skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Concernant la réincarnation, les méprises sont fréquentes et
nombreuses même parmi les bouddhistes.
Tout d'abord, il faut bien comprendre que ce qu'on appelle réincarnation dans le bouddhisme n'a rien à voir avec la transmigration d'une "entité" quelconque, rien à voir avec la métempsycose.
Tant que l'on raisonne en termes d'entités plutôt que de fonction, de continuité de l'expérience, le concept bouddhiste de renaissance ne peut pas être compris.
Il est dit "qu'aucun fil ne passe au travers des perles du collier des renaissances."
Il n'y a pas identité d'une "personne" au travers de renaissances successives, mais conditionnement d'un flot de conscience
Selon le bouddhisme,
effectivement, il n’y a pas d’âme et il n’y a pas non plus de “personne”
considérées comme des entités distinctes.
Il n’y a qu’un flot dynamique
d’expérience, instant après instant, que l’on appelle la conscience.
Dans le monde de l’inanimé, il est admis que « rien ne se crée, rien de
ne perd ».
Il n’y a que des transformations.
La matière ne peut naître
ex nihilo.
Selon le bouddhisme, il en va de même de la conscience, qui
ne peut ni surgir de rien ni passer de l’existence phénoménale au néant.
D’où l’idée d’un continuum de conscience qui se poursuit d’état d’être
en état d’être.
Ce continuum n’implique nullement l’existence d’une âme ou d’un “moi”,
pas plus qu’il n’existe une entité “Ganges” distincte du flot sans cesse
changeant que l’on appelle le fleuve “Ganges”.
On peut parler à juste titre du Gange à sa source et du Gange à
Bénarès, car il s’agit du même continuum.
Cela n’implique par pour
autant qu’il existe une entité “Gange” autonome, qui sorte la tête de
temps à la surface de l’eau pour proclamer « c’est moi le Gange ».
Il y a
donc bien un continuum, mais pas d’entité distincte.
L’histoire du Gange, avec ses diverses caractéristiques sans cesse
changeantes, est différence de celle de la Seine.
Cette différence
justifie de lui associer un concept et un nom.
Il en va de même de la
notion de “personne”, qui reflète l’histoire de notre flot de
conscience.
Le “moi” existe bien, mais uniquement en tant que
désignation conceptuelle qui permet de relier entre eux un ensemble de
phénomènes.
Le “moi” n’est qu’une
“désignation conceptuelle”, dénuée d’existence propre, attachée au flot
de conscience.
La “personne” est l’histoire d’un flot de conscience
particulier, le vôtre étant diffèrent du mien.
Les êtres ordinaires n’ont guère de maitrise sur le flot de leur
conscience et ne comprennent pas la nature fondamentale de la
conscience.
De ce fait, cette conscience est emportée comme une plume au
vent par le Karma, en direction de divers modes d’existence.
Celui qui a réalisé la nature de la conscience est libéré de l’ignorance
et des toxines mentales (haine, désir, arrogance, jalousie, etc.) et
n’accumule plus de karma négatif.
Le flot de son esprit est à la fois
limpide (grâce à la connaissance) et flexible (grâce à l’entraînement).
Un tel être est libéré du samsara et n’est plus contraint de se
réincarner en raison de ses actes karmiques.
C’est mû par une compassion
sans limite pour les êtres qui souffrent dans le samsara qu’il fait vœu
de renaître volontairement pour accomplir le bien des êtres et les
délivrer de la souffrance.
Propos extraits librement à partir du blog de Matthieu Ricard : http://www.matthieuricard.org/
Meaning “mind protection” are Sanskrit syllables, usually recited in
conjunction with the practice of a particular meditational deity, and embody
the qualities of
the deity with which they are associated. They bring benefit to all who see,
touch, hear or speak them. Further, when you recite mantras with the correct
motivation, your speech becomes holy speech capable of offering blessings to
others.
HUM by Lama Zopa
20th December, 1938
597.
A Swiss lady, Mrs.J.C.S. Hick-Riddingh, asked, "Does Self-Realisation imply 'occult powers' also ?"
Sri Bhagavan : The SELF is the most intimate and eternal Being, whereas the siddhis are foreign. The one, requires effort to acquire and the other, does not.
The powers are sought by the mind which must be kept alert, whereas the SELF is realised when the mind is destroyed. The powers manifest only when there is the ego. The ego makes you aware of others and in its absence, there are no others to be seen. The SELF is beyond the ego and is realised after the ego is eliminated. The elimination of the ego makes one un-aware of others. How can the question of others arise and where is the use of occult powers for a Self-Realised Being ?
Self-Realisation may be accompanied by occult powers or it may not be. If the person had sought such powers before Realisation, he may get the powers after Realisation. There are others who had not sought such powers and had attempted only Self-Realisition. They do not manifest such powers.
These powers may also be gained even after Self-Realisation. But then, they are used for a definite purpose,i.e.,the benefit of others, as in the case of 'Queen Chudala'.
'Sikhidhvaja' was a pious King. His spouse was 'Chudala'. They received instructions from a Sage. The King, being busy with the administration of his kingdom, could not put the instruction into practice,whereas Chudala put them into practice and gained Self-Realisation. Consequently, she appeared more charming than before. The King was struck by her growing 'charm' and asked her about it. She said that all 'charm' was due to the SELF and he was only noting the 'charm of Self-Realisation' in her.He said that she was silly. There were great tapasvins who could not realise the SELF even after long periods of tapas and what about a silly woman who was all along in the family and in the worldly life ?
However, Chudala was not offended, because she was firm in the SELF and only wished that her husband should realise the SELF and be happy. She, then, thought that unless she could prove her worth by manifesting some extraordinary powers, he could not be convinced; and, she began to seek occult powers and gained them. But,she did not betray them just then.
Constant association with her, made the King dispassionate. He began to dislike the worldly life and desired to retire into the forest for performing tapasya. So, he told his wife that he wanted to leave the world for the forest. She was delighted at the development, but pretended to be very much concerned with his unkind decision. He hesitated out of consideration for her. In the meantime, his dispassion gained in force and he decided to leave home, even without her consent.
When the queen was sleeping, one night, he suddently left the palace by stealth and retired into the forest. He was seeking some solitary spot where he could perform his tapas. When the queen woke up, she did not find her husband and immediately found out by her occult powers, what had really happened. She rejoiced in her husband's determination. She called the ministers and said that the King had gone on some important business and that the administration should be carried on as efficiently as ever. She herself administered the state in the absence of the King.
Eighteen years passed. She then knew that the King was fit for Self-Realisation. So, she appeared to him disguised as Kumbha Muni and so on. He then reaslised the SELF and returned to rule the kingdom with the queen.
The point is that occult powers are sought and gained for the benefit of others by Self-Realised persons also. But, the Sages are not deluded by the possession of such powers.
D.: Does the Sage use occult powers for making others realise the SELF or is the mere fact of his Self-Realisation enough for it ?
Sri Bhagavan : The force of his Self-Realisation is far more powerful than the use of all other powers.
Inasmuch as there is no ego in him, there are not others for him. What is the highest benefit that can be conferred on others ? It is 'happiness'. 'Happiness' is born of Peace. Peace can reign only when there is no disturbance. Disturbance is due to thoughts which arise in the mind. When the mind itself is absent, there will be perfect Peace. Unless a person had annihilated his mind, he cannot gain Peace and be Happy. Unless he himself is 'happy', he cannot bestow 'happiness' on others.
When there is no mind, he cannot be aware of others. So, the mere fact of his Self-Realisation is itself enough to make all others 'happy'.
--- from " TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI ", pp. 550--552.
