I have been very curious wanting to know for quite a while, between these two groups, which group have more people?
1. Buddhists who have ever read Buddhist scripture (Tipitaka) before.
2. Buddhists who have never read Tipitaka before, but have ever read a few pages of Christian's Bible.
Judging from all Buddhist friends that I knew so far, frankly I am not that confident that the first group has more people than the second group. Why is it so? Obviously, Buddhism, unlike others, is not a book based religion, in the sense that we don't treat Tipitaka as holy book to be venerated. As the result, study of Buddhism (with exception of advanced level), has never really focused on studying Tipitaka directly. (Although, of course, most (if not all) Buddhist book is based on teaching inside Tipitaka).
For myself, my interest of Buddhist scriptures, in particular the Sutta sections is growing slowly but steadily ever since I met Piya Tan and attended Sutta studies class in 2001. (Just to highlight, I started studying Buddhism ever since I was in Primary one, which mean I really started reading Tipitaka after 12 years of getting in touch with Buddhism). After reading and studying it for quite a while, I really thought that we should incorporate more scripture studies to the study of Buddhism (especially to the children and teenagers for early exposures).
Why do I think so?
1. The Suttas recorded the most direct and unadulterated version of the Buddhist teachings (although I am not suggesting that all the things inside it is spoken by the Buddha as some of it is obviously later addition after the Buddha's passing away). All the Buddhist books that we read today obviously contains a lot of teaching of the Buddha. However, it is obviously more subjective as it will also contain thought and opinion of the authors as well.
2. It is I think one of the way to feel closer to the Buddha. From close study of the Sutta, we will be able to know how the Buddha react upon being challenge, what is the style of the Buddha teaching His disciples, how the Buddha solve problems and wrong doings of his disciples (especially in Vinaya), how is the subtle humour that the Buddha possess, etc.
3. By studying it in context, we will reduce our tendency of quoting the Buddha's word out of context. For example, a few years ago, I have a friend who told me that the Buddha teaches us that there are many ways and many paths to Enlightenment. One can even get enlightened by following non Buddhist teachings. As the prove, this friend quoted that the Buddha said before that on one day, He took a few leaves and asked the disciples that which one is more? The few leaves in my hand or leaves in the forest, and further elaborating to me that since there are many leaves in the forest, following one of these "leaves" (aka teaching) we can also get enlightened. But upon further study of the Sutta (SN 56.31 Simsapa Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html ), This is obviously NOT what the Buddha meant when He said this. In fact, the Buddha is trying to tell us that there are a lot of truths that the Buddha did not teach. However, Why did the Buddha didn't teach them? Because those teachings are not relevant in bringing one to enlightenment!
4. Although it is true that wisdom in Buddhism arises not from theoretical studies of the scripture, but from practice (aka meditation and personal realization), it is also important to know the theory, as probably my teacher told me before "Theory without practice is of no use. However, practice without theory will lead us to more delusion/ ignorance". To put into a Buddhist word, the threefold formulation of Buddhism is - study, practice and realization.
Showing posts with label Early Buddhism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Early Buddhism. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Upagupta and Mara
I first heard about the story of Upagupta a few years ago during a Dhamma talk by Ajahn Sujato. Somehow there is something magical about this story that it is always in my mind from the first day I heard from Ajahn Sujato until today.
The story goes like this....
Upagupta is basically a Sarvastivada monk, born a few hundred years after the Buddha passed away (Parinibbana). He is one of the most famous Sarvastivadian monk, well known for his ability in teaching the Dhamma as well as his magical power. One day, Mara became jealous of Upagupta (probably because of Upagupta, many people became enlightened, and these people became outside the jurisdiction of Mara), and decided to distract and manage to do so for three consecutive times. In the last time, Mara, using his magical power, created a performance just besides the place Upagupta teaching the Dhamma. As the result, many people became distracted and started to enjoy the performance instead of listening to the teaching given by Upagupta. After the performance, Upagupta then went to Mara and offered a flower garland. Mara became very happy, thinking that he is able to win not only his disciples, but also Upagupta himself, decided to accept the flower garland. However, as soon as the flower garland touched the Mara's body, the flower garland suddenly became dead snakes, dead dogs and skulls sticking to Mara's body. No matter how hard Mara tried to disengage himself from these disgusting things, he failed to do so.
And then suddenly, the Mara thought of the Buddha (that has passed away for hundreds years by then). Mara taught that comparing the Buddha with his disciple, Upagupta, the Buddha was so much more compassionate. No matter how much Mara tried to do so many terrible things to the Buddha, The Buddha never did such a disgusting things.
Mara after that then conceded defeat and said that he would do any things if Upagupta agreed to release him for all these disgusting things. Upagupta, knowing that he has managed to make Mara realized the Buddha's compassion, agreed to do so.
Upagupta then asked Mara to transform himself to become the Buddha. It is because Upagupta was born hundreds years after the Buddha and never saw the Buddha's physical body but always been wanting to see the Buddha (Mara on the other hand, saw the Buddha many times). Mara agreed with condition that Upagupta should not pay respect to him, because no matter how much similar he is to the Buddha, he is after all not the Buddha, but Mara the evil one himself. Upagupta agreed to do so. But when Mara transformed himself to become the Buddha, Upagupta then pay respect by bowing to the Mara. Upon questioning by Mara, Upagupta simply replied that he was not paying respect to Mara, but the Buddha himself!
This is a very fascinating story to me. Just as the Buddha is symbol of Deathless, Mara is the symbol of Death (and probably in particular the Death of spirituality).
Traditionally, this story is used as a teaching that Buddhists do not paying respect to statues (Mara), but rather Buddhists pay respect on the Buddha, particularly the quality of the Buddha that we wanted to have.
However, my questions to all Buddhists are.
1. How many of us are in fact worshiping Mara in the form of Buddha's statue, and how many of us are really worshiping the Buddha? Although the action from outside is different, the difference are huge. On one hand, one is paying respect the bringer of light, to the path to the Deathless, while on the other hand, one is paying respect to the Death, to the Mara himself!
2. How do we know when we are paying respecting to the Buddha's statue, are we really paying respect to the Buddha, or are we paying respect to the Mara?
3. Why Buddhists created the Buddha's statue at the first place? Is this because they longed so much for the Buddha and refused to believe that the Buddha passed away (Mara)? Or is it because they wanted to find places to remind them the positive qualities of the Buddha (Buddha)?
The story goes like this....
Upagupta is basically a Sarvastivada monk, born a few hundred years after the Buddha passed away (Parinibbana). He is one of the most famous Sarvastivadian monk, well known for his ability in teaching the Dhamma as well as his magical power. One day, Mara became jealous of Upagupta (probably because of Upagupta, many people became enlightened, and these people became outside the jurisdiction of Mara), and decided to distract and manage to do so for three consecutive times. In the last time, Mara, using his magical power, created a performance just besides the place Upagupta teaching the Dhamma. As the result, many people became distracted and started to enjoy the performance instead of listening to the teaching given by Upagupta. After the performance, Upagupta then went to Mara and offered a flower garland. Mara became very happy, thinking that he is able to win not only his disciples, but also Upagupta himself, decided to accept the flower garland. However, as soon as the flower garland touched the Mara's body, the flower garland suddenly became dead snakes, dead dogs and skulls sticking to Mara's body. No matter how hard Mara tried to disengage himself from these disgusting things, he failed to do so.
And then suddenly, the Mara thought of the Buddha (that has passed away for hundreds years by then). Mara taught that comparing the Buddha with his disciple, Upagupta, the Buddha was so much more compassionate. No matter how much Mara tried to do so many terrible things to the Buddha, The Buddha never did such a disgusting things.
Mara after that then conceded defeat and said that he would do any things if Upagupta agreed to release him for all these disgusting things. Upagupta, knowing that he has managed to make Mara realized the Buddha's compassion, agreed to do so.
Upagupta then asked Mara to transform himself to become the Buddha. It is because Upagupta was born hundreds years after the Buddha and never saw the Buddha's physical body but always been wanting to see the Buddha (Mara on the other hand, saw the Buddha many times). Mara agreed with condition that Upagupta should not pay respect to him, because no matter how much similar he is to the Buddha, he is after all not the Buddha, but Mara the evil one himself. Upagupta agreed to do so. But when Mara transformed himself to become the Buddha, Upagupta then pay respect by bowing to the Mara. Upon questioning by Mara, Upagupta simply replied that he was not paying respect to Mara, but the Buddha himself!
This is a very fascinating story to me. Just as the Buddha is symbol of Deathless, Mara is the symbol of Death (and probably in particular the Death of spirituality).
Traditionally, this story is used as a teaching that Buddhists do not paying respect to statues (Mara), but rather Buddhists pay respect on the Buddha, particularly the quality of the Buddha that we wanted to have.
However, my questions to all Buddhists are.
1. How many of us are in fact worshiping Mara in the form of Buddha's statue, and how many of us are really worshiping the Buddha? Although the action from outside is different, the difference are huge. On one hand, one is paying respect the bringer of light, to the path to the Deathless, while on the other hand, one is paying respect to the Death, to the Mara himself!
2. How do we know when we are paying respecting to the Buddha's statue, are we really paying respect to the Buddha, or are we paying respect to the Mara?
3. Why Buddhists created the Buddha's statue at the first place? Is this because they longed so much for the Buddha and refused to believe that the Buddha passed away (Mara)? Or is it because they wanted to find places to remind them the positive qualities of the Buddha (Buddha)?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Forgiveness
One of the things that I enjoyed the most about teaching is that I tend to get inspiration myself. The time when I used to prepare the materials, the time that when I sat quietly pondering what to say, and the actual time when I am teaching, at times, I realized that strangely I have learnt things myself. Below is the reflection that I had while preparing today's material:
This morning, the topic of this morning's lesson is about Maha Mongallana, the left hand man of the Buddha. He is of course traditionally known as someone that is exceptionally strong in spiritual power. If you have known Superman, you will definitely compare between Maha Mongallana with him, and somehow felt that Maha Mongallana's power is even beyond Superman (at least in the story). Some of them are:
1. He has the ability to see things far away, like Superman but even more as he can see even to other realms (1-0 for Maha Mongallana)
2. He has the ability to listen to sounds from far away, just like Superman, but even more as he can listen to sounds from other realms (2-0 for Maha Mongallana)
3. He has the ability to do mind reading, (well Superman can't so 3-0 for Maha Mongallana)
4. He can teleport (Superman can only fly, so 4-0 for Maha Mongallana)
5. He is exceptionally strong (I don't know how to compare so I decide to make it a tie with Superman =P).
However, to me, the most moving story of Maha Mongallana is not about the story that he is stronger than Superman, but it is about his background. From both canonical sources as well as non-canonical sources, we can gather that Maha Mongallana did many wrong deeds in the past, two of the most terrible of those are:
1. He is Mara, the evil one himself during the first Buddha's dispensation (our current Buddha is the fifth in this kappa/aeons). - This is story is canonical, found in Majjhima Nikaya sutta no. 50 (I guess Mara is the Buddhist version of Devil/ Satan).
2. He killed his own father and mother before. - I guess this story is non canonical, found only in commentaries as a justification that he lost his power leading to the fact that bandits managed to kill him.
Contemplate on these two facts more carefully. Have you ever heard from other religions that Devil can be in Heaven? Have you ever heard that Satan can be in Heaven? To me, I have not. But this is the real beauty of Buddhism from philosophy from of view. Everybody has the capacity to be enlightened even Mara, the evil one himself. Not only did Maha Mongallana did enlightened, he even became the chief disciple of the Buddha!
Similarly, someone who killed even his own father and his own mother, if he realized his mistakes and changed, he also has the capacity to be enlightened.
I am not suggesting that it is okay to do wrong deeds. From the story, Maha Mongallana suffered greatly because of these two deeds. Due to his wrong deeds of becoming Mara the evil one and killing his own father and mother, he had stayed in hell for very very long time. However, this does not end his capacity to be enlightened and to be Arahat.
In summary, in Buddhism, there is no bad person, only person doing bad deeds. eg. Osama bin Laden is not bad person, but he do commit bad deeds. Saddam Hussein is not a bad person, but he do commit bad deeds, etc.
This is a very positive way of looking at the world today, and it is the greatest expression of forgiveness. Similarly, no matter how bad someone has treated us (even to the degree of killing our beloved ones), it is refreshing if we can forgive that person, though we will not forgive the deeds.
And if more and more people able to practice this, I believe the world will be a more peaceful and less hateful place to be. (Otherwise vicious cycle like this might happened. If someone killed our loved ones, we killed that person. And as the result, that person's loved ones will kill us, prompting our loved one to killed that person, and so on...)
Therefore, as a Buddhist, contemplate this. Maha Mongallana has enlightened, though he has done many bad deeds many lives before. Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or anyone that has did many terrible deeds to us, just like Maha Mongallana, has the capacity to become enlightened, and therefore forgive them!
This morning, the topic of this morning's lesson is about Maha Mongallana, the left hand man of the Buddha. He is of course traditionally known as someone that is exceptionally strong in spiritual power. If you have known Superman, you will definitely compare between Maha Mongallana with him, and somehow felt that Maha Mongallana's power is even beyond Superman (at least in the story). Some of them are:
1. He has the ability to see things far away, like Superman but even more as he can see even to other realms (1-0 for Maha Mongallana)
2. He has the ability to listen to sounds from far away, just like Superman, but even more as he can listen to sounds from other realms (2-0 for Maha Mongallana)
3. He has the ability to do mind reading, (well Superman can't so 3-0 for Maha Mongallana)
4. He can teleport (Superman can only fly, so 4-0 for Maha Mongallana)
5. He is exceptionally strong (I don't know how to compare so I decide to make it a tie with Superman =P).
However, to me, the most moving story of Maha Mongallana is not about the story that he is stronger than Superman, but it is about his background. From both canonical sources as well as non-canonical sources, we can gather that Maha Mongallana did many wrong deeds in the past, two of the most terrible of those are:
1. He is Mara, the evil one himself during the first Buddha's dispensation (our current Buddha is the fifth in this kappa/aeons). - This is story is canonical, found in Majjhima Nikaya sutta no. 50 (I guess Mara is the Buddhist version of Devil/ Satan).
2. He killed his own father and mother before. - I guess this story is non canonical, found only in commentaries as a justification that he lost his power leading to the fact that bandits managed to kill him.
Contemplate on these two facts more carefully. Have you ever heard from other religions that Devil can be in Heaven? Have you ever heard that Satan can be in Heaven? To me, I have not. But this is the real beauty of Buddhism from philosophy from of view. Everybody has the capacity to be enlightened even Mara, the evil one himself. Not only did Maha Mongallana did enlightened, he even became the chief disciple of the Buddha!
Similarly, someone who killed even his own father and his own mother, if he realized his mistakes and changed, he also has the capacity to be enlightened.
I am not suggesting that it is okay to do wrong deeds. From the story, Maha Mongallana suffered greatly because of these two deeds. Due to his wrong deeds of becoming Mara the evil one and killing his own father and mother, he had stayed in hell for very very long time. However, this does not end his capacity to be enlightened and to be Arahat.
In summary, in Buddhism, there is no bad person, only person doing bad deeds. eg. Osama bin Laden is not bad person, but he do commit bad deeds. Saddam Hussein is not a bad person, but he do commit bad deeds, etc.
This is a very positive way of looking at the world today, and it is the greatest expression of forgiveness. Similarly, no matter how bad someone has treated us (even to the degree of killing our beloved ones), it is refreshing if we can forgive that person, though we will not forgive the deeds.
And if more and more people able to practice this, I believe the world will be a more peaceful and less hateful place to be. (Otherwise vicious cycle like this might happened. If someone killed our loved ones, we killed that person. And as the result, that person's loved ones will kill us, prompting our loved one to killed that person, and so on...)
Therefore, as a Buddhist, contemplate this. Maha Mongallana has enlightened, though he has done many bad deeds many lives before. Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or anyone that has did many terrible deeds to us, just like Maha Mongallana, has the capacity to become enlightened, and therefore forgive them!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Why the Buddha's relics are dangerous
Because of my obligation as voluntary Sunday school teacher, I recently re-studied Maha Parinibbana Sutta (D16). The more I studied Maha Parinibbana Sutta and history of Buddhism after the Buddha's passing away, the more I felt that there are something wrong with relics.
Firstly, what are relics anyway? Relics are basically remains from a person. In the case of the Buddha, it is mentioned that after the Buddha passed away and being cremated, the remaining of the Buddha, called relics are then being venerated by some people.
So far so good right? What is wrong with relics then?
Firstly, let us see what happened after the Buddha passed away and cremated as recorded by Maha Parinibbana Sutta. It is mentioned that the Mallas of Kusinaras (basically the tribes in Kusinaras, where the Buddha passed away), more or less in charge of cremation of the Buddha's body, decided to install the Buddha's relics in an enclosure (cage) of spears, surrounding it with wall of bows in their assembly hall. And of course they also honoured, served, respected, esteemed and venerated them with dancing, music, singing, garlands and fragrances.
Why do you think they do that then? Why do they treat their teacher's remain who they have respected so much and who have well known for its renunciation to violence, surrounding it with weapons (spears, bows?).
I guess, probably, it is because they foresaw what might happen next in the near future.
True enough, not long after that, after the news of the Buddha has passed away spread, many kings, republic leaders and brahmins namely King Ajatasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha, Licchavis of Vesalis, Sakyas of Kapilavatthu, Bulis of Allakappa, Koliyas of Ramagama, brahmin Vethadipaka, Mallas of Pava, all sent their messengers to Mallas of Kusinaras, asking for the relics using various reasons justifying why they should be the one who have the rights to keep the Buddha's relics.
Obviously, the Mallas of Kusinaras rejected by saying that since the Buddha passed away in their place, the relics belong to them and they will not give away any portions of the relics!!!
Luckily, there is one brahmin with the name of Dona proposed to divide the Buddha's relics equally into 8 portions and distributed to all of these people and they somehow agreed with the proposal.
What do you think might happen if Mallas of Kusinaras insist to keep the relics by themselves? Noone knows for sure, but I guess that the possibilities that war will erupt just to fight over the relics are very possible. This is the worst case scenario right? Having war just because of the teacher's remains, while the teacher's instruction is loud and clear, renounce violence!
The next question that we should ask ourselves are why all these politicians want the Buddha's relic so much?
If we study carefully about power, one will know the answer straight away. The physical remains of the Buddha in the form of relics offer its owners power and authority. (eg. since I have the Buddha's relics, the Buddha is WITH ME, and therefore it is better for all of you to be with me also. My words are representing the Buddha...). In other words, relics promise power to its owner, and with power, the person can do a lot of things such as to build kingdom, to build country, to govern people, to accumulate wealth, etc.
Let me give further two examples of how relics can be very useful to its owners:
1. Sri Lanka. It is well known since old times that whoever possesses the sacred tooth relic of the Buddha possess the divine right to rule over the land. And because of these, of course many people would start wars in order to possess the relic so that they can become the kings of Sri Lanka.
2. In the modern days, big temples that possess or claim to possess many of the Buddha's relics are generally very successful in accumulating money.
After describing how relics are being used, let me come back to Maha Parinibbana Sutta. The main themes of the Sutta is basically on the Buddha's advice and instruction to the future Buddhists.
One thing that is very relevant here is of supreme worship. The Buddha mentioned that there are many ways to worship him. One can do all kinds of rituals, all kinds of methods to pay respect, venerate him, but those all are of little meaning, as the supreme worship is done and completed simply by practicing his teaching. (eg. realizing for himself the truth that the Buddha's proclaim that life is full of impermanence, suffering, and non self, and if one were to practice diligently based on the method that he taught, one will be able to reach his state, the state of Enlightenment (Nirvana/'Nibbana). When one became enlightened, one has in fact done a supreme worship to him, there is no need to do all sorts of useless things anymore!
In short, if you practice the Buddha's teaching diligently, there is no need to even pay respect to the Buddha's remain! Be it physical remains (relics), a tree (Bodhi tree), wheel (the symbol of Dhamma), the Buddha's statue or anything at all! Simply because when you are practicing his teaching, you have worship him much more, in comparison to the people who worship just his physical presence.
The problem with relics is the problem of externalization of Buddhism. To the pious (well, I should say fool) Buddhists, the relics represent the Buddha himself, and they are willing to do everything unconsciously when requested by the owners of the relics especially when he/she claims authority based on the relics.
To me, the story of relics much of it, is a story of human greed and human delusion. Politicians, or anyone who have desire for power/ money/ authority, will desire relics especially when he/she is being surrounded by fool people. Fool people who have much ignorance thought that those who possess relics are always right, will do everything as wanted by the relic's owner.
This is the reason why I thought the Buddha's relics are dangerous. The Buddha's teachings are clear. One should abandon greed, hatred and delusion, uprooting latent tendency of lust, aversion, and ignorance. But, somehow ironically, the Buddha's remains, the relics have proven to me in the past 2600 years, have done the reverse, increasing greed and delusion of many!
Closing note: From other perspective, we can also see that relics are just earth element, and it does not have any problem on its own. It is human beings' greed and ignorance that purposely misuse relics for their selfish gain. When one sees from this perspective, it is not relic's fault, since it is just a stone. How can we blame a stone (right?) =P
Firstly, what are relics anyway? Relics are basically remains from a person. In the case of the Buddha, it is mentioned that after the Buddha passed away and being cremated, the remaining of the Buddha, called relics are then being venerated by some people.
So far so good right? What is wrong with relics then?
Firstly, let us see what happened after the Buddha passed away and cremated as recorded by Maha Parinibbana Sutta. It is mentioned that the Mallas of Kusinaras (basically the tribes in Kusinaras, where the Buddha passed away), more or less in charge of cremation of the Buddha's body, decided to install the Buddha's relics in an enclosure (cage) of spears, surrounding it with wall of bows in their assembly hall. And of course they also honoured, served, respected, esteemed and venerated them with dancing, music, singing, garlands and fragrances.
Why do you think they do that then? Why do they treat their teacher's remain who they have respected so much and who have well known for its renunciation to violence, surrounding it with weapons (spears, bows?).
I guess, probably, it is because they foresaw what might happen next in the near future.
True enough, not long after that, after the news of the Buddha has passed away spread, many kings, republic leaders and brahmins namely King Ajatasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha, Licchavis of Vesalis, Sakyas of Kapilavatthu, Bulis of Allakappa, Koliyas of Ramagama, brahmin Vethadipaka, Mallas of Pava, all sent their messengers to Mallas of Kusinaras, asking for the relics using various reasons justifying why they should be the one who have the rights to keep the Buddha's relics.
Obviously, the Mallas of Kusinaras rejected by saying that since the Buddha passed away in their place, the relics belong to them and they will not give away any portions of the relics!!!
Luckily, there is one brahmin with the name of Dona proposed to divide the Buddha's relics equally into 8 portions and distributed to all of these people and they somehow agreed with the proposal.
What do you think might happen if Mallas of Kusinaras insist to keep the relics by themselves? Noone knows for sure, but I guess that the possibilities that war will erupt just to fight over the relics are very possible. This is the worst case scenario right? Having war just because of the teacher's remains, while the teacher's instruction is loud and clear, renounce violence!
The next question that we should ask ourselves are why all these politicians want the Buddha's relic so much?
If we study carefully about power, one will know the answer straight away. The physical remains of the Buddha in the form of relics offer its owners power and authority. (eg. since I have the Buddha's relics, the Buddha is WITH ME, and therefore it is better for all of you to be with me also. My words are representing the Buddha...). In other words, relics promise power to its owner, and with power, the person can do a lot of things such as to build kingdom, to build country, to govern people, to accumulate wealth, etc.
Let me give further two examples of how relics can be very useful to its owners:
1. Sri Lanka. It is well known since old times that whoever possesses the sacred tooth relic of the Buddha possess the divine right to rule over the land. And because of these, of course many people would start wars in order to possess the relic so that they can become the kings of Sri Lanka.
2. In the modern days, big temples that possess or claim to possess many of the Buddha's relics are generally very successful in accumulating money.
After describing how relics are being used, let me come back to Maha Parinibbana Sutta. The main themes of the Sutta is basically on the Buddha's advice and instruction to the future Buddhists.
One thing that is very relevant here is of supreme worship. The Buddha mentioned that there are many ways to worship him. One can do all kinds of rituals, all kinds of methods to pay respect, venerate him, but those all are of little meaning, as the supreme worship is done and completed simply by practicing his teaching. (eg. realizing for himself the truth that the Buddha's proclaim that life is full of impermanence, suffering, and non self, and if one were to practice diligently based on the method that he taught, one will be able to reach his state, the state of Enlightenment (Nirvana/'Nibbana). When one became enlightened, one has in fact done a supreme worship to him, there is no need to do all sorts of useless things anymore!
In short, if you practice the Buddha's teaching diligently, there is no need to even pay respect to the Buddha's remain! Be it physical remains (relics), a tree (Bodhi tree), wheel (the symbol of Dhamma), the Buddha's statue or anything at all! Simply because when you are practicing his teaching, you have worship him much more, in comparison to the people who worship just his physical presence.
The problem with relics is the problem of externalization of Buddhism. To the pious (well, I should say fool) Buddhists, the relics represent the Buddha himself, and they are willing to do everything unconsciously when requested by the owners of the relics especially when he/she claims authority based on the relics.
To me, the story of relics much of it, is a story of human greed and human delusion. Politicians, or anyone who have desire for power/ money/ authority, will desire relics especially when he/she is being surrounded by fool people. Fool people who have much ignorance thought that those who possess relics are always right, will do everything as wanted by the relic's owner.
This is the reason why I thought the Buddha's relics are dangerous. The Buddha's teachings are clear. One should abandon greed, hatred and delusion, uprooting latent tendency of lust, aversion, and ignorance. But, somehow ironically, the Buddha's remains, the relics have proven to me in the past 2600 years, have done the reverse, increasing greed and delusion of many!
Closing note: From other perspective, we can also see that relics are just earth element, and it does not have any problem on its own. It is human beings' greed and ignorance that purposely misuse relics for their selfish gain. When one sees from this perspective, it is not relic's fault, since it is just a stone. How can we blame a stone (right?) =P
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Money Talks
Loving kindness meditation always starts like this. Meditator will start by reflecting happy moments that he experienced in the past and wish himself to be well and happy. When this feeling is strong, then the meditator will start to radiate the loving kindness slowly out, to people that that close to the meditator, and slowly out until covering the whole world.
The idea that happiness should be started from oneself is very important, because unhappy will not be able to make other happy. In order to make other people happy, one should make himself happy first! This is not lofty idea like in the film, in which the hero will sacrifice himself or his happiness just to make other people happy. In the case of Buddhism, or rather in the case of wise people, he will ensure that he is happy first before extending his happiness to more and more people.
I think this is also related with the issue of money. When I first learnt about Buddhist concept of money management, as per below I found it quite startling and a little bit difficult to be understood:
The big question is of course, why the Buddha advises his lay disciples to put big chunk of their money, not to help people but for investment? (note that helping people is one of personal enjoyment). It doesn't make sense at first if we were to consider the Buddha as someone that is compassionate. But then, upon further contemplating on this issue, it might make sense after all. The Buddha is probably advising that in order to help other people, we have to help ourselves first. In other words, if we do not have excess with money, how can we help people who need help? As the result, it becomes important to save the money for rainy days (savings) and invest it (eg. start your own business, etc) so that one does not have worry on money, and in the future that person is in the strong position to help other people (do note that the advise to the ordained (monks and nuns) are opposite as they are not supposed to have any money at all.
From this point of view, money is not evil or noble, but it is just a tool. In a way, it is something like amplifier. If one has the tendency to do good and help people who need it, having more money will increase the capability of that person to help more people. In the other hand, if one is occupied by anger, then money will amplify that anger to make many more people suffering in this world.
This comes to the point that unlike popular stigma that Buddhists do not value money, and at times seem to see money as the source of evil. This is not true. The Buddha's view of money to his lay disciples is a positive one, it's a tool that if were to be used correctly has the capacity of helping many people (think of Anathapindika, and Visakka, the two wealthiest lay disciples of the Buddha who consistently help needy people).
But then, the advise is also a simple one. One should not be attached with money. When one has more, one should learn to be contented with it. And when one has little, one should also be contented with it. In a way, having little or money do not and will not have any impact on the state of happiness that one has.
The idea that happiness should be started from oneself is very important, because unhappy will not be able to make other happy. In order to make other people happy, one should make himself happy first! This is not lofty idea like in the film, in which the hero will sacrifice himself or his happiness just to make other people happy. In the case of Buddhism, or rather in the case of wise people, he will ensure that he is happy first before extending his happiness to more and more people.
I think this is also related with the issue of money. When I first learnt about Buddhist concept of money management, as per below I found it quite startling and a little bit difficult to be understood:
The big question is of course, why the Buddha advises his lay disciples to put big chunk of their money, not to help people but for investment? (note that helping people is one of personal enjoyment). It doesn't make sense at first if we were to consider the Buddha as someone that is compassionate. But then, upon further contemplating on this issue, it might make sense after all. The Buddha is probably advising that in order to help other people, we have to help ourselves first. In other words, if we do not have excess with money, how can we help people who need help? As the result, it becomes important to save the money for rainy days (savings) and invest it (eg. start your own business, etc) so that one does not have worry on money, and in the future that person is in the strong position to help other people (do note that the advise to the ordained (monks and nuns) are opposite as they are not supposed to have any money at all.
From this point of view, money is not evil or noble, but it is just a tool. In a way, it is something like amplifier. If one has the tendency to do good and help people who need it, having more money will increase the capability of that person to help more people. In the other hand, if one is occupied by anger, then money will amplify that anger to make many more people suffering in this world.
This comes to the point that unlike popular stigma that Buddhists do not value money, and at times seem to see money as the source of evil. This is not true. The Buddha's view of money to his lay disciples is a positive one, it's a tool that if were to be used correctly has the capacity of helping many people (think of Anathapindika, and Visakka, the two wealthiest lay disciples of the Buddha who consistently help needy people).
But then, the advise is also a simple one. One should not be attached with money. When one has more, one should learn to be contented with it. And when one has little, one should also be contented with it. In a way, having little or money do not and will not have any impact on the state of happiness that one has.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The power of Memes
This is the first blog that I have ever written after many years. To kick start my blogging activity, I would like to share on my reflection on memes.
This book discusses certain phenomena on the world, how certain event in the world, for some unknown reason start to change and affect majority of society. In the opening of the book, Malcolm Gladwell gives example of Hush Puppies. Hush Puppies is a footwear company which footwear was almost forgotten by 1990s. For some reasons, some sub urbans people start to wear Hush Puppies, and somehow more and more people start to find it cool and start to find Hush Puppies shoes. In short times, Hush Puppies fever started all over the world. This is what Malcolm Gladwell called "Tipping Point", the exponential increase of certain phenomena affecting many people. ( For Hush Puppies case, it is even more interesting, because the company does not even invest in advertising at all. )
How do spirituality path of Buddhism ends Memes then? It is by realizing Enlightenment by ourselves, the time when we are not a conditioned being anymore, but a free, liberated being. In the closing of his book, Piya Tan quoted as follow:
When I was having holiday in Medan one week ago, my cousin, Sophia Liauw, lent me a very interesting book with titled "Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell.
This book discusses certain phenomena on the world, how certain event in the world, for some unknown reason start to change and affect majority of society. In the opening of the book, Malcolm Gladwell gives example of Hush Puppies. Hush Puppies is a footwear company which footwear was almost forgotten by 1990s. For some reasons, some sub urbans people start to wear Hush Puppies, and somehow more and more people start to find it cool and start to find Hush Puppies shoes. In short times, Hush Puppies fever started all over the world. This is what Malcolm Gladwell called "Tipping Point", the exponential increase of certain phenomena affecting many people. ( For Hush Puppies case, it is even more interesting, because the company does not even invest in advertising at all. )
Malcolm Gladwell, then discusses three rules of epidemics, causing this to happen:
1. The law of the few.
This is about people. Certain people has the characters, ability and influence to convince other people that certain message is good and worth following.
2. The stickiness factor.
The specific message is able to make people who receive it able to remember it for long time.
3. The power of context.
Basically the environment at that time favors this message.
There are many things to say on the content of this book and I would recommend you go and pick this book and read by yourself.
Being someone that are very interested with Buddhist Psychology, and Early Buddhism, as I'm reading this book, I can't help but recalling an essay, written by Piya Tan on this topic "Memes: How religion imprisons and spirituality liberates"
Probably some of you might not even heard about the word memes before. In wikipedia, you can find out more on this topic:
Upon pondering further, I started to realize that power of memes are encompassing our life much more than we think. My view, my idea, my habit, most of it in fact are imposed by other people to me. For example, I have similar idea of beauty as majority of guys in this world. Girls that I considered pretty and beautiful, are someone that are not too fat, and have certain complexity, certain looks. But, in fact, the idea of beauty in fact was very different in the past. I was informed that there was society in the past who think very fat girl is beautiful, and skinny girl as ugly because they are malnourished. See what I mean? even the idea of beauty that seems personal like this is in fact imposed by society and not comes from our own.
As I reflect on this, memes becomes more and more scary. As Buddhist, I know theoretically from long time ago that human beings are conditioned beings, in a way that we are conditioned by many things around us. To put it in another words, human beings do not have free will as our actions are conditioned from things that happened in the past, things that happened around us, and it is possible, as Malcolm Gladwell showed in his book, to influence the society to perform certain things. (Even crimes can be memes because by changing certain things, somehow crimes in one city like New York, can be exponentially reduced to a level that are much lower compared to the past). To put it into questions:
1. Does this mean that human being like myself has such a limited control on our thoughts, our speech and our action?
2. Does people suffer because of bad deeds (or Kamma) that they did in the past, just because they are conditioned to perform that bad deeds (and not really his free will to do so)?
3. More importantly, is there a way to be free from memes, free from conditions around us?
Luckily, spirituality path of Buddhism always offer possibility of liberation, as western psychologist, Susan Blackmore put it beautifully as follow:
It may seem strange to end this book [Consciousness: An introduction] with what looks like a religious doctrine, when ancient dogma or doctrine cannot be what we are after. It is true that, like all religions, Buddhism has accumulated a vast superstructure of memes, including texts, rituals, beliefs, beautiful buildings, sculptures and statues, music and liturgies. Yet what the Buddha saw is not a meme. It cannot be spoken of directly, and can only be transmitted by tricks of pointing or showing, or doing something to provoke another mind into letting go. This is known in Zen as “transmission outside the scriptures.” (Blackmore 2003:402)
915 I ask the kinsman of the sun, the great seer,
about solitude, the state of peace.
How does a monk, when he has seen,
become quenched, not grasping anything in the world?
916 Being a thinker (mantā), he would uproot
all perception-based mental proliferations about “I am,” said the Blessed One.
Whatever internal cravings there may be,
ever mindful, he trains himself to dispel them.
917 Whatever things he may understand,
whether within himself or outside,
he would not be stubborn about it:
for, this is not called “quenching” by the wise.
918 Because of that, he would not think he is “better,”
or “inferior to,” or “equal to,” or such like,
when touched by various forms,
he would not let his thoughts remain within himself.
919 Only within himself he seeks stillness,
A monk would not find peace anywhere else.
For one who is at peace within,
there is no self, not to say of what is not self.
920 Just as in the middle of the ocean,
no waves arise, it remains still—
even so, he would stand still, unshaking,
a monk swells not in arrogance about anything. (Sn 915-920)
Closing note: In Business, memes are very useful and highly sought because this is how corporate able to makes money. If one company is able to turn its product to be liked and attached by many people in the world, the corporates will earn a lot of money because people do not mind paying money to get what they like (think of IPhones, Hush Puppies, Louis Vuitton, etc). Religion especially God religion do loves memes because it is tools that make people be converted and turned to them, and even donates lots of money, efforts, etc to them. (think of Evangelical religions). BUT, spirituality path of Buddhism (please exclude organized religion of Buddhism), have the final goal of destroying Memes, to liberate being so that they become truly unconditioned, truly liberated, and truly free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
