According to Buddhism, nirvana is a mental touch,not a physical touch
We have a lot of misconceptions about what it means to let go of and see Nirvana. That means, we think that there are many obstacles regarding Nirvana. The first misconception is to think that one must become a priest to attain nirvana. Ordination is a good opportunity for Nirvana. There is no doubt about it.
If he saw Nirvana only after becoming a monk, then all those who became monks must have seen Nirvana. No lay person should have seen nirvana. Ordination required. It is necessary to create a community of monks. Due to the formation of that community of monks, a huge culture and a huge religious restraint will be created.
The second misconception is to say that one must go through the forest to attain Nirvana. The forest is a very pleasant and beautiful place to grow plants. Although it is very necessary, some of our Buddhists have the wrong idea that one must go to the forest to see nirvana, or that one can see nirvana by going to the forest. Nirvana can be attained through ordination.Nirvana can be found by going through the forest. It will never be the same. Although going to the forest can be a reason to see Nirvana, Nirvana cannot be seen only by going to the forest.
The third misconception is that one must leave family tradition to attain Nirvana. Beloved wife, beloved husband, beloved children, beloved parents, leaving all these and leading a solitary life, some people seek Nirvana from agarika to anagarika. Agarika life and uncivilised life are both lives. Sitting in both lives is not a hindrance to Nirvana. Being uncivilised alone does not lead to Nirvana.
There are false opinions that one cannot attain nirvana by keeping material possessions such as gold, silver, pearls, gems, real estate, land, etc. However, attaining nirvana by giving up all one's possessions can be a path. Therefore, some of the wrong ideas that have come about by appointing the Buddha's objective path to Nirvana as a formative activity, are seen among us as follows.
We have identified this nirvana as a physical touch, which was a mental touch preached by the Tathagata. We have put meditation in such a situation. We have identified postures for meditation. One should be in samadhi mudra for meditation. One hand should be kept on top of the other, etc. Is it the body that we are trying to reconcile here? Is it the mind? Keeping the body in one place and keeping the mind in one place are not two but one. It does not say that the body should not be kept in one place.
But the formative nature of keeping the body in one place is not meditation. When the mind is used to meditation, walking, meditation, eating, meditation. Satipattana begins with an activity that is done with the activity right in mind. The thing called nirvana has become formal and the thing called nirvana has become somewhat of a transaction. The austerities are performed to see Nirvana, the white dress should be one to reach Nirvana. Not committing a few sins on the day of Poya should bring you closer to nirvana.
If there are a hundred things that are called sins or wrongs in the world, we avoid five of them in order to attain nirvana. Not removing these actions is a hindrance to nirvana. It is a wrong idea to say that not giving up those actions is a help to nirvana or one can see nirvana. If it is thought that it is easier to get Nirvana by wearing white or by wearing a white bed northern cloak, then there is a feeling that white is a colour that brings Nirvana closer. There is a feeling that one can see nirvana by staying in one place wearing white for twelve days a year.
It is a misunderstanding to take austerities for merit as an example. The five chosen mistakes are just not wearing white. Therefore, in any way, it is not atrocious to condemn and see the actions such as becoming a monk and performing austerities, but they are very clear religious and cultural activities, and not direct paths to nirvana. why? That being said, how can you see Nirvana, which has killed a thousand people, only after performing austerities?
Even a murderer can see Nirvana. Buddha has preached. What is clear from these things is that some things that are thought to be easy to see Nirvana are not things that make Nirvana easy. This is the attitude of the common people towards Nirvana and not about the thoughts of learned scholars.
If 'Sopaka' is a seven-year-old child, if 'Chulla Panta', an illiterate child, could see nirvana, if 'Sopaka', an unfortunate orphan, could see nirvana, if Suneetha, a municipal health worker, could see nirvana. , if 'Punna' Rajjumala' who was a housemaid could see nirvana,If murderers like Angulimala, beggars like 'Radha', kitchen mothers like 'Kujjuttara', and barbers like 'Upali' could see Nirvana, this nirvana would be something that passes through social conditions, special professions, gender, age and education. It's obvious.
If monk Ananda, the treasurer of Dharma, who knew Buddhism close to Buddha, saw Sopaka Nirvana before he became Rahat, it does not mean that one can see Nirvana through awareness. By knowing all the dharma preached by the Buddha, one can become an expert on the Buddha's dharma. Nirvana cannot be seen. Knowing Buddhism is neither a factor nor a barrier to nirvana. So what should happen?
Comments
Post a Comment