Salt * Wet * Fish

When disasters stuck Burma and China, many people asks if that is due to karma. Even the famous Sharon Stone declared that these are due to karma. It did come across to me once, but quickly I thought otherwise.

Why can we use karma to explain these disasters happening in Burma and China? After all China did take over Tibet “illegally” and beat up or kill Tibetans monks and nuns and its people? And didn’t Burma’s junta also beat up the monks and nuns when they were trying to perform a safron revolution with love?

The problem comes from our misunderstanding about the karma.

A lot of people see karma as retribution or punishment for some wrong doing. In order for retribution or punishment to act, there has to be someone “up there” to decide and dish out the retribution or punishment. Fortunately for Buddhists, there is not such someone up there, Buddhists do not believe in the existences of a supreme being without a first cause. Thus, karma in Buddhism is not a system of retribution or punishment, because this requires a judge, jury and executioner and Buddhist’s don’t believe in a supreme being or god.

The second problem with attributing retribution as karma is that even though its the Chinese governments or the Junta who imposed the rules and ordered the killings, the disasters did not strike them. Instead they hit the poor villages in Burma and people in the Sichuan province, and not doubt probably there are Tibetans there too. This is the scratching your head when you leg is itching. Where is the sense of higher order justice in such a punishment? If anything, shouldn’t the cyclone just target the homes of the Juntas and destroy them? Or shouldn’t the earthquake do no more damage than to topple the houses of the Chinese government? Such punishment is a bit like the bible stories of moses where god supposedly punished the Egyptians undrinkable water, plague and killing of their first born, when it was actually only the pharaoh who was the one making the decision?  Did the Egyptians had a hand in making the decision? What if there where Egyptians who were sympathetic to the causes of the Jews? Why were they punished too? So too, if we attribute the 2 disasters to retribution because it is simply unjust and blind.

One of the most common mistake people make, even amongst Buddhists, is that karma is the only cause and effect law, when in fact, there are actually 5 natural laws (Niyama) defined in Buddhist’s teachings and karma, is only one of those natural laws. The others includes physical, biological and psychological. Just as Ven. Dhammika explained about karma and naturally disasters in part 1, part 2 and part 3, many of encounters we have daily is a combination of those laws. For example, if you stand below a durian tree without a hard hat and get killed by a falling durian, you cannot say this is karma, its actually partially true because its stupidity, but mostly you are kill due to gravitation laws, a law of nature, nothing to do with whether you have done good or bad.

Lastly, the verdict is still out there as to whether the monastics (Tibetans and Burmist) are really as blameless as the Western media loves to portrait them as. When we jump to conclusion so soon and without any objective thoughts, it just gives away our own biasness.

The article was recently posted on Ven. Dhammika’s blog. Bhante is currently the spiritual advisor of Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society.

Note: Not all gay male like to dress up in women’s clothes. This is only one aspect of some gay males. In fact, some straight man loves to cross dress themselves.

A Gay Tragedy

(http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/05/gay-tragedy.html)

Occasionally someone, usually a young man but sometimes a young women or an older man or women, will approach me and after a few minuets of hesitation or beating around the bush, ask me what the Buddhist position on homosexuality is. When they do I tell then that intentional actions (kamma) modify consciousness and that our kamma conditions our future. Positive intentional acts have positive effects (vipaka) and negative intentional acts have a negative effect. Sexual acts motivated by the usual intentions, feelings and emotions which exist between two people who love each other, would have a positive effect and would not infringe the third Precept, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. [CLICK TO READ MORE…]

Well, my good friend Otto have recently come up with a new comice series for a new recruitment website.

Enjoy! (p.s click the image for more comics!)

The recent events with China/Tibet and Burma made some people question what role in politics should Buddhists and Buddhism play? And more especially what roles in politics should the monastics play?

In general, most of the teachings within Buddhism is towards inwards reflection and letting go of or having detachment for worldly and sensual desires. The more one moves towards those goals, the more one moves towards being awakened or attaining nibbana.

Some may wonder: “Isn’t Buddhist teachings also about helping others?”. Indeed, the core teachings of Buddhism does not isolates oneself from the world, only worldly desires. In fact, the more one detaches from desires, the more one is capable of helping others. In helping others, it really means to helping them develop the wisdom to rid one of desires and self.

It does not mean to help on gain independence from another other or to help on gain democracy. Of course, the achievement of those goals could possibility help to elevate physical, mental and material sufferings that people may have. The achievements of those goals could be a catalyst for further development of wisdom, which leads to detachment from desires and self. But at what cost to human lives and destruction on both sides, in order to achieve those goal, is something most of us are too blinded by our desires, conceptions and perceptions to know.

What about the lay Buddhists? There are no restrictions in the teachings on protests nor the desire to be democratic. But there is a reminder to the lay Buddhists to ensure that their actions take into consideration of the precepts of not killing, lying, stealing and intoxication. So in the fight to gain independence or democracy, one should not kill or harm others nor incite others to harm or kill nor loot and destroy other’s possessions recklessly and one should not lie, for example, reporting a figure of 1.5 million dead when its only 0.5 million, just to gain sympathy on the world stage

What about the monastics, the monks and nuns? In Buddhism, the monastics are also referred to as the home leaver. Not just a person leaving the home, but a person whose wish is to leave his/her attachments to name, ego and desires of the material world. The person also leaves behind their identity, ethnicity, nationality and even gender. The Vinaya, monastics code of conduct, is most strict on monastics engaging in world affairs. So to see monks and nuns protesting, especially those in Burma, whose tradition strictly adheres to the Vinaya, would strike one as strange.

Some monastics like the Chinese Mahayana and Tibetan Vajrayana adhere to another (I would say more liberal) code of conduct, which frees them from some of the shackles of the Vinaya. That is why you can see Chinese monks handling money directly or even drawing a salary. So in this sense it may be hard to say whether or not those monks or nuns can protest against the Olympics or the freedom of Tibet.

Many people have used the examples of Buddhist text to justify their involvement in politics. It is true that in the text, rulers would approach Buddha for advice and he gave them advice on governance of a land. Indeed, in the teaching of the universal monarch, Buddha gave examples of how a universal monarch would rule his land and his people to achieve a wealthy and happy land and subjects. One of the examples most often cited is the incident where Buddha stood in the middle of the river to prevent 2 kingdoms from going to war over ownership of water. Hence, people claimed that on this basis, monks and nuns should follow the example of the Buddha and be involved in politics.

However, I feel that many of them have been mistaken.

Firstly, Buddha only gave sermons on politics and governance when he was asked for advice by the rulers of the land. In the case of Tibet/China and even Burma, the monastics was not asked rather they were trying to shove their views of governance and what is right onto the “rulers” of the land, whether or not those “rulers” are legitimate in their views. Buddha never incited others to protest in the name of democracy or freedom.

Secondly, in the water war, Buddha prevented war on both sides. This is not the case in the 2 events, where more bloodshed, anger, hatred and ignorance where created than the problem the monks and nuns were trying to solve.

Thirdly, the monastics are not necessarily enlightened beings, Buddha was. Hence whatever the Buddha said or did was from a all-seeing, all-knowing and awakened mind. This does not necessarily apply to the monastics in both cases and I feel that the monks/nuns who dare to compare themselves to the Buddha like that is just full of ego.

At the end of the day, as Buddhists, we must ask ourselves: “What is the purpose of being a monk or nun?” Is it not to take up the intention to develop insight and wisdom and detach onself from worldly desires and the ego and to leave the home (thus giving up one’s identity, nationality, ethnicity and gender)? If one cannot do that as a monk or nun, then it should be suggested that one should disrobe and become a lay Buddhist, and do as one pleases.

Protesting monks and nuns should only be protesting against their own pride and ego.

A very interesting post by Dr. Minority for those of us who are lucky or unlucky enough to have your flats going enbloc, but you have a nasty experience. Er… of course this does not apply if you are the one bullied other owners into submission.

Except from Enblocing Singapore

We’ve heard this before, and maybe even experienced it ourselves.

Name calling.
Bullying.
Shouting for you to sit down and shut up.
Telling you off, saying you had better stop talking because people have better things to do.

No, I’m not talking about a teacher scolding students. I’m talking about an Enbloc EOGM. But truth be told, the idea’s the same - someone of perceived ‘greater’ authority talking you down, like you’re an idiot and what you say is insulting the audience.

We’ve been told, in recent EOGMs, the following have occurred:-

* Owners not allowed to speak or ask questions during an EOGM
* Owners not allowed to vote at an EOGM
* Owners told off by other owners, or SC members, to shut up
* Owners even threatened (verbal and gestural means) to stop talking and leave the room
* Owners not allowed to query the SC, nor will the SC bother to respond