چه هستيد؟" بودا پاسخ ميدهد، "من بيدار هستم." نام بودا يعني "کسي که بيدار است، و اين تجربه است، که جوهر واقعي و اساس ويپاساناvipassana ، يا بصيرت تأمل انديشمندانهinsight meditation را تشکيل ميدهد [جک کورنفيلدJack Kornfield، "جستجوي جوهر فرزانگيSeeking the Heart of Wisdom" ، متن انگليسي، 1987، ص 3]."همانطور که اشاره شد حقيقت بالا درباره جوهر تأمل انديشمندانه، نه تنها بوسيله متفکرين تيزبين شرق نظير بودا بلکه بوسيله انديشمندان علم گراي غرب نظير رنه دکارت نيز اذعان شده است که مفصلاً در نوشته "دکارت و لائيکات" [http://www.ghandchi.com/397-Descartes.htm] آنرا بحث کرده ام که چرا از نظر من ريشه تأمل انديشمندانه دکارت که پايه گذار فلسفي علمي مدرن است، در آموزش بودا نهفته است. در آن رساله درباره نظريه دکارت نوشتم که او "برخورد مشابهي با اصل cogito (عبارت معروف دکارت که ميگويد: من فکر ميکنم، پس هستم) دارد که بنظر من معنايش شبيه اين انديشه بودائي است که وقتي سؤال کنيم "من کيستم،" دريابيم که "من" آنوقت معني دارد،که درباره خود *فکر* کنيم. وگرنه، عبارت *خود* به تنهائي مجموعه اي از احساسات، حرکات، و غيره است، که گرچه واقعيت دارند، اما بيان چيزي بنام "من" بمثابه يک مفهوم concept، نيستند!"البته ارزيابي من از فلسفه علمي دکارتي مورد قبول عمومي نيست و مثلاً با تحليل والپولا راهولا محقق بودائي از اين موضوع متفاوت است که مينويسد، "...ما نميتوانيم انکار کنيم که اين ديدگاه بودائي [يعني اينکه هيچ فکر کننده اي در پشت انديشه نيست و خود فکر همان فکر کننده است] صد و هشتاد درجه در تقابل با اصل دکارتي cogito "من فکر ميکنم، پس هستم" قرار دارد [والپولا راهولا، "بودا چه فکر ميکرد،" 1958، انتشارات گروو، ص. 26]. برعکس نظر وي، من مفصلاً در رساله "دکارت و لائيکات" بحث کردم که ديدگاه دکارتي نيز به اين معني است که "من" فقط وقتي معني دارد که ما شروع به انديشيدن کنيم، در غير آنصورت "من" فقط مجموعه اي از چيزها، اتمها، و غيره است. بنابراين بنظر من نقطه آغاز دکارت در تأمل انديشمندانه اش که پايه گذاري متد علمي است، همان نقطه آغازي است که بودا وقتي که به معناي *خود* ميپردازد، در نظرش است. همچنين براي توضيح بيشتر درباره درک من از عمل تأمل انديشمندانه در انديشه بودا لطفاً به نوشتار "کنفرانس پرندگان" [http://www.ghandchi.com/320-Conference.htm] مراجعه کنيد.
***
اما آنچه در اين نوشته ميخواهم بحث کنم روشن بيني است. آيا روشن بيني قابل دسترسي است؟ آيا روشن بيني با علم در تعارض است؟ آيا روشن بيني معادل ديدگاه عرفاني است و نه يکسان با ديدگاه علمي؟در مقايسه با آنچه درباره برداشت از روشن بيني در ميان خردگرايان و علم گرايان غرب نظير دکارت ذکر کردم، بنظر من در ايران اساساً درک غلطي از آموزش بودا وجود داشته است و بمثابه معادل عرفان و در تقابل با علم درک شده است. به همين سبب از يکسو علم گرايان ما از اين مبحث گذشته اند و از سوي ديگر متفکرين عرفان منش ما روشن بيني را در برابر درک علمي درک کرده و بدانسان اشاعه داده اند.چرا در ايران روشن بيني غلط درک شده است؟بنظر من درک مذهبي مونيستي از جهان در انديشه ايراني چه قبل از اسلام، در افکار زرتشت، و چه پس از اسلام در انديشه اسلامي، در ايران رواج و تفوق داشته، و از پشتيباني دولت برخوردار بوده است، و اين امر باعث شده است که متفکرين ايران همه چيز را در چارچوب ا انديشه يکتاگرائي توضيح دهند. مهمترين مؤلفه اين يکتاگرائي اعتقاد به خدائي است که مسؤل اين جهان است و در نتيجه حتي عرفا که ميخواهند همه چيز را در يک وحدت وجود توضيح دهند، براي انسان اين مقام را قائل ميشوند که به مقام خدائي ميتواند برسد. براي بحث مفصل من درباره ديدگاه فلسفي قرون وسطي لطفاً به نوشتار "مدرانيسم و معناي زندگي" [http://www.ghandchi.com/359-Modernism.htm] مراجعه کنيد. همچنين برای توضيح بيشتر درباره نظر من در باره مبحث خدا و متافيزيک رجوع کنيد به "خدا و ماhttp://www.ghandchi.com/363-GodAndUs.htm" و نيز مراجعه کنيد به نوشتار "متافيزيک و مذهبhttp://www.ghandchi.com/264-Metaphysics.htm"].
صوفيان قادر نبودند که کلاً بحث خدا را از موضوع انديشه خود درباره معنويات به کنار بگذارند، کاري که مهمترين دستاورد انديشه هاي فلسفي بودا است. در واقع مهمترين جنبه انديشه هاي بودا در اين بود که وي برعکس همه متفکرين هندو در زمان خود، معتقد بود که به بحث درباره موضوعاتي نظير خدا و روح، ابدي بودن يا اذلي بودن جهان، محدود يا نامحدود بودن هستي، يکي بودن يا دوگانه بودن بدن و روح، نيازي نيست، تا که به تبيين معنويات مورد نظر وي نائل شد. در واقع کاهنان مذهب هندو در زمان بودا اساساً به اين بحث ها پرداخته اند ولي بودا اين مباحث را سودمند نميديده و وقت خود را با اين بحث ها صرف نکرده است.به قول والپولا راهولا شايد بتوان گفت که بودا تنها پايه گذار يک مذهب بزرگ است که هيچگاه نه ادعا کرده است که موجودي ماورالطبيعه است و نه گفته است که از ماورالطبيعه حامل پيامي يا مأموريتي است. حقيقتي را که بودا ادعا کرده است در زير درخت معرفتBodhi-tree يافته است، مدعي است هر انساني ميتواند بيابد. ( البته والپولا راهولا در عين حال مينويسد که مذهب بودائيسم در تاريخ 2500 ساله خود از خشونت دور بوده است چرا که خشونت در هر شکل آن با آموزش بودا در تضاد است. گرچه من با ادعاي دوم موافقم ولي در خوشبيني ادعاي اول درباره تاريخ مذهب بودائيسم با وي هم نظر نيستم،. علت نظرم را در ابتداي اين مقاله درباره دو فيلم سينمائي نوشتم، و حتي جنگهاي خونين تاميل تايگرهاي هندو با دولت سري لانکاي بودائيست که همين امروز در جريان هستند و ريشه مذهبي دارند، دليل ديگري بر نظر من هستند.)به بحث درک انسان عادي از انديشه بودا برگردم. اجازه دهيد خيلي ساده اين بحث را توضيح دهم. يک فرد عادي بودائيست هدف معنوي خود را اين نميبيند که نظير معتقدين اکثر مذاهب جهان، بنده يک خدائي باشد و آن خدا را عبادت کند، يا که نظير صوفيان و عرفا، خدا را در عالم وجود در همه چيز ببيند و بخواهد به درجه خدائي برسد. اصلاً بحث خدا برايش مطرح نيست. هدف معنوي او در زندگي اين است که به مقام بودا بودن برسد، نه بمعني يک کيش شخصيت، بعنوان هدفي قابل دستيابي براي هرکسي، در ديدن حقيقت، يعني کسي شدن که بيدار انديش و روشن بين است. يعني از منظر اين انديشه، انسان در روشن بيني، يعني در ديدن حقيقت، به درجات عاليتر ميرسد، و همزمان در وي خصائلي نظير شفقت نهادينه ميشوند. در نتيجه اينکه انسان روشن بين چگونه خصلت و ساختمان و منشأ و آينده جهان را براي خود و ديگران در هر زماني توضيح ميدهد موضوع علم و دانش موجود و درک وي از جهان است و موضوع تعالي معنوي وي نيست. در نتيجه اين شناخت براي مردم عادي ممکن است خيلي محدود و براي افراد با دانش تر ممکن است وسيع تر باشد و معادل توضيح علمي زمان خود باشد. به عبارت ديگر توضيح اينکه خدائي هست يانه، جهان تکاملي است يا نه، گذشته چه بوده و آينده چيست موضوع دانش است، و مسأله اصلي تعالي معنوي نيست که از آن نظر مورد توجه بودا قرار گيرد. پس موضوع توجه حقيقتي که انسان پس از روشن بيني به درک آن نائل ميشود، چيست؟قبل از بحث موضوع اجازه دهيد ذکر کنم که توجه من به اين موضوع فلسفي بمثابه يک فرد غير مذهبي است. وگرنه انواع فرقه هاي مذهب بودائيسم، نظير همه مذاهب ديگر، به دانش دوره هاي مختلفي که در آندوران ها شکل گرفته اند محدود مانده اند، و بسياري هم مانند همه مذاهب ديگر، آن دانش کهنه شده را به دگم تبديل کرده اند، و همانگونه هم درکشان از جهان به همان نسبت عقب مانده است، و درکشان از موضوعات مشخص به دوراني تعلق دارد که توضيحات معين فرقه آنها در آن دوره نگاشته شده اند. اين برداشت هاي شناختي مشخص مکاتيب بودائي از جهان و جامعه موضوع مورد توجه من نيست و منظور من در اينجا نوع نگرش در انديشه بودا به تعالي معنوي است، که در مقايسه با پايه گذاران اکثر مذاهب ديگر از جمله راهبان مذهب هندو، که قبول خدا و برهمن و يک متافيزيک معين را براي قبول طريق معنوي پيشنهادي خود لازم ميديدند، بودا چنين نيازي را نميديد. با اين وجود تکرار ميکنم که بودائيسم بمثابه يک مذهب در تاريخ چندان تفاوتي با بقيه مذاهب ندارد و درک علم دوره معين شکل گيري هر فرقه اش به دگم آن فرقه تبديل شده است و مذهب بودائيسم همانطور که در اول اين نوشتار متذکر شدم همانقدر مسأله داشته و دارد که ديگر مذاهب، و اصلاً فرقه ها و مذاهب بودائي موضوع مورد علاقه من نيستند.جالب است که ابتدا حقيقتي که پس از روشن بيني بودا ديده است قابل ترديد است که بتواند براي يک فرد عادي جالب باشد اما تجربه بودائيسم نشان ميدهد که مردم عادي توان درک حقيقت با همه بغرنجي هايش را دارند و پذيرش اين ديدگاه بغرنج، منحصر به گروهي از فرهيختگان جامعه نمانده است. هرچند در عين حال بايستي خاطر نشان کنم که با گسترش اين بينش در ميان مردم عادي، برخي جنبه هاي ساده پندارانه اين بينش، که در واقع ارثيه هندوئيسم هستند، نظير کارماkarma و تناسخ، در بودائيسم بمثابه يک مذهب، بيشتر مورد توجه قرار گرفته اند.تفسير بودا درباره "کارما" و تناسخ اصل بحث او نيست ولي بسادگي معناي کارما و تناسخ در اين بينش نهفته است که همان نيروهائي که هر لحظه ميتوانند انسان را بميرانند و زنده کنند پس از پايان زندگي انسان در کالبد کنوني هم ميتوانند باعث تولد و مرگ شوند. اساساً بودائيسم نه به روح جدا از بدن اعتقادي دارد و نه وجود يا وجود نداشتن خدا موضوع تفکرش است. در نظر بودا رسيدن به عاليترين مرحله تعالي معنوي که نيروانا ناميده ميشود پايان اين زائيده شدن و مردن است اما معنايش محشور شدن روح با خدا نيست که بسياري از صوفيان ايران تصور کرده اند. همانطور که اشاره شد اصلاً روحي جدا از بدن براي بودا مطرح نيست، و حتي بودا درباره آنچه پس از مرگ براي انسانهاي متعاليArahant، نظير خود وي و مرحله تکاملي که او به آن رسيده بود، چندان حرفي نميزند، و تکيه اش بر روي اين است که خود وي هم يک انسان مثل همه انسانهاي ديگر است که دارد ميميرد و قرار هم نيست که بازگردد. چرا براي من جالب است که بودا تا آخرين لحظه حيات ميگويد که يک انسان نظير هر کس ديگر است که دارد ميميرد گرچه کسي است که به نيروانا رسيده است اما تکرار ميکند که قرار نيست برگردد؟ بنظر من تجربه بودائيسم ثابت کرده است که بر عکس تصور بسياري از روشنفکران، مردم عادي قادر به درک چنين نگرش سخت و بغرنجي بوده اند، و انتظار هم نداشتند که بودا موجود ماوراالطبيعه باشد تا انديشه هاي معنوي وي را ارج نهند.
***
به اصل بحث برگردم. موضوع اصلي بحث بودا "حقيقت" است که پس از شش سال کوشش فردي به روشن بيني رسيده است و ديدن حقيقت معني روشن بيني اوست. روشن بيني يا ديدن حقيقت يعني چه؟ من در اينجا ميخواهم يک مثال بزنم. شايد اين مثال من خيلي گفتن بديهيات بنظر برسد وليکن بنظر من بياني از روشن بيني است:به سونامي در سواحل اقيانوس هند فکر ميکنم. آيا ميشود گفت که يک خداي ظالمي است که تصميم ميگيرد که کودکان معصوم در سواحل اندونزي را بکشد؟ نميشود گفت که آن کودکان خدا را جستجو نکردند و به همين علت به چنين سرنوشتي دچار شدند. هر عقل سليمي نشان ميدهد که هيچ توجيه حکمت الهي نيز قابل توضيح چنين فاجعه اي نميتواند باشد. البته من نميخواهم بگويم که بخشي از مردم در دنيا ترجيح نخواهند داد آنگونه بيانديشند. اما اگر اين توجيهات قابل قبول نيستند، پس اين واقعيت، يک واقعيت تلخ است، و اين هم درست است که انديشيدن به چنين واقعيتي و درک اين حقيقت ابتدا باعث نا اميدي ميشود.اگر نشود خدائي را بخاطر واقعه محکوم کرد و بالعکس اگر نتوان گفت که اگر خدائي قادر هست ولي اين يک حکمت الهي بوده و مثلاً همه کشته شدگان به بهشت ميروند، در آنصورت احساس دردناکي همراه پوچي زندگي گريبانگير ما ميشود. البته ميشود کسي به خدائي که خالق است ولي در جزئيات نميتواند دخالت کند، نظير يک نيروي اوليه معتقد باشد، که در آنصورت بازهم نتيجه يکي است و آن هم واقعيت دهشتناک اين رويداد است که جدا از آنکه فکر کنيم خدا بعداً قادر باشد در اين باره که در زمان اتفاق افتادن قادر به کاري نبوده است، بعداً آن را جبران کند! اما روشن بيني به اين معني که به هرحال اين واقعيـت است، واقعيتي بسيار دردناک، چگونه درکي بالاتر است؟ آيا احساس درد يا احساس پوچي و همه احساسات ديگر کماکان پس از روشن بيني وجود خواهند داشت؟ بله! و حتي بيش از قبل. پس تفاوت يک انسان روشن بين تر که اين واقعيت را درک ميکند با ديگران در چيست؟ بنظر من آنچه بودا ميگويد يعني اذعان به وجود رنج، گام نخست است. اذعان به اين معني نيست که دنبال راهکار براي از بين بردن عوارض سانحه يا در پي جلوگيري از لطمات سونامي در آينده نباشيم. به عبارت ديگر اذعان، به معني تسليم شدن نيست. اذعان يعني شفافيت و اينکه نترسيم با واقعيت دردناک وجود اين حقيقت دردناک و اين نوع رنج نامنصفانه مواجه شويم. درست است که بعداً بودا از غير دائمي بودن حرف ميزند ولي آنهم بمعني اين نيست که پس در باره اين فجايع و راه مقابله با آن ها کاري نکنيم. بلکه فقط يک توضيح بديهي است که رنج هميشگي نيست همانطور که شادي هم هميشگي نيست. و بالاخره وقتي که ميگويد که *خود* وجود ندارد، باز هم توضيح واقعيات است همانگونه که در بحث درباره تأمل انديشمندانه و دکارت بحث کردم.دوست فقيد من جک لي ( با نام مستعار کلوخ کوچک) عبارات زير را از بودا نقل ميکرد که بيان بسيار خلاصه اي از روشن بيني است:
"حقيقت در دورن ما است، و از هيچ چيز بيروني بر نميخيزد، هر اعتقادي که در آن باره داشته باشيم. يک مرکز بسيار دروني در همه ما هست، که در آنجا حقيقت در کمال خود وجود دارد، و در دور و بر آن، ديواري بر روي ديوار ديگر، جسم ما آن را احاطه کرده است. آن حقيقت کامل آشکار که حقيقت است.[http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Jack_Li-Zen.htm] "بنظر من روشن بيني قابل کسب است و اصلاً معنايش اين نيست که جواب آماده براي مسائلي که علم و تکنولوژي، تجربه و دانش ميتوانند حل کنند، از پيش مهيا شده است. يک روشن بين همانقدر نياز به همه اين ابزار هاي دانش پژوهي دارد که هر کس ديگر.اما چرا در ايران روشن بيني غلط درک شده است؟ چرا صوفيان ما در برابر شريعتمداران دين که انسان را بنده خدا ميديدند ميخواستند انسان را به خدائي برسانند. آيا اين واقعيت زندگي بشر برايشان آنقدر سخت بود که در صورت به دور انداختن افسانه شريعت، ترجيح ميدادند ره افسانه ديگري به پيش گيرند؟ من نميدانم، ولي برايم آشکار است که آنچه آنها به آن رسيدند روشن بيني نبوده است و بويژه ارائه تصوير مونيستي در برابر بينش پلوراليتسي بودا از حقيقت است، يعني ديدن حقيقت بمعني تقليل آن به نوعي يکتائي، خدا! براي بحث مفصل تر درباره صوفيگري مراجعه کنيد به "صوفيگري و تقديرگرائي" [http://www.ghandchi.com/354-Sufism.htm].
ديگر آنکه از نظر بودا، روشن بيني در خود شفقت را حمل ميکند، و بنظر من اين جوهر معنوي روشن بيني است در صورتيکه هيچوقت انديشمندان بودائي را نميبينيم که مرتب درباره عشق، محبت و شفقت بگويند و در توصيف اين صفات نيک به نصيحت کردن بنشينند. در واقع در ديدگاه معنوي مرتبط با روشن بيني، هم پاي وقوف به درد مشترک نه تنها بشريت بلکه همه حيات و هستي، اين صفات نيز در فرد به همراه ديدن حقيقت نهادينه ميشوند که همراهاني که در اين درد داريم را غمخوارشان باشيم و بدينسان شفقت جزئي غير قابل بيان از روشن بيني ميشود.
نقل قول پائين از فيليپ کاپلو که در واقع يک کوآنKoan است تفاوت ديدگاه شفقت compassion بودائي را از نصايح مذهبي که حرف زدن درباره مهرباني و بخشش است، نشان ميدهد، و ميتواند براي تأمل انديشمندانه درباره همه اين بحث درباره روشن بيني حقيقت و نهادينه شدن غمخواري و شفقت سودمند باشد:
فرماندار منطقه اي در چين باستان چند روزي را در کوهستان با معلم ظنZen خود که استاد معروفي بود، صرف ميکند. وقتي که فرماندار آماده بازگشت ميشود، استاد از او ميپرسد، "وقتي که به پايتخت بازگردي، چگونه بر مردم حکم خواهي راند؟" فرماندار پاسخ ميدهد، "با شفقت و درايت." استاد نظر ميدهد که "در آنصورت همه آنها در رنج و عذاب خواهند بود." [فيليپ کاپلو، "ظن-امتزاچ شرق و غرب،" 1979، ص. 199].
سام قندچي، ناشر و سردبير
ايرانسکوپ
http://www.iranscope.com/
4 مرداد 1385
July 26, 2006
مطالب مرتبط:
http://www.ghandchi.com/600-SecularismPluralism.htm
متن مقاله به زبان انگليسي
Wakefulness and Enlightenment
Sam Ghandchi
http://www.ghandchi.com/449-Enlightenment-plus.htm
Let me first say that in this paper I am not advocating any religion including Buddhism. In fact, I suggest to readers to see the movie “Anna and the King’ which shows how Buddhist religion was related to some cruelties in history. Also I would suggest to watch a movie called "Water" which shows how Hindu religion too has had its share of some cruelties lasting to this day. It is interesting that the fanatic followers of Buddhism and Hinduism also try to ban these movies. The other schools of nonreligious ideologies from Fascism to Communism have also shown similar cases of cruelty. I wrote all this so that to make it clear that my goal is not to sanctify any religion or ideology but my goal is to discuss some ideas that have been proposed by Buddha which I find interesting.
More than a year ago in my article entitled Iran and Wakeful Reflection, I explained what I mean by *wakefulness* as follows:
"What I mean by "wakeful reflection" is not a certain kind of thinking, and it is not even limited to thinking and is the way of our attention to the whole of existence, in other words what I mean by wakeful reflection is being awake, aware, and in better words is to live mindfully. The following story by Krishnamurti shows this difference very well:
"Attention is not the same as concentration. Concentration is exclusion; attention, which is total awareness, excludes nothing. It seems to me that most of us are not aware, not only of what we are talking about but of our environment, the clouds, the movement of water. Perhaps it is because we are so concerned with ourselves, with our own petty little problems, our own ideas, our own pleasures, pursuits and ambitions that we are not objectively aware. And yet we talk a great deal about awareness. Once in India I was traveling in a car. There was a chauffeur driving and I was sitting beside him. There were three gentlemen behind discussing awareness, and unfortunately at that moment the driver was looking somewhere else and he ran over a goat, and the three gentlemen were still discussing awareness-totally unaware that they had run over a goat. When this lack of attention was pointed out to those gentlemen who were trying to be aware it was a great surprise to them [Krishnamurti-Freedom from the Known, Page 31]."
"The above words show that wakeful reflection is about our way of attention to the world, and not just about a way of thinking, and thus awareness cannot be thought of as equal to learning, the same way that many know cigarettes are poison, but are unable to quit it. In fact this truth, has been stated whether by astute thinkers of the East such as Buddha, or by scientific minded Western thinkers like René Descartes. In relation to Buddha, the following story is very interesting, where in reality the essence of Buddhist meditation is explained in wakeful reflection, and I should note that the term "vipassana" in the following text means seeing everything as they are:
"It is said that soon after his enlightenment, the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the extraordinary radiance and peacefulness of his presence. The man stopped and asked, "My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?" "No,"said the Buddha. "Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?" Again the Buddha answered, "No." "Are yu a man?" "No." "Well, my friend, what then are you?" The Buddha replied, "I am awake." The name Buddha means "one who is awake," and it is this experience that is the very heart and essence of vipassana, or insight meditation [Seeking the Heart of Wisdom,P.3, Jack Kornfield]"
As noted, the above truth is the essence of meditation, not only been acknowledged in the piercing thoughts of Eastern thinkers like Buddha but has also been acknowledged by great scientific minds of the West such as Rene Descartes which I have discussed in details in my paper Descartes and Laity as to why in my view the root of Descartes' meditation which is the foundation of scientific method is in Buddha's teaching.
In that paper I wrote about Descartes' view that he has same approach to "cogito principle (I think, therefore I am), which in my opinion is similar to this Buddhist thought, that when we ask "who am I" and find out that "me" has meaning only when we think of *ourselves*, and that otherwise the person *himself/herself* is a collection of feelings, movements, etc. which are the reality, and not anything by the name called "I" as a concept!"
My assessment of Cartesian scientific philosophy is not universally accepted, for example, it differs from Walpola Rahula, a Buddhist scholar who writes, "..we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view [that there is no thinker behind the thought and thought itself is the thinker] is diametrically opposed to Cartesian cogito ergo sum: "I think therefore I am."[Rahula, Walpola, "What Buddha Thought", 1958, Grove Press, P.26] Contrary to his view, I have explained thoroughly in “Descartes and Laity,” Cartesian view also means that the "I" has meaning only when we start thinking, otherwise “I” is just a collection of things, atoms, whatever. Thus in my view Descartes'starting point in his meditations to found the scientific method has the same starting point as Buddha when looking at the meaning of *self*. Also for further explanation about my understanding of practice of meditation in Buddhist thought please see my article entitled "Conference of the Birds."
***
But what I want to discuss in this paper is enlightenment. Is enlightenment achievable? Is enlightenment in contradiction with science? Is enlightenment equivalent to mystical thinking and not identical with scientific thought?
In contrast to the understanding of enlightenment among the Western rationalists and scientists like Descartes that I noted, in my opinion in Iran basically a wrong understanding of Buddha's teaching has existed which has been perceived as equivalent to mysticism and in contradiction with science. This is why on one side our scientists have passed on the discourse and on the other hand our mystical thinkers have viewed enlightenment as opposed to scientific thinking and have advocated it as such.
Why in Iran enlightenment has been understood in a wrong way?
In my opinion, in the pre-Islamic Iranian thought, in the views of Zoroaster, and after Islam in the Islamic thought, the monist view of the world has had popularity and dominance, and has been supported by the state. And this has been the reason that the thinkers of Iran have explained everything in the framework of a monist thinking. The most important component of this monism has been the belief in a God who is responsible for this world and thus even the mystics who want to perceive everything in a pantheism, consider this position for the man to reach the status of God. For my detailed discussion about the Medieval philosophy, please see "Modernism and Meaning of Life." Also for more explanation of my views on the discussion of God and Metaphysics, please see "The God and Us" and "Metaphysics & Religion."
The Sufis were not able to remove the discourse of God from their subject of thought in the discussion of spiritual matters, the work which is the most important achievement of Buddha's philosophical thought. In fact, the most important aspect of Buddha's ideas was in the fact that contrary to all the Hindu thinkers of his him, he believed that discussion of topics such as God and Soul, the universe being eternal or not eternal, the existence to be finite or infinite, body and sould to be one of two things, was *not* necessary to enable him to define the moral and spiritual views he intended. In fact the priesthood of Hindu religion of Buddha's time were basically busy with these discussions whereas Buddha did not see these discussions useful and did not spend his time with these discussions.
In the words Walpola Rahula may be we can say that Buddha was the only founder of a major religion who neither claimed to be a supernatural being nor that he has any message or mission from a supernatural world. The turth that Buddha claims has found under the tree of wisdom (Bodhi-tree), claims that any human can find. (Of course Walpola Rahula also writes that Buddhist religion for 2500 years has been away from violence because violence in any shape and form is against the teachings of Buddha. Although I agree with the second claim but I do not share the optimism of the second claim about Buddhist religion. The reason for my view I noted at the beginning of this article about the two movies, and even the wars of Hindu Tamil-Tigers of today with the Sri Lankan Buddhist government are another reason for my view.)
Let's return to the discussion of the understanding of an ordinary person of Buddha's thought. Let me explain this discussion very simply. An ordinary Buddhist individual does not see the spiritual goal of her that like the believers of most religions of the world, to be the servant of some God and to worship that God, or like the Sufis and mystics, to see God in everything in the world and to want to reach the position of God. The discussion of God is not his issue. The moral goal in life is to reach the level of Buddha, not as some cult of personality of Buddha, but as an achievable goal that anyone can reach, in seeing the truth, meaning to be someone who is wakeful and enlightened. In other words in the view of this thought, human in enlightenment, meaning to see the truth, reaches higher levels, and at the same time characteristics like compassion become internalized in him/her.
Thus the fact of how an enlightened person explains the nature and structure and origin and future of the world for herself or others at any time, is the issue of science and knowledge of any era and is not the issue of his spiritual growth. Thus this knowledge fir ordinary people may be very limited and for more educated people may be broader and may be reach the scientific explanation of their time. In other words, the explanation that there is or there is not a God, whether the world is evolved or not, what has been the past and what future has in store for us, are issues of knowledge, and are not the main problem of spiritual growth for Buddha to look at them from that angle.
Then what is the subject of attention of the truth that an enlightened individual attains?
Before discussing this let me note that my focus on this philosophical topic is like a non-religious person. Otherwise the various sects of Buddhist religion, just like all other religions, are confined to the knowledge of the various eras that their particular sect has been formed, and many of them like other religions, are dogmatic in the obsolete knowledge that they have inherited, and the same way their understanding of the world is in the same way backward, and their views of particular subjects belongs to the times when those explanations of their sect have been written. These specific takes of particular issues of the world and society by different Buddhist sects is not of interest to me here and my goal here is the way of approach in the Buddhist thought towards the spiritual growth, which in contrast to the founders of most other religions including the priesthood of Hindu religion, does not require an acceptance of a God or Brahman and a specific metaphysics to define its intended spiritual path. Yet I repeat that Buddhism as a religion in history s not much different from other religions and the scientific understanding of a specific era that a particular sect has formed in has turned into the dogma of that sect and the Buddhist religion as I noted at the beginning of this article has had and still has as much problems as other religions, and basically the sects and religions of Buddhism are not the subject of my interest.
It is interesting that at first the truth that he had seen after enlightenment is doubtful whether can be interesting for an ordinary individual but the experience of Buddhism shows have the potential of grasping the truth with all its complexities and accepting this complex view did not remain in the confines of the educated elite in society. Although I should note that the spread of this view among the ordinary people, made some simplistic aspects of the view, that are basically inherited from Hindu religion, such as Karma and reincarnation, in Buddhism as a religion, have been found more attention.
Buddha's interpretation of "Karma" and reincarnation is not his main discussion but the karma and reincarnation in his view simply mean that the same forces that in every moment can kill and bring to life the individual's life will continue after the life of the person in the current body can still cause the birth and death. Basically Buddhism neither believes in any soul separate from body nor is the existence or non existence of a any God is the subject of its thinking. In Buddha's view to reach the highest levels of spiritual growth namely Nirvana, is the end of this birth and death cycle, but it does not mean the joining of soul with God that many Sufis of Iran have understood it. As noted there is no soul separate from body for Buddhism, and even Buddha when talking of what happens after life for those individuals who have reached higher consciousness, the Arahants, he does not say much, and his emphasis is that he is a human like all other humans who is dying and is not going to come back.
Why is it interesting for me that Buddha till the last minute of his life says that he is a human like all other humans who is dying although he is someone who has reached Nirvana but repeats that he is not coming back? In my opinion the experience of Buddhism has proven that contrary to the perception of some intellectuals, ordinary people are able to understand such a difficult and complex view, and they did not expect Buddha to be a supernatural entity to revere his spiritual ideas.
***
Let's go back to the discussion. The main discussion of Buddha is "truth" which he reached enlightenement after six years of personal efforts and seeing the truth is his enlightenment. What is enlightenment or seeing the truth? I am going to give an example here. Perhaps this example of mine is like saying the prima facie trial events but in my view it is an illustration of enlightenment:
Let's think about the tsunami of the shores of Indian Ocean. Can it be said that there is a merciless God who decides innocent children of the shores of Indonesia to be killed? One cannot say that those children did not seek God and this was why they ended up with such a fate. Any kind of common sense shows that no justification of Divine Wisdom can explain such a catastrophe. Of course, I do not want to say that some people of the world will not prefer to think that way. But if the justifications are not acceptable, then this reality, is a harsh bitter reality, and it is also true that thinking about such reality and understanding this truth will first cause despair.
If no God can be condemned for this event and if on the contrary can not be said that there is a powerful God but it has been in the Divine Wisdom and for example all those killed will go to heaven, in that case, a painful feeling accompanied with emptiness of life can take over us. Of course one can believe in a God which is like a prime mover but does not interfere in the details of the universe afterwards, such a a prime Force, which again ends in the same result and again the harsh reality of this event is with us which even if we think the God later to be able to do something about it to compensate, when He was not able to do anything when it all happened!
But enlightenment means that it is in any case a reality, a painful reality, but how is the higher understanding? Will the painful feelings or the feelings of emptiness still continue after seeing enlightenment? Yes! And even more than before. Then what is the difference between the human who is more enlightened who understands this event with the others?
In my opinion, what Buddha is saying meaning to acknowledge the suffering, is the first step. Acknowledgement does not mean not to seek the ways to remove the results of the mishap or not to try to prevent tsunami damages in the future. In other words acknowledgement, does not mean giving up. Acknowledgement means transparency and not to be afraid to face the harsh reality of this painful truth and this unfair suffering. It is true that later Buddha talks of impermanence but that does not mean not to do anything about these catastrophes and the ways to counter them. But it is again the explanation of the prima facie fact that pain is not permanent the same way that happiness is not permanent. And finally when he says that *self* does not exist, it is again statement of facts as I discussed it in my discussion of meditation and Descartes.
My late friend Jack Li (Little Rock) narrated the following from Buddha which is a very concise description of enlightenment:
"Truth is within ourselves; it takes no rise from outward things, whatever you may believe. There is an innermost center in us all, where truth abides in fullness; and around, wall upon wall, the gross flesh hems it in. This perfect clear perfection which is truth [http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Jack_Li-Zen.htm]."
In my view, enlightenment is attainable and its meaning is not to have ready made answers to the questions of science and technology, which experience and knowledge can solve. An enlightened person needs all these tools to seek knowledge as much as anybody else.
But why in Iran, enlightenment has been misunderstood? Why our Sufis in facing the Islamic clergy who saw humans as the servants of God wanted to take humans to become God. Was the reality of human life and suffering so difficult to endure after throwing away the myth of Shari'a and they preferred to take the road of another myth? I do not know, but it is obvious to me what they had reached was not enlightenment and especially offering a monist view in place of Buddha's pluralist view of truth, meanign to see the truth as reducing it to some kind of monistic entity, God! For detailed discussion about Sufism please see Sufism and Fatalism.
Moreover, in Buddha's view, enlightenment carries with it the compassion, and in my opinion this is the spiritual essence of enlightenment whereas one would not see any Buddhist thinker to keep talking about love, kindness, and compassion and to advise people describing these good characteristics. In fact in the spiritual view related to enlightenment, alongside understanding the common suffering of not only all humanity but all life and existence, these characteristics will also become ingrained in the individual alongside seeing the truth to be compassionate to those who are also suffering from the same pain and this way compassion becomes an inseparable part of enlightenment.
The following quotation from Roshi Philip Kapleau is in fact a koan that shows the difference of Buddhist compassion with religious advice about kindness and empathy and can be useful for meditation on all these discussion about enlighten viewing of truth and the ingraining of sympathy and compassion:
"Once the governor of a province in ancient China spent several days in the mountains with his Zen teacher, a famous master. As the governor was preparing to depart, the master asked him, 'When you return to the capital, how will you govern the people?' 'With compassion and wisdon,' replied the governor. 'In the cast," commented the master, "every last one of them will suffer.' [Roshi Philip Kapleau, Zen-Merging of East and West, 1979, P. 199]."
Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher
IRANSCOPE
http://www.iranscope.com/
July 26, 2006
Related Papers:
http://www.ghandchi.com/600-SecularismPluralismEng.htm
Sam Ghandchi
http://www.ghandchi.com/449-Enlightenment-plus.htm
Let me first say that in this paper I am not advocating any religion including Buddhism. In fact, I suggest to readers to see the movie “Anna and the King’ which shows how Buddhist religion was related to some cruelties in history. Also I would suggest to watch a movie called "Water" which shows how Hindu religion too has had its share of some cruelties lasting to this day. It is interesting that the fanatic followers of Buddhism and Hinduism also try to ban these movies. The other schools of nonreligious ideologies from Fascism to Communism have also shown similar cases of cruelty. I wrote all this so that to make it clear that my goal is not to sanctify any religion or ideology but my goal is to discuss some ideas that have been proposed by Buddha which I find interesting.
More than a year ago in my article entitled Iran and Wakeful Reflection, I explained what I mean by *wakefulness* as follows:
"What I mean by "wakeful reflection" is not a certain kind of thinking, and it is not even limited to thinking and is the way of our attention to the whole of existence, in other words what I mean by wakeful reflection is being awake, aware, and in better words is to live mindfully. The following story by Krishnamurti shows this difference very well:
"Attention is not the same as concentration. Concentration is exclusion; attention, which is total awareness, excludes nothing. It seems to me that most of us are not aware, not only of what we are talking about but of our environment, the clouds, the movement of water. Perhaps it is because we are so concerned with ourselves, with our own petty little problems, our own ideas, our own pleasures, pursuits and ambitions that we are not objectively aware. And yet we talk a great deal about awareness. Once in India I was traveling in a car. There was a chauffeur driving and I was sitting beside him. There were three gentlemen behind discussing awareness, and unfortunately at that moment the driver was looking somewhere else and he ran over a goat, and the three gentlemen were still discussing awareness-totally unaware that they had run over a goat. When this lack of attention was pointed out to those gentlemen who were trying to be aware it was a great surprise to them [Krishnamurti-Freedom from the Known, Page 31]."
"The above words show that wakeful reflection is about our way of attention to the world, and not just about a way of thinking, and thus awareness cannot be thought of as equal to learning, the same way that many know cigarettes are poison, but are unable to quit it. In fact this truth, has been stated whether by astute thinkers of the East such as Buddha, or by scientific minded Western thinkers like René Descartes. In relation to Buddha, the following story is very interesting, where in reality the essence of Buddhist meditation is explained in wakeful reflection, and I should note that the term "vipassana" in the following text means seeing everything as they are:
"It is said that soon after his enlightenment, the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the extraordinary radiance and peacefulness of his presence. The man stopped and asked, "My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?" "No,"said the Buddha. "Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?" Again the Buddha answered, "No." "Are yu a man?" "No." "Well, my friend, what then are you?" The Buddha replied, "I am awake." The name Buddha means "one who is awake," and it is this experience that is the very heart and essence of vipassana, or insight meditation [Seeking the Heart of Wisdom,P.3, Jack Kornfield]"
As noted, the above truth is the essence of meditation, not only been acknowledged in the piercing thoughts of Eastern thinkers like Buddha but has also been acknowledged by great scientific minds of the West such as Rene Descartes which I have discussed in details in my paper Descartes and Laity as to why in my view the root of Descartes' meditation which is the foundation of scientific method is in Buddha's teaching.
In that paper I wrote about Descartes' view that he has same approach to "cogito principle (I think, therefore I am), which in my opinion is similar to this Buddhist thought, that when we ask "who am I" and find out that "me" has meaning only when we think of *ourselves*, and that otherwise the person *himself/herself* is a collection of feelings, movements, etc. which are the reality, and not anything by the name called "I" as a concept!"
My assessment of Cartesian scientific philosophy is not universally accepted, for example, it differs from Walpola Rahula, a Buddhist scholar who writes, "..we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view [that there is no thinker behind the thought and thought itself is the thinker] is diametrically opposed to Cartesian cogito ergo sum: "I think therefore I am."[Rahula, Walpola, "What Buddha Thought", 1958, Grove Press, P.26] Contrary to his view, I have explained thoroughly in “Descartes and Laity,” Cartesian view also means that the "I" has meaning only when we start thinking, otherwise “I” is just a collection of things, atoms, whatever. Thus in my view Descartes'starting point in his meditations to found the scientific method has the same starting point as Buddha when looking at the meaning of *self*. Also for further explanation about my understanding of practice of meditation in Buddhist thought please see my article entitled "Conference of the Birds."
***
But what I want to discuss in this paper is enlightenment. Is enlightenment achievable? Is enlightenment in contradiction with science? Is enlightenment equivalent to mystical thinking and not identical with scientific thought?
In contrast to the understanding of enlightenment among the Western rationalists and scientists like Descartes that I noted, in my opinion in Iran basically a wrong understanding of Buddha's teaching has existed which has been perceived as equivalent to mysticism and in contradiction with science. This is why on one side our scientists have passed on the discourse and on the other hand our mystical thinkers have viewed enlightenment as opposed to scientific thinking and have advocated it as such.
Why in Iran enlightenment has been understood in a wrong way?
In my opinion, in the pre-Islamic Iranian thought, in the views of Zoroaster, and after Islam in the Islamic thought, the monist view of the world has had popularity and dominance, and has been supported by the state. And this has been the reason that the thinkers of Iran have explained everything in the framework of a monist thinking. The most important component of this monism has been the belief in a God who is responsible for this world and thus even the mystics who want to perceive everything in a pantheism, consider this position for the man to reach the status of God. For my detailed discussion about the Medieval philosophy, please see "Modernism and Meaning of Life." Also for more explanation of my views on the discussion of God and Metaphysics, please see "The God and Us" and "Metaphysics & Religion."
The Sufis were not able to remove the discourse of God from their subject of thought in the discussion of spiritual matters, the work which is the most important achievement of Buddha's philosophical thought. In fact, the most important aspect of Buddha's ideas was in the fact that contrary to all the Hindu thinkers of his him, he believed that discussion of topics such as God and Soul, the universe being eternal or not eternal, the existence to be finite or infinite, body and sould to be one of two things, was *not* necessary to enable him to define the moral and spiritual views he intended. In fact the priesthood of Hindu religion of Buddha's time were basically busy with these discussions whereas Buddha did not see these discussions useful and did not spend his time with these discussions.
In the words Walpola Rahula may be we can say that Buddha was the only founder of a major religion who neither claimed to be a supernatural being nor that he has any message or mission from a supernatural world. The turth that Buddha claims has found under the tree of wisdom (Bodhi-tree), claims that any human can find. (Of course Walpola Rahula also writes that Buddhist religion for 2500 years has been away from violence because violence in any shape and form is against the teachings of Buddha. Although I agree with the second claim but I do not share the optimism of the second claim about Buddhist religion. The reason for my view I noted at the beginning of this article about the two movies, and even the wars of Hindu Tamil-Tigers of today with the Sri Lankan Buddhist government are another reason for my view.)
Let's return to the discussion of the understanding of an ordinary person of Buddha's thought. Let me explain this discussion very simply. An ordinary Buddhist individual does not see the spiritual goal of her that like the believers of most religions of the world, to be the servant of some God and to worship that God, or like the Sufis and mystics, to see God in everything in the world and to want to reach the position of God. The discussion of God is not his issue. The moral goal in life is to reach the level of Buddha, not as some cult of personality of Buddha, but as an achievable goal that anyone can reach, in seeing the truth, meaning to be someone who is wakeful and enlightened. In other words in the view of this thought, human in enlightenment, meaning to see the truth, reaches higher levels, and at the same time characteristics like compassion become internalized in him/her.
Thus the fact of how an enlightened person explains the nature and structure and origin and future of the world for herself or others at any time, is the issue of science and knowledge of any era and is not the issue of his spiritual growth. Thus this knowledge fir ordinary people may be very limited and for more educated people may be broader and may be reach the scientific explanation of their time. In other words, the explanation that there is or there is not a God, whether the world is evolved or not, what has been the past and what future has in store for us, are issues of knowledge, and are not the main problem of spiritual growth for Buddha to look at them from that angle.
Then what is the subject of attention of the truth that an enlightened individual attains?
Before discussing this let me note that my focus on this philosophical topic is like a non-religious person. Otherwise the various sects of Buddhist religion, just like all other religions, are confined to the knowledge of the various eras that their particular sect has been formed, and many of them like other religions, are dogmatic in the obsolete knowledge that they have inherited, and the same way their understanding of the world is in the same way backward, and their views of particular subjects belongs to the times when those explanations of their sect have been written. These specific takes of particular issues of the world and society by different Buddhist sects is not of interest to me here and my goal here is the way of approach in the Buddhist thought towards the spiritual growth, which in contrast to the founders of most other religions including the priesthood of Hindu religion, does not require an acceptance of a God or Brahman and a specific metaphysics to define its intended spiritual path. Yet I repeat that Buddhism as a religion in history s not much different from other religions and the scientific understanding of a specific era that a particular sect has formed in has turned into the dogma of that sect and the Buddhist religion as I noted at the beginning of this article has had and still has as much problems as other religions, and basically the sects and religions of Buddhism are not the subject of my interest.
It is interesting that at first the truth that he had seen after enlightenment is doubtful whether can be interesting for an ordinary individual but the experience of Buddhism shows have the potential of grasping the truth with all its complexities and accepting this complex view did not remain in the confines of the educated elite in society. Although I should note that the spread of this view among the ordinary people, made some simplistic aspects of the view, that are basically inherited from Hindu religion, such as Karma and reincarnation, in Buddhism as a religion, have been found more attention.
Buddha's interpretation of "Karma" and reincarnation is not his main discussion but the karma and reincarnation in his view simply mean that the same forces that in every moment can kill and bring to life the individual's life will continue after the life of the person in the current body can still cause the birth and death. Basically Buddhism neither believes in any soul separate from body nor is the existence or non existence of a any God is the subject of its thinking. In Buddha's view to reach the highest levels of spiritual growth namely Nirvana, is the end of this birth and death cycle, but it does not mean the joining of soul with God that many Sufis of Iran have understood it. As noted there is no soul separate from body for Buddhism, and even Buddha when talking of what happens after life for those individuals who have reached higher consciousness, the Arahants, he does not say much, and his emphasis is that he is a human like all other humans who is dying and is not going to come back.
Why is it interesting for me that Buddha till the last minute of his life says that he is a human like all other humans who is dying although he is someone who has reached Nirvana but repeats that he is not coming back? In my opinion the experience of Buddhism has proven that contrary to the perception of some intellectuals, ordinary people are able to understand such a difficult and complex view, and they did not expect Buddha to be a supernatural entity to revere his spiritual ideas.
***
Let's go back to the discussion. The main discussion of Buddha is "truth" which he reached enlightenement after six years of personal efforts and seeing the truth is his enlightenment. What is enlightenment or seeing the truth? I am going to give an example here. Perhaps this example of mine is like saying the prima facie trial events but in my view it is an illustration of enlightenment:
Let's think about the tsunami of the shores of Indian Ocean. Can it be said that there is a merciless God who decides innocent children of the shores of Indonesia to be killed? One cannot say that those children did not seek God and this was why they ended up with such a fate. Any kind of common sense shows that no justification of Divine Wisdom can explain such a catastrophe. Of course, I do not want to say that some people of the world will not prefer to think that way. But if the justifications are not acceptable, then this reality, is a harsh bitter reality, and it is also true that thinking about such reality and understanding this truth will first cause despair.
If no God can be condemned for this event and if on the contrary can not be said that there is a powerful God but it has been in the Divine Wisdom and for example all those killed will go to heaven, in that case, a painful feeling accompanied with emptiness of life can take over us. Of course one can believe in a God which is like a prime mover but does not interfere in the details of the universe afterwards, such a a prime Force, which again ends in the same result and again the harsh reality of this event is with us which even if we think the God later to be able to do something about it to compensate, when He was not able to do anything when it all happened!
But enlightenment means that it is in any case a reality, a painful reality, but how is the higher understanding? Will the painful feelings or the feelings of emptiness still continue after seeing enlightenment? Yes! And even more than before. Then what is the difference between the human who is more enlightened who understands this event with the others?
In my opinion, what Buddha is saying meaning to acknowledge the suffering, is the first step. Acknowledgement does not mean not to seek the ways to remove the results of the mishap or not to try to prevent tsunami damages in the future. In other words acknowledgement, does not mean giving up. Acknowledgement means transparency and not to be afraid to face the harsh reality of this painful truth and this unfair suffering. It is true that later Buddha talks of impermanence but that does not mean not to do anything about these catastrophes and the ways to counter them. But it is again the explanation of the prima facie fact that pain is not permanent the same way that happiness is not permanent. And finally when he says that *self* does not exist, it is again statement of facts as I discussed it in my discussion of meditation and Descartes.
My late friend Jack Li (Little Rock) narrated the following from Buddha which is a very concise description of enlightenment:
"Truth is within ourselves; it takes no rise from outward things, whatever you may believe. There is an innermost center in us all, where truth abides in fullness; and around, wall upon wall, the gross flesh hems it in. This perfect clear perfection which is truth [http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Jack_Li-Zen.htm]."
In my view, enlightenment is attainable and its meaning is not to have ready made answers to the questions of science and technology, which experience and knowledge can solve. An enlightened person needs all these tools to seek knowledge as much as anybody else.
But why in Iran, enlightenment has been misunderstood? Why our Sufis in facing the Islamic clergy who saw humans as the servants of God wanted to take humans to become God. Was the reality of human life and suffering so difficult to endure after throwing away the myth of Shari'a and they preferred to take the road of another myth? I do not know, but it is obvious to me what they had reached was not enlightenment and especially offering a monist view in place of Buddha's pluralist view of truth, meanign to see the truth as reducing it to some kind of monistic entity, God! For detailed discussion about Sufism please see Sufism and Fatalism.
Moreover, in Buddha's view, enlightenment carries with it the compassion, and in my opinion this is the spiritual essence of enlightenment whereas one would not see any Buddhist thinker to keep talking about love, kindness, and compassion and to advise people describing these good characteristics. In fact in the spiritual view related to enlightenment, alongside understanding the common suffering of not only all humanity but all life and existence, these characteristics will also become ingrained in the individual alongside seeing the truth to be compassionate to those who are also suffering from the same pain and this way compassion becomes an inseparable part of enlightenment.
The following quotation from Roshi Philip Kapleau is in fact a koan that shows the difference of Buddhist compassion with religious advice about kindness and empathy and can be useful for meditation on all these discussion about enlighten viewing of truth and the ingraining of sympathy and compassion:
"Once the governor of a province in ancient China spent several days in the mountains with his Zen teacher, a famous master. As the governor was preparing to depart, the master asked him, 'When you return to the capital, how will you govern the people?' 'With compassion and wisdon,' replied the governor. 'In the cast," commented the master, "every last one of them will suffer.' [Roshi Philip Kapleau, Zen-Merging of East and West, 1979, P. 199]."
Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher
IRANSCOPE
http://www.iranscope.com/
July 26, 2006
Related Papers:
http://www.ghandchi.com/600-SecularismPluralismEng.htm
پستها
