Salt * Wet * Fish

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

Too many people continue to have the romantic notion of Shangri La, that was Tibet, before China invaded them some 50 years ago. This does not help with movies and the Western media playing up this biased perspective. Many people, even Buddhists, continue to imagine a world of lah-lah land, peace and harmony had China not invaded.

However, this is far from the truth. Tibetan history is littered with blood and violence. The different sects were trying hard to destroy their rivals, there were in-fighting within the government and even within the monasteries for power. Even the revered Dalai Lamas of historical Tibet have been the ones initiating war and killing and destroying his enemies. Women were held in inferior position. Nuns were lowly and not supported. The society was mainly divided between the rich and power monastics and merchants and the serfs (slave equivalent). Serfs were tortured or killed if they tried to escape or was out of favor of their owners. (See: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html). Search internet for keywords like “tibet feudal serfdom” and dozen of links to research and studies about Tibet’s old society can be found.

Ask any former serfs, now and owner, in Tibet, if they wanted to go back to the old Tibet they used to know and the answer could not be clearer.
If China had not invaded Tibet, I would think that the same cycle of discrimination and violence and killings would have continue with the current Dalai Lama at the helm. I am sure the DL was very well aware of what’s going on in his country when he was growing up also. But lucky for all of us, he was not initiated into those blood baths yet and being rather political correct, I doubt he would have ruled Tibet with anything else other than Americanised democracy.

Few people forget that it was because of the invasion that Tibetan Buddhism has become so much more popular everywhere and became more accessible to everyone else, especially the DL himself. These, of course, does not justify the invasion by China per se, rather it serves to remind us all that not all is that bad after all.

Now, what I don’t understand is this issue with “illegal” invasion by China. All invasions are “illegal”. Did we think that creating Israel was ever “legal”? Invasion is how countries grow. This process is how the European nations, Russia, African countries, China, etc all came about… but invaded others land and making it their own. What about the illegal colonization of Australia, Americas and Africa by the West powers? Were those legal? Did they legal exploit the land, the people, forced them into slavery, killed the natives and too their children… all legally? So far, had any of those nations returned any of the lands that they took. Why not? Too long ago? Good answer. This means that given another 100 to 200 years, Tibet should officially become part of China and there should be no more talks of a free Tibet.

Many people keep pointing back at the cruelty of the days of the invasion. Actually, that was China back then. A lot of China, the people and the culture was messed up and destroyed by the red army also. The invasion was not just specially targeted towards Tibetans as a racial discrimination. Everyone were affected at that time, especially if you are a feudal lord or rich merchant or a rich monk, it was a cleansing exercise of the oppressive rich throughout the entire China, Tibet included.

And what of the charge of “religious freedom”? Unfortunately, Tibetan Buddhism is too integrated into its politics and its very difficult to tell sometimes if someone is practicing Buddhism or politics! I have not doubts that there are still many Tibetan teachers in China who could continue to teach. I don’t think that China is purposely discriminated against Tibetan Buddhism and not other religions. I am sure if some Zen masters were to revolt, they will get the same treatment. What is “religious freedom” to one could be a threat to either the power base of the government or peace of the society (which the govt. wants to keep). If a religious practice presents a security threat, surely China will not let it go off easy.

In Singapore, for example, the Jehovah Witness was banned because they encouraged their followers not to join the army. The falungong too is banned in  Singapore and any known terrorist-linked religious groups. Is that a lack of religious freedom?

Free Tibet if you will, but most importantly free yourself from aversion, hatred, anger, ego and identities first. Protesting monks and nuns is an oxymoron.

The most traumatic news this month is not the increase in taxi fares or Suharto’s ill health or that our ministers are getting more pay whereas mine is not, but the Japan Rail decision to not allow posters of the Tokuseki temples’s Somin Sai in Mizusawa in Japan. Now everyone in the world knows about this festival and more people are dying to see naked Japanese men!

Now this reminds me of  what happened a long time ago in Japan during the times when Westerns were traded heavily with Japan. So much of the Western culture were flowing into Japan, including their hang up on nakedness and sex, that the government at that time tried to ban sumo wrestling because they thought that men fighting in loincloth was “disgusting”. It was a good thing that some sumo wrestlers fought back and it helped to saved the tradition.

I have also heard from my Japanese friends that mixed hot public baths (onsen) are actually quite common during the old days, where men and women would be naked in the same baths. Apparently when the Americans came in after WWII, they decided that this practice was, again, “disgusting” and had them split into two.

So much of our “globalisation” have us taking in the fears and aversions of the mainly powerful econonmics of the West, that it threatens to create a mono-culture. Some are, of course, beneficial like equality, but there are also those that increases our fears and aversions towards what was a norm in some of our traditions and it takes an issue like this to remind us of the diversity and beauty of values long lost to many of us who have been “globalised”.

The Japan Rail decision is surely one of those decision made due to internalizing much of the Abrahamic religions’ hang ups on nakedness with their corporate structure. Yet they forget that there are even more scantily clad women posters and magazines everywhere else in Japan, but that is okay with them (the men)… it seems.

Below photo is from http://www.chibaphoto.jp/sominsai/sominsai2.html  and more festivals from http://wadaphoto.jp/maturi/

I always feel that hatred and anger never solve any problems. Just look at what is happening to the world around us and we can see that it had never worked. Neither should we, in the midst of championing for a cause or becoming part of the cause, be blinded by anger and our own frustration.

Sometimes it is really hard to resist when the opponents continually pound your trenches with hate, lies and dishonesty… we are too conditioned by movies (in general) to take on the bad guys with an equal force, because they really deserves it. And as such, sometimes we are encouraged to take on the opponents with the same hatred and anger, we feel that its justified, its right and its fair. There are hardly any alternative models to tackle such issue, yes, there are few, but most of them are overwhelmed by the Hollywood kill-joy lone hero.

Anger and hatred is not what I want to associate gay activism here with and I hope it never goes the way like some more militant activist movements in other parts of the world.

As such, I was never agreeable to what Alfian, no matter how I hated what she had to say. To be honest, I really don’t think his email is that bad because this is really how bitching works.

In fact, some people commented that such tactics are really quite common in other more democratic countries. Well, just because such behaviors is common in those country, does it make it a correct thing to do? A beneficial thing to do? As we progress the democracies like those countries, should we encourage such outbursts?

Personally, I don’t feel that such outburst would be beneficial to anyone, it probably made it worst for us who are trying to gain some respect and acceptance and equal treatment.

If we are concerned about an equality of freedom to speak, then the likes of Ms. Thio should be allowed to say her piece. But we should also have the allowance to rebut her, to be sarcastic about it or maybe even draw up some humorous rebuttal.

If we act like the opponent with its hatred and anger, than we are no different from them, really

Then you have these reports about the threatening letter to Ms. Thio. If this were really true, than I will say go catch the culprit. No one should be threatening her life or family members. How would you like it if it was one of your family members who was threatened? It is simply not in anyone’s interest to act this way towards another human being.

Having said that, everyone seems to have been drawn to a strange fact that the same letter was sent to a journalist. What is the motive of sending the same letter to that journalist? Who benefits from having this letter exposed? Not those in the pro-repeal camp for sure, but then it could well be a stupid, anger and brainless pro-repeal supporter.

Now, some of you would have read about this march that was supposed to be organized called Walk for Jesus? Funny enough, the marchers were asked to wear white… ala Klux Klax Klan, I think.

I don’t really know if this march actually happened, because I didn’t hear any reports on it nor seen any pictures. However, it infuriated many people, because they thought that since the pink picnic and pink run was banned, why should the pro-intolerance camp be allowed to marched?

I think that equality should apply to everyone. Unfortunately, some gay people seems to think that it only applies to them. I feel that if we wanted to the rights to do a pink picnic or organize a run without state intervention, I think we should extend that right to everyone else, even if its a march against us. This should be the spirit of equality that I hope to achieve, not a hypocritical self-centered equality for us only.

Just because we are denied those rights, I don’t feel that that we should denied others from having those rights. If anything, I will be upfront supporting their right to protest against the repeal of 377a. I will not be part of the march, I may even ridicule it, but I will support their rights to march, all the way.