top of page

5-0 Unusually questions

值得深思的問與答

按照頌德帕摩訶維拉翁長老的安排,阿姜曼會在曼谷待個幾天,之後再啟程前往烏隆府。抵達曼谷後,阿姜曼暫住在波羅曼尼寺。許多民眾把握機會前來拜訪、並請阿姜曼為他們解惑。其中有一些問題相當特別,我將它們記載如下。

 

問:「我聽說您只遵守一條戒律,而非比丘都應遵守的227條具足戒。請問這是真的嗎?」

 

阿姜曼:「是的,我只奉受一條戒律而已。」

 

問:「請問是哪一條戒律呢?」

 

阿姜曼:「我的心。」

 

問:「所以您不遵守全部的227條戒律嗎?」

 

阿姜曼:「我守護我的心,不允許自己出現任何錯誤的言、行、意,我自然不會違反佛陀訂立的任何戒律,不管是227條或更多條戒律都不成問題。至於那些懷疑我是否持守227條戒律的人們,他們要如何說我是管不著的。對我而言,從受戒的那一天起,我就已經對我的心進行嚴格的看管,畢竟心才是所有言語與行為的主宰。」

 

問:「您的意思是要想持守戒律,人們必須先守護內心嗎?」

 

阿姜曼:「要持守戒律,若不看顧好自己的心,還有什麼需要看顧呢?世上只有死人該注意言行多過於他們的心,畢竟他們根本沒有心!智者也不會為死人們解說戒律的含意,因為他們根本沒有有意義的言語與行為。若真的有為死人而設立的戒律,那也是死氣沉沉且毫無用處的教條。我不是一個死人,所以我不會只注意言語與行為而不去看顧我的心。我遵守的戒律,是為了有善有惡的人們而建立的戒律-重點在於必須看顧好自己的心。」

 

提問者:「我曾經聽說,管好自己的言行就可稱之為持守戒律。這種說法讓我以為,持戒不一定需要看顧內心,所以我才會提出剛才的問題。」

 

阿姜曼:「認為持守戒律就是控制好自己的言語與行為,這是正確的觀念。然而,在做出良善的言語與行為之前,我們還必須思索戒德因何而生起?畢竟,心才是言語與行為的主人。心能規範、並引導言語與行為往良善的方向前進。在了解內心才是關鍵之後,我們還必須弄清楚心是以什麼方式影響言行。如此,我們的言行才能自然而然地符合戒律,不讓我們羞愧。其實,心處理的事物不只是道德而已,它還監督並控制所有進行中的活動。心會規劃一切事物,它會盡量以正確且有次序地方式執行一切活動,以求得最好的結果。」

 

「如同醫療行為,在疾病轉變為慢性之前,醫師就必須找出病因並趕緊給予適當的治療。持守戒律也是如此,想要有好的戒德,行者必須先看顧好自己的心。沒做到此事,結果將會是一個充滿破洞與污穢的品行,根本不配稱之為戒德。這種表裡不一的持戒方式是令人惋惜的,因為它會讓行者的持戒行為與持戒目的逐漸脫鉤,也不可避免地會影響到教法的傳承。除此之外,持守這樣的戒律絕不會讓自己獲得安穩、或讓大眾信服與敬佩。」

 

「出家後,我並沒有將時間花在研讀經典上;我的老師教導我如何成為一個遊方在森林與山區的頭陀比丘。我的佛法是從周遭的樹木、花草、溪流、懸崖、洞穴、鳥類或其他野生動物學習得到的。所以關於戒律與戒德,我沒有研讀足夠多的書籍,我絕不是一個能夠引經據典的老師。從我剛才的回答中,你也可以看出我只受過一些粗淺的佛學教育。對於一位像你這樣學識豐富的居士,我覺得我是無法提出適合你程度的回答的。」

 

問:「道德的本質為何?而佛教的戒德到底是由什麼事物所構成?」

 

阿姜曼:「戒德可說是以正念了知自己生起的各種念頭;知道什麼事物可以思索、什麼事物不該妄想;時時留意自己的言語、行為、心意,並對自己的言行意加以規範,不讓它們逾越大眾能接受的範圍。做到這些條件,行者便能確信自己的行為是恰當的、可堪為模範的、是符合道德的。這樣的行者絕不會對他人或社會造成傷害。若討論戒德卻不提到受到控制的言行意,那麼我們將無法界定何謂戒德。於是,戒德必須有個致力於控制言行意的行者。我們不能單獨討論戒德,而不去考慮持守戒律的行者的狀況。他們緊緊相依,非獨立的個體。這不像是一匹馬與擁有這匹馬的主人的情況-馬匹獨立存在,主人也獨立存在。區分戒德與持戒者將會造成許多疑惑,所以我不會這樣做的。甚至因持戒而生起的寧靜與喜悅,它們也無法與戒德分割,一定得一起討論之。若戒德能與行者、與行者內心的狀態單獨分離出來的話,戒德或許早就擺在商店中被商人販售了。那麼,人們的戒德可能會轉變為一個有利可圖的投資標的,成為盜賊們覬覦的對象。許多人的戒德會被偷走搶走,最後被擺在黑市裡高價標售。這樣的話,戒德就與其他的世間財產一樣,是引起人們擔憂煩惱之物。接著,佛教徒便不願意持守戒律、不願去培育戒德,因為擁有戒德後,人們也無法安心地持有戒德。因此,無法精確說出戒德的構成元素,其實可以避免因持有戒德而產生出的危險,這讓持戒者可以安全地持有戒德,安享內心的寧靜。我一向對分析戒德的構成元素保持戒慎恐懼的態度,我也從未區分過我自己與我的戒德有何分別。那些與我一樣不做分別的人們,不管到何處、不管做什麼事,他們都能怡然自得,因為他們不會擔心自己的戒德遺失。而那些把戒德視為物品的人們,他們時時擔憂害怕,深怕會弄丟寶貴的戒德。或許他們的擔憂會持續到死前的最後一刻;之後他們會成為鬼,留在原處看守自己的戒德。這就與守財奴死亡後的狀況一樣,他們死亡後成為鬼眾,永不願離開生前埋藏財寶的所在地。

 Upon arriving in Bangkok, Ãcariya Mun went to stay at Wat Boromaniwat monastery, following the instructions telegrammed from Somdet Phra Mahã Wirawong. Before he departed for Udon Thani, many people came to see him at Wat Boromaniwat with questions. Some of these questions were rather unusual, so I have decided to include them.

 

Question: “I understand that you maintain only one rule instead of the full 227 monastic rules that all other monks keep. Is that true?”

 

Ãcariya Mun: “Yes, I maintain only the one rule.”

 

Question: “Which one do you maintain?”

 

Ãcariya Mun: “My mind.”

 

Question: “So, you don’t maintain all 227 rules?”

 

Ãcariya Mun: “I maintain my mind by not allowing any wrong thoughts, speech, or actions that would violate the prohibitions laid down by the Buddha, be they 227 in number or even more than that. Those who doubt whether or not I maintain the 227 monastic rules can think and say what they please. As for me, from the day of my ordination I have always maintained strict control over my mind, as it is the master of body and speech.”

 

Question: “You mean we have to maintain our minds in order to maintain the moral precepts?”

 

Ãcariya Mun: “What else would you maintain to develop good moral virtue, if not your mind? Only the dead have no need to look after their minds, much less their actions and speech. The wise have never claimed that dead people have a moral bias, it being impossible for corpses to show willful intent. If corpses did have morality, then it would be a dead and useless one. But I am not a corpse, so I cannot maintain a dead man’s morality. I must do what befits one fully endowed with both good and evil tendencies – I must maintain my mind in moral virtue.”

 

Question: “I’ve heard it said that keeping our actions and speech in good order is called morality, which lead me to understand that it’s not really necessary to look after the mind. That’s why I asked.”

 

Ãcariya Mun: “It is quite true that morality entails keeping our actions and speech in good order. But before we can put our actions and speech in good moral order, we must consider the source of moral virtue. It originates with the master of body and speech – the mind – which makes them behave properly. Once we have established that the mind is the determining factor, we must ascertain how it relates to action and speech so that they stay in good moral order that is a source of comfort to us and others alike. It’s not only moral virtue that the mind must deal with. The mind supervises the performance of every activity we engage in, making sure that it’s done in a proper, orderly fashion to produce excellent results each time.

 

“Treating an illness requires diagnosing its cause, then devising an effective cure before it develops into a chronic condition. Taking care of morality requires the mind to be in effective control. Otherwise, the result will be tarnished morality that’s patchy, and full of holes. Such splintered, inconsistent virtue is truly pitiful. It moves people to live an aimless existence and inevitably causes an adverse effect on the entire religion. Besides that, it’s not a source of comfort to the person practicing it, nor is it admired by his peers.

 

“I have never done much studying. After I ordained, my teacher took me as a wandering monk into the mountains and forests. I learned Dhamma from the trees and grasses, the rivers and the streams, the cliffs and the caves. I learned it from the sounds of birds and wild animals, from the natural environment around me. I didn’t study the scriptures long enough to become well-versed in the teaching on moral virtue; and my answers to your questions tend to reflect that primitive  education. I feel rather inadequate for my inability to provide answers that would be suitably eloquent for your edification.”

 

Question: “What is the nature of morality and what constitutes genuine moral virtue?”

 

Ãcariya Mun: “Being mindfully aware of our thoughts; knowing which things are appropriate to think about and which are not; taking care how we express ourselves by way of body, speech, and mind; controlling these three factors so that they remain within the confines of what is morally acceptable. By properly adhering to these conditions we can be confident that the moral nature of our behavior is exemplary and we are never unruly or offensive. Apart from such exemplary conduct in body, speech, and mind, it’s difficult to say what genuine moral virtue is, since it’s impossible to separate its practice from the person who maintains it. They are not distinct entities, like a house and its owner – the house on one hand, the owner on another. Trying to distinguish between moral virtue and the person who maintains it is very problematic, so I wouldn’t want to do it. Even the peace of mind resulting from the practice of moral virtue cannot actually be separated from that moral virtue. If morality could be isolated in this manner, it would probably have been on sale in the stores long ago. In such a case, people’s moral virtue would probably become a lucrative target for thieves to steal and sell off to the highest bidder, leaving many people totally deprived. Like all other possessions, moral virtue would then become a source of anxiety. It would cause Buddhists to become weary of striving for it, and insecure about holding onto their acquisition. Consequently, the inability to know what precisely constitutes genuine moral virtue is a way to avoid the dangers arising from moral issues, thus allowing virtuous individuals a clever way to gain peace of mind. Being very wary of the inherent dangers, I have never thought of separating myself from the moral virtue that I practice. Those unwilling to make this separation remain content wherever they go, whatever they do, for they never have to worry about losing their moral virtue. Those who see it as something separate from themselves might worry so much that they end up coming back as ghosts after death to anxiously watch over their store of accumulated virtue. It would be like dying people who fret about their wealth, and therefore, get stuck in a frame of mind where they return as ghosts to keep anxious watch over their accumulated riches.”

bottom of page