[Mahasi] [Ledi] [Other] [Pesala] [Suttas]

Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw

A Discourse on the Hemavata Sutta

Hemavata’s Praise of the Buddha

Select a linkPrefaceDate for This DiscourseIs the Buddha Impartial?Does the Buddha Steal?Does the Buddha Tell Lies?Is the Buddha Free From Desire?Is the Buddha Wise and Moral?Hemavata's Praise of the BuddhaWhat is the Way to Liberation?Who Can Gain Liberation?

Hemavata was completely satisfied with Sātāgiri’s reply regarding the Buddha’s possession of the attributes of knowledge and conduct. So he said, “Friend, Sātāgiri, the Buddha whom you have praised is truly of a pure mind. He is free from stealing; he is free from lying and malicious speech. The Buddha has all the attributes of knowledge and conduct. You, my friend, have praised the Buddha fittingly.”

Thus in congratulating Sātāgiri on his praise of the Buddha, Hemavata said, “Sādhu! Sādhu! Sādhu! (Well said! Well said! Well said!)”

In reply, Sātāgiri congratulated Hemavata on his acceptance of his praises of the Buddha in good faith. Then he asked Hemavata to come with him to worship the Buddha. Hemavata accepted this invitation. He said, “Friend Sātāgiri, let us go to worship the Buddha who has limbs like an antelope, who is lean, courageous, and indefatigable. He is free of desire and obsession, moderate in eating, and dwells meditating in the forest, the Buddha of the Gotama clan.” Then he turned to the audience of celestial beings and asked them to accompany him and his friend, Sātāgiri.

When he said that the Buddha had limbs like an antelope, Hemavata meant that the Buddha’s limbs were smooth. When he said that the Buddha was lean, he referred to the Buddha’s six years of austerity, which he had abandoned only about two months ago. While practising austerities, the Bodhisatta became completely emaciated, so he could not have recovered his former weight after just two months. According to the commentaries, none of the Buddhas were ever overweight.

According to the commentaries, the reference to the Buddha’s moderation in eating refers to his habit of taking just one meal a day. He took more when he had to go on a journey.

Then turning to the celestial beings who were following him, Hemavata said, “Let us approach the Buddha who, like a lion, is hard to approach. He lives alone, for he does not have the company of defilements. He is free from unwholesome deeds, since he is not enmeshed in lust and desire. Let us ask him how to escape from the snare of death.”

When they reached the Buddha, Hemavata sought permission to ask questions. He said, “O Lord, the Enlightened One, who preaches the Four Noble Truths both synthetically and analytically, who knows the Dhamma fully like no one else, who has overcome all dangers, may we submit a few questions?”

This is the usual approach in polite society. In those days, one who wanted to ask a question in the refined society of kings, lords, and wise men, usually asked for permission first, only the poorly educated shot the questions straight out. Hemavata had been a learned monk before he became a celestial being, so he knew about good manners.

How Does a Living Being Arise?

When the Buddha assented, Hemavata put the first question thus:

“O Lord, how does a living being (sattavā) arise? What does the world (loka) of beings, have as company? To what is it attached? What is involved in the misery suffered by beings who make up the world?”

The four points in this question carry deep significance. An ordinary celestial being could not have put such questions. Hemavata could because he had been a learned monk at the time of Buddha Kassapa.

A Being Arises From Six Things

The Buddha replied, “Hemavata, a being or the world arises when six arise together. The world of beings has six in company. To six it is attached. Six are involved in the misery suffered by beings who make up the world.”

Where the Six Are, the World Is

The six referred to by the Buddha are the six sense-bases (āyatana). They are the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the mind. These are called the inner sense-bases. If there are these six, a being comes into existence. A being is also called the world (loka). All human beings must have these six sense-bases. Statues and images have forms of these sense-bases, but they are not living ones, so they do not have any senses.

With only four or five sense-bases, a human being may still exist. One who is blind has the other five sense-bases. Similarly, with one who is deaf, or who has no sense of smell. (I once came across a monk who did not have any sense of smell). If the tongue, the body and the mind exist, there can be a being. Some marine animals appear to be rocks or weeds, but they are living beings. So a being can exist if there are just the tongue, the body, and the mind. In the realm of form there is no nose, tongue, or body, yet there are beings with the eye, the ear, and the mind only. In the formless realm, beings have only the mind, but no other senses. All six sense-bases are absent in the unconscious realm of existence. I assume that the Buddha meant to exclude this realm in his answer. We can conclude that when there is only the mind there can be a being. Of course, when there are all six there is nothing more to say. The existence of one, two, three, four, or five sense-bases is included in the maximum of six, to which the Buddha referred in his answer.

Now what about the six inner sense-bases? In the human world, an incipient mind appears in the mother’s womb at the time of conception. So the mind and body appear together, and a being comes into existence. It is only after conception that the eye (the material sense-base), and the seeing (the mental sense-base) appear simultaneously. Likewise, the ear and the hearing, the nose and the smelling, the tongue and the taste, the body and the sense of touch appear in pairs. As for the mind, the thought comes with it. Then all these sense-bases together make up a being.

If there is no eye and so no seeing, no ear and so no hearing, no sense of smell, no sense of touch, nor a sense of feeling, then there is no being in the human world. Look at a corpse. A little after death, a corpse is just like a living human being. However, the difference is that it has no conscious sense-base of any kind. So a corpse is not a living being. If one cuts up a corpse, one does not commit an act of killing. However, if one treats the corpse of a person of noble character disrespectfully, then one commits an unwholesome deed. Some people still have attachment for a corpse, which, of course, has none of the sense-bases, and so cannot be called a being.

Some people think that death means the exit of some living thing from a body, but it is not so. If the sense-bases continue operating, then one is considered to be alive. At the last moment, these sense-bases cease to operate, then death occurs. Once they cease, and if the person concerned is not free from defilements, a new mental phenomenon pitches itself onto a suitable material base.

The mind at the last moment of the life of a being is called decease consciousness (cuti citta), and the new mental phenomenon on a new material base is called relinking consciousness (patisandhi citta). This mental phenomenon is the sense-base of the mind (manāyatana). Simultaneously, the material base has in it the sense-base of the body (kāyāyatana). So, from the inception of a being there appear two, three, four, five, or all six sense-bases. With the appearance of these sense-bases, a new being appears. So the Buddha said, “Where there are the six, there the world is.” However, it is not that a new being springs up, nor is the old being transferred to a new realm of existence. In fact, new sense-bases appear because of the previous kamma. Without the six sense-bases there can be no being. Like a flowing river in which the water moves on with no gap since the old flow is followed immediately by the new flow, the sense-bases move on without a break or gap. This process is considered by one without insight as stable and permanent.

By a meditator who constantly notes the successive arising and disappearance of the six sense-bases, incessant change is seen and impermanence is realised. The meditator comes to know personally that human existence is just a series of incessant arisings and disappearances, and that nothing is permanent.

The Six Are in Company

The Buddha said that the world or a being is constantly in the company of the six. The six sense-bases: the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, are constantly in close association with the six sense-objects: sight, sound, odour, taste, touch, and thought. In other words, the six sense-bases are closely related to the six sense-objects. The sense-objects may be living or inanimate.

We distinguish between men and women by appearances. In effect, the eye and the seeing associate themselves with the sight. After the eye has seen, the mind-base takes an impression of the sight. Though the sight itself has disappeared, the impression on the mental sense-base remains. This makes the perception of a human being, which is a blend of the eye (cakkhāyatana), the sight (rūpāyatana), and the knowing of it (manāyatana). Ultimately, there is no such thing as a man, a woman, or a thing. If you think deeply and carefully, you will come to know that seeing is just an interplay of sense-bases. To one who meditates with well-developed concentration, such a realisation is normal, there is nothing remarkable about it. He or she will note the appearance and immediate disappearance of the senses. So the Buddha said: “Where there are the six, there is the world, and the world is closely associated with the six.”

Men and women can also be distinguished by hearing the male or female voice. The ear, the hearing, and the sound are associated with one another and the mind retains the perception of the sound, whether it is a male or female voice, whether it is pleasing or repugnant to the ear. Ultimately, there is no owner of the voice. There is only an association of the ear, the hearing, the mind, and the sound. To a meditator with practical experience it is obvious.

The nose and the sense of smell associate themselves with all kinds of odours, a man’s odour, a woman’s odour, the fragrance of a flower, etc. The mind registers the odour. Here, it is not only the odour itself, but the possessor of the odour, whether it is a woman or a man, that makes an impression on the mind. For instance, if you kiss your son, there is no kisser or the kissed — the nose, the sense of smell, and the odour blend. In other words, the nose, the sense of smell, the mind, and the odour associate with one another.

Eating food and tasting it, makes an impression of the taste on the mind. The eater will say that this food is tasty, sweet, creamy, or whatever, as the mind registers the taste. Ultimately, however, the eater, the food, and the taste, and the cook do not exist. Once the food is gulped down, the taste disappears, and nothing lasts.

Touch or physical contact is the combination of three elements: earth (pathavī), temperature (tejo), and motion (vāyo). Roughness or smoothness is the earth element; warmth or coolness is temperature; stiffness, pressure, or movement is motion. The contact with another body, or inanimate things such as clothes, the bed, etc., is transitory. The meditator has to note these contacts.

That is why the Buddha exhorted his disciples to note ‘going,’ while going. This was, in effect, an instruction to discern the true nature of the element of motion. In the same way, they were asked to note every physical action such as standing, sitting, lying down. Why is this instruction given? Because if one does not note the bodily actions, one does not know the physical phenomena. That ignorance then spawns defilements, which would make for either wholesome or unwholesome deeds. In noting the bodily actions, one should be mindful of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. If one is fully mindful of them and has developed the knowledge of the Noble Path, one will have completely got rid of the miseries of the defilements and sensual desire.

Here, I would like to point out that the rising and falling movement of the abdomen is included in physical phenomena. I therefore instruct my disciples to note the rising and falling of the abdomen when they begin the practice. This instruction is easy to follow. Once the meditator has gained concentration, he or she will come to realise the elements in the stiffening and softening of the abdomen and thus comprehend the physical and mental sense-bases according to the Dhamma. The meditator will then know clearly that there is no ‘I.’

The mind that differentiates men and women associates itself with thoughts or ideas. In other words, the mind-base associates with mental objects. People often say, “I am meeting somebody,” or “I am thinking of someone,” etc. Ultimately, however, nobody meets or thinks of anyone. Such thoughts, which occur incessantly if we are awake, are often unwholesome. Every time a thought occurs, the mind associates itself with it, and many people revel in such thoughts, and would resent the suggestion that they should restrain them.

Some teachers instruct their disciples to keep their minds free and relaxed instead of concentrating on meditation objects, because concentration, they say, restricts the mind. This is contrary to the Buddha’s instructions, although it might not seem to be. If the mind is allowed to roam freely as advised by these teachers, it will surely indulge in fond thoughts and revel in sensual pleasures. It would be like the idle thoughts of an opium smoker. Indulgence in such idle thoughts is the same as indulgence in sensual pleasures. So this statement in the Hemavata Sutta, that the mind works concurrently with sense-objects or ideas, is appropriate. To separate the mind from the ideas, one must practice meditation to gain concentration. If concentration is weak, the mind will stray, associating itself with sense-objects outside the object of meditation, as the meditators must have found for themselves.

Some pretentious teachers blame meditation practice for causing bodily discomfort. This is really discrediting the Buddha’s words. Those who follow their advice would be losing the chance of gaining true insight and would be unwittingly committing a serious unwholesome deed against noble persons.

Striving is Not Self-mortification

Tiring oneself mentally and physically can be a practice of self-mortification (attakilamathānuyoga), but this does not apply to meditation practice. The idea that sensual feelings will not occur if the body is mortified, is wrong. Physical exertion with such an idea in mind is self-mortification. However, if one strives ardently to attain insight, one does not commit the unwholesome deed of self-mortification. Even if such exertions cause death, it is not an unwholesome deed. Consider the case of an opium-addict who refrains from taking opium at the risk of great physical discomfort. Such a person is not committing the unwholesome deed of self-mortification. Would the Buddha blame a person who risks his life to keep his morality intact?

Likewise, refraining from adultery by restraining one’s carnal desire in the face of temptations is a great physical discomfort. Would the Buddha blame such a person? So also, one who refrains from afternoon meals to preserve his eight precepts, is blameless. A servant of Anāthapindika who determinedly abstained from afternoon meals, though he was afflicted by a gastric disease, consequently died. This was not self-mortification. This manservant became an arboreal guardian angel after his death. The Buddha praised such determined acts of abstinence to keep morality intact thus, “My disciples do not break their precepts, even at the risk of their lives.”

The Buddha’s Admonition

The Buddha admonished his disciples: “Bhikkhus, attainment of the Dhamma may be achieved by diligence and fortitude even though one is reduced to a skeleton. You should strive for such attainment with determination and persistence.” This is a fervent admonition of the Buddha, as contained in the Mahāgosinga Sutta:

 “Sāriputta! The bhikkhu who sits cross-legged, practising meditation after his meal, determined not to leave that sitting posture before attaining freedom from defilements, is one who adorns this Sāl forest of Gosinga.”1

Based on these statements, one should banish doubts about striving strenuously in the meditation practice, especially regarding efforts to gain insight. You must remember that striving your utmost in meditation cannot be equated with ill-treating your body and thus committing the unwholesome deed of self-mortification. You must avoid bogus teachers or you will be misled.

Sensual Indulgence and Self-mortification

Failing to control the mind, but allowing it to wander freely is sensual-indulgence (kāmasukhallikānuyoga). Mindfulness is a prerequisite to the attainment of insight. Monks should strive to be free from sensual-indulgence, at least by being mindful at the time of taking meals. They should remember that food is not for enjoyment, but for gaining strength to practise meditation. On the other hand, tiring one’s body and mind while striving to attain insight is not the unwholesome deed of self-mortification. However, going about naked, or heating one’s body at a fire or in the sun, or soaking one’s body all day in cold water, is self-mortification.

Tiring one’s body and mind to keep the five, eight, or ten precepts, or the precepts for novices and monks, is not self-denial. It is following the middle way of morality. Striving with the utmost physical and mental effort to gain concentration is not self-mortification. It is following the middle way of concentration. Incessantly noting the activities of the body and mind, without any respite, to attain insight and the wisdom of the path and fruition, is not repression. It is following the middle way of wisdom.

Three Aspects of the Middle Way

Of the three aspects of the middle way — morality, concentration, and wisdom — morality is obvious and does not need any elaboration. The other two must be differentiated.

Concentration is just to keep the mind from its constant flights, to keep it stable. Samatha is concentration on a certain object, such as the inhaled breath and the exhaled breath. Making a note of the inhaled and exhaled breaths as they brush the tip of the nostrils, is called ānāpāna samatha bhāvanā. As one concentrates on the breaths, one gradually gains samādhi, stability of the mind. Similarly, by other forms of meditation such as contemplation of a corpse, concentration can be gained. This concentration, however, does not involve the differentiation of mind and matter, nor does it, by itself, give insight into the physical and mental phenomena and their three characteristics. Samatha bhāvanā is merely for gaining concentration. The Buddha advised his disciples to control the mind by means of samatha.

Insight meditation begins only when one concentrates on the six sense-bases and notes their activities. The nature and characteristics of mind and matter should be observed, and the appearance and disappearance of activities in rapid succession should be noted. Simultaneously, one has to contemplate deeply the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-self nature of this flux of activities. By clearly seeing the true nature of mind and matter, one is practising insight meditation. Those without proper knowledge think that insight means merely noting one thing. They do not know that making a note involves observation of the physical and mental activities, which are in constant flux. Such observation must be made to see the three characteristics. So the Buddha said that whatever emanates from the six ‘doors’ of the body should be noted and contemplated. The Buddha preached thousands of discourses for the control of the mind through insight. Only through insight can one realise the association of the sense-bases with the senses and the sense-objects, and that such actions and interactions make up the world or realms of existence.

No Encroachment

There must be no encroachment from one area to another, for instance, from the area of wisdom to the area of morality. Some people do not really know the nature of sense-bases, but they have learnt from books and lectures, and think much of their second-hand knowledge. From their superficial knowledge they often draw wrong conclusions. They argue that a gourd is a chemical conglomerate just as is a chicken. So, they say that if no unwholesome deed is committed by cutting the gourd, cutting a chicken is also not an unwholesome deed. Syrup, they say, is of the liquid element, so is liquor. So it is not an unwholesome deed to drink liquor, as it is not an unwholesome deed to drink syrup. If the touch between man and man is not an unwholesome deed, as it is mere touching, then the touch between a man and a woman is also not an unwholesome deed. The touch is the same nature, they say, as the touch of a bed-sheet, or a pillow. This kind of foolish argument is the same as that postulated by a monk named Arittha during the time of the Buddha.

Venerable Arittha’s False Views

Venerable Arittha wondered why lay people enjoying sexual pleasures could attain the state of a Stream-winner while monks were denied such pleasures. Although the monks were allowed to sleep on soft beds, why were they not allowed the similar soft touch of the female body, for the feeling of touch was identical.

He maintained that it was not an unwholesome deed to enjoy the touch of the female body. The other monks reasoned with him and urged him to give up this wrong view, but he held that it was in accordance with the Buddha’s teachings. So he was taken to see the Buddha. When the Buddha questioned him, he said that that was what the Buddha had taught. The Buddha then said that he had never given such a teaching, and called Arittha a hopeless man who could not attain the stages of the path and fruition. Even then, Arittha did not discard his belief. Currently there are people like Arittha — I would even say that they are the relatives and descendants of Arittha — who still argue that such a belief is in accordance with the teachings of the Buddha.

If they say that syrup is essentially the same as liquor because both are liquids, then liquor is essentially the same as urine. Would they drink urine? If a gourd is essentially the same as a chicken or, for that matter, the same as their children, would they have their children cut up like the gourd or the chicken? If the touch of a bed sheet or a pillow is the same as that between a man and a woman, can they live their whole lives married only to a bed-sheet and pillow? If we ask these questions, the correct answer will soon become clear. The Arahants who know in their wisdom the true nature of the sense of feeling, have never transgressed the bounds of morality. Only those with superficial knowledge condone actions that violate morality. They do not merely say so, but they go further and commit unwholesome deeds. If they do that, it would be like holding a live coal, thinking that it is not hot. An unwholesome deed will not let them off scot-free. It will give its evil effects according to its intrinsic nature. If one holds a live coal firmly in one’s grip, one will get severely burnt.

Must Not Encroach on Samādhi

Some say that concentration is not necessary, if one just ponders upon the two factors of wisdom — Right View and Right Thought — there is no need to note arising and dissolution. This is an encroachment on the area of samādhi. Attaining jhāna samādhi is best, failing that, one should at least gain momentary concentration (khanika samādhi), which is equivalent to access concentration (upacāra samādhi). Otherwise, one cannot gain genuine insight. So the Buddha said, “Monks, develop concentration, a monk who has concentration knows things as they really are. What is knowing things as they really are? It is knowing that the eye is not permanent, that the visible object is not permanent, and that seeing is not permanent.”

The Buddha said further that one bereft of Right View is bereft of insight knowledge, so without concentration one clearly cannot attain insight knowledge, or path and fruition knowledge. So one can conclude that knowledge without samādhi is not insight knowledge, and without insight knowledge one cannot attain nibbāna. Superficial knowledge is not the monopoly of Buddhists, for non-Buddhists could gain it if they study the Abhidhamma. It is therefore vital to try to gain genuine insight by constantly noting the sense-bases using the vipassanā method.

Six Sense-Bases Make Up Man

To the question of how the world came into existence, the Buddha’s answer was that the world’s existence was based upon the six sense-bases. It means that the world of living beings comes into existence dependent on the six sense-bases.

Suffering in the Six

To the question “Where do beings suffer from the ill effects of the six sense-bases?” the Buddha replied that they suffered from the ill effects in the six sense-bases themselves. He said that beings suffered because they attempted to satisfy these six sense-bases. According to the commentary on the discourse, the sensations emanating from the outer objects attack the six sense-bases. In my opinion, the sensations such as sight, sound, taste, odour, touch, and thought invite craving and cause beings to suffer. I think that is a better explanation.

People are constantly trying to get beautiful things, animate or inanimate. If they do not get them, they go on searching for them until they succeed. When they come to possess them, they try to keep them and prevent them from being lost or destroyed. Thus, people are constantly striving, and constantly suffering. In the same way, they long to get other pleasant experiences, such as sweet sounds, delicious tastes, delightful touches, and they entertain fond hopes and thoughts. They strive to keep themselves healthy and long-lived so that they may enjoy these pleasures longer. In making these efforts, people have to feel anxious about themselves and others. Though they try to obtain and maintain these pleasures, things do not happen as they wish. Pleasures go as quickly as they come. Decay soon sets in and destroys them. Then people suffer greatly, not only physically, but mentally too. This affects not only human beings, but celestial beings too, who also try with similar purposes. Do not imagine that if one becomes a celestial being due to one’s good deeds that one gets to a place where every wish is fulfilled, and one becomes fully satisfied. No one is ever satisfied with what they have, and will always crave for more or better things. To get more, further efforts must be made, and suffering will result from those efforts.

Suffering will result from actions involving the sacrifice of lives of other beings under the mistaken notion that one would gain merit from such an act. If one kills, steals, or does unwholesome deeds wanting prosperity and happiness, even for that of one’s relatives and friends, one will receive all the sufferings resulting from the act. One may even be reborn in the realms of misery.

Enjoying sense pleasures does not bring any real happiness; it brings only suffering. Say, for instance, one continues eating good food after having reached the state of satiety. Eating good food seems enjoyable at first, but the enjoyment will decline gradually and suffering will follow. This also applies to the other senses. If one looks at beautiful things constantly, one will get bored, then suffering and disgust will set in. One cannot enjoy the same sensation constantly, suffering always sets in after one is satiated. Enjoyment is only transitory, and it can cover up the innate suffering for just a limited time. Striving for enjoyment is, in fact, suffering.