Chapter 8 seven born

Life is just such a thing, but the attitude towards it and the way of dealing with it can be very different.There are constant changes in methods, or in other words, there are pros and cons.For example, compared with Confucianism and Taoism from India, the former is permanence and smoothness, while the latter is change and reverse.The vast majority of people follow the usual way, without asking why.This is the mundane law, like sailing a boat down the river, it is relatively simple.This is not the case with Buddhism and Taoism. Their views and handling of life are often opposite to those of ordinary people.

It is convenient to say that it is out of the world, because change is the way of changing the world, and rebellion is the way of going against the world. Whether it is going out or entering, it is all done "in the world".But this is very different from what ordinary people do in the world. To give the most notable point, Buddhism denies the so-called happiness in the world.And longing for the other shore, the so-called Nirvana, is strange to ordinary people, and even hard to understand. It is difficult to understand because the Tao is different and they do not conspire with each other.The so-called Dao, the most fundamental is the view of life activities. "Birth" is an objective fact, and most people don't doubt or ask about such a fact, "following the emperor's rule".Buddhism is not the case. They believe that life is impermanent and suffering. They seek happiness and avoid suffering in the world.Suffering and happiness, this is a major personal matter. Buddhism and ordinary people's understanding is opposite, so the way to deal with it is also very different. Generally speaking, ordinary people prefer to let go of what ordinary people take.Ordinary people act on their own will, but Buddhism wants to reform. From the perspective of ordinary people, this is change and rebellion.

Dealing with life problems, sailing against the current, will cause two problems: first, is this understanding correct; Look at the previous question first.Life is impermanent, life is bound to die, this is recognized by ordinary people, the problem is how to evaluate this reality.Obviously, the evaluation mainly depends on the feelings of the parties involved.In the same experience, A may feel happy, and B may feel bitter, or, although the feelings of pain and happiness are similar, A may think it is good and think it is appropriate to take it, while B may think it is bad and think it is appropriate to give it up.If these different feelings come from the heart, it will be very difficult for one party to persuade the other party.Buddhists call this world the mother-in-law world, which means full of suffering. Is this right?Ordinary people certainly do not see it this way, but it is not easy to deny this understanding, because: first, it is a fact that there is suffering in life in the world; , at least it can act on its own.Naturally, it is a minority who understand this way, but on such issues, must the minority obey the majority?It seems impossible to say that.

In my opinion, Buddhism, Taoism, and transcendental methods are mainly not about "viewpoints", but about "methods", which is the second question mentioned above, whether you can get the desired results if you believe in them and practice them.Here, it is a good idea to assume that life is suffering, and it is a good idea to get rid of samsara, so what should we do?The method of Buddhism is to go out of the world, use "Prajna" to cross to the other shore, and seek Nirvana.This makes people have to think about two questions: first, whether the state of Nirvana is real; second, whether there is a reliable path leading to Nirvana.

From the perspective of ordinary people, the world in the eyes of Buddhists seems very strange. They regard everything they perceive personally in common sense as illusory (only "suffering" seems to be an exception). For real.This is quite similar to Plato's view of "ideas" as reality and appearance as illusion.Naturally, this way of distinguishing reality from reality can also be based on some reasoning, but the difficulty lies in that if you jump out of such a reasoning and look at it coldly, there are often more hindrances than perfect understanding.1. In the present world, how to prove "existence" and what is the most credible "existence" are very complicated. However, as long as we have to admit that the situation is "existence" rather than "existence", We then have to honor the "perception" that makes us "have" because we cannot live without it, whether we are ingesting reality or organizing knowledge.Even philosophers have to regard personal perception as the most important basis for "reality" when encountering the problem of reality and emptiness.The Buddhist school is about to be born, perhaps because of the need to prevent love, so they regard what they perceive personally as empty and not real. This is too far from the understanding of ordinary people. Even believers, it seems that it is difficult to convince their own common sense.Second, the realm of Nirvana is on the other shore. Strictly speaking, it will be difficult to explain it clearly with the words of this shore (present world). If I force it, it is like the so-called "neither born nor destroyed, neither dirty nor clean, neither increasing nor decreasing", at least ordinary people will hear it It is inexplicable, how to prove that this state is real?Obviously, you can't rely on the "perception" of the world. If you can't perceive it but say it exists, can it convince people?Also, according to the common sense of modern science, organisms are just a small bubble in the evolution process of nature, with birth and death, and human beings are also governed by the laws of nature, without souls, and without eternal life.The cessation of breathing is cessation, even the ancient virtues that have been passed down for generations are no exception. This kind of fact cannot coexist with the ideal of Nirvana.

The above mentioned the ideal of Nirvana, as a goal, its authenticity is questionable.It stands to reason that since the goal is shaken, Tong Tong Yun can naturally be nothing to worry about.But here is no harm in taking a step back, assuming that the state of Nirvana is real, or citing the Buddhist saying that "the state is created by the mind", admitting that the state of Nirvana can be born in the mind and exist in the subjective, then, is there any difficulty in practice?I think the difficulty may be even greater. The reason is that it takes a lot of effort to change from the prajna of words to the practice of real guns and live ammunition.The danger of falling into disarray mainly comes from three aspects.One, it is difficult to completely reinvent "perception".Believers and disciples of Buddhism are also human beings. "All dharmas are empty" and so on, they can believe and speak, but life, speaking, and belief are all in the "world", not in the "empty".Therefore, when one is born and lives in a monastery in the mountains, one has to beg for alms bowls in order to "live", and if the way of alms fails, one has to be like ordinary people, living daily for daily necessities.In the face of daily necessities, rice, oil and salt, but to establish a "five aggregates are empty", only Nirvana is the real as the understanding of the wonderland, at least from the perspective of ordinary people, this is not a small difficulty.Second, it is difficult to completely restrain desire.Buddhism regards "desire" as the origin of suffering, which may be one-sided, but there is always a reason for everything, and we may as well agree here.Desire is suffering (strictly speaking, if desire is not obtained, life is suffering), what should be done?Of course, there is only one way, which is to turn desire into no desire.That is, in the way of turning existence into nothingness, Buddhism and ordinary people go against the grain: ordinary people seek satisfaction, or "appropriate" satisfaction, for peace of mind, or to use ordinary people's standards, for happiness; Controlling and "destroying" it in order to eliminate the root of suffering forever. From a theoretical point of view, it may be more advisable to eliminate the root of suffering by eliminating desire, because this is a one-time solution, rather than a wave of unrest, and a wave of resurgence. However, there is a problem. Yes, the value of a theory depends mainly on whether it makes sense when it is "practiced". Painting cakes cannot satisfy your hunger.Human beings are born with desires, which means pessimistically speaking, it is "fate" and have desires, so they "have to" seek satisfaction. This tenacious desire of "seeking" manifests itself in feelings as "love".The Buddhists are well aware of this, so they regard "love" (love of selfish desires to be precise) as the enemy, and the Vinaya in the Tripitaka can even be said to be mainly to deal with this enemy.When one is born into the world, one must abide by boundless rules and precepts, which shows how difficult it is to control desires and break love.The fact is exactly like this, practice, fighting with the battle of faith and love, is actually fighting against the destiny of life with personal willpower. How effective can such a messy approach be?The victorious ones, as written in the "Biography of the Eminent Monks", may not be many?But, as we have seen in the mundane world, there seem to be many more who fail flatly.Third, it is difficult to jump out completely.The ancients said, "The sky is selfless, and the earth is selfless." Human beings, whether they are mediocre or wise or stupid, are all caught in the snare of heaven and earth. This is the destiny mentioned above. , yes, the truth is, no matter how hard you try and how long you hang in the air, you will eventually have to fall to the ground.Buddhist disciples, practicing the concept of impurity to deal with the net of dust, living in a hut, yearning for Nirvana, the power of vows is not insignificant, but at best, how much can the rope of fate be cut off?For example, life, old age, sickness and death are regarded as great sufferings, but since one has life, one has to rely on food and clothing to maintain one’s life. Sickness is unavoidable in life, like the one suffered by layman Vimalakīrti, who finally had to die of old age. take off. ——Actually, it is not easy even to see it openly. As described in the "Nirvana Sutra", isn't it the sorrow of all people when Sakyamuni leaves the world?When Montesquieu was about to die, he said, "The power of the emperor (that is, the destiny) is as great as my power is weak." When thinking about big issues such as life and the laws of nature, even if you are enlightened, you will inevitably feel the same. sigh?

The above-mentioned aspect of "doing" is also difficult.When Buddhism and Taoism came out of the world, it was difficult to know and practice. What is the reason?I personally think that it is mainly due to the extravagance required.Although Buddhists call this world the mother-in-law world, they are not pessimists.Pessimists believe that the entire "existence" is worthless and meaningless, so they would rather "have" than "have".Buddhists, on the other hand, believe that although life is bitter, there are ways to eradicate it, and after eradication, one can move to the pure land, as described in the "Amitabha Sutra", and obtain supreme satisfaction.In this way, to use a metaphor, what ordinary people want is nothing more than the warmth of the family, while the Buddhist family is rich in the world.Therefore, in the final analysis, Buddhism's control of desires is to abandon small desires and think big desires. "Seeing that the five aggregates are all empty" and so on, it is not really clear, because it is said immediately below that "overcome all hardships".From this perspective, Confucianism in the Song Dynasty criticized Buddhism and Taoism, saying that "life and death are important matters", but they are only afraid of death, and it cannot be said that they are aimless.On this point, Taoism, which was born and raised in China, seems to be superior. For example, the attitude of pure resignation and nature advocated in "Zhuangzi? The Great Master" is not so indifferent to Buddhism.

Transcendence, as taught by Buddhism.As far as its ultimate goal is concerned, it is "acquisition" and "attachment", not all dharmas are empty, and you can be indifferent, but what you acquire and what you are attached to is very different from ordinary people.This "attachment" is different from ordinary people. From the perspective of life philosophy, there are three points worth noting.First, Buddhism despises selfish love, but does not give up "great compassion", and practice bodhisattva behavior to save all sentient beings. Even if this should be counted as fantasy, if what we think can affect what we do, we have to admit, It's better to think than not to.Second, if you can really believe in and practice the method of going against the way of ordinary people to eliminate suffering, you can be diligent and diligent, and you can achieve peace of mind through Zen enlightenment. Is it possible that this path is not as good as ordinary people?It doesn't seem easy to say that.Three, the snare of fate is sparse but not leaking, jumping out, catastrophe, misfortune, doubt and ask why, and often feel confused and cold.Faced with such a cold reality, the Taoist approach is close to cynical, just ignore it.Buddhism is not the case. They are serious, thinking that man will conquer the sky, building towers on the sand, and their spirit is "resistance".Victory is naturally difficult, but, as Schopenhauer advocated, going against the blind orders of nature can be seen as a challenge to nature.In the words of the Buddhists, this is a "big hero", but it turns out that the mantis' arms can be used as a cart. This kind of perseverance is the power of ordinary people. When we think about big problems such as life and nature, we can't ignore them indifferently, right?