Ramblings of a Monk

In some news forums and on facebook, I sometimes notice people highlighting the religion of this or that minister.  I wonder if that is wise or useful.  Unless that minister was acting in his capacity as a member of that religion or bringing his religion into Parliament, otherwise, it may be prudent to not single out his or her religion in posts.

In Singapore, the state, government and politics are secular in nature. Consequently, the state, gov and politicians carry out their duties and service to the nation regardless of the religion of the citizen. This allow citizens to exercise religious freedom within their personal space without fear of discrimination.

Likewise, politicians and civil servants should be allowed to serve the nation regardless of their religious choice as long as they exercise their religious freedom within their personal space and not let it influence their judgements while carrying out their official duties.  The onus is on them to be impartial and to rise above their personal religious choices while serving the people without discrimination.

Just imagine if you go to CPF, ICA or HDB and your application or enquiries are rejected because of your religion.  Just imagine.

We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity
and progress for our nation.

Remember our pledge.  This is our pledge.  Our solemn pledge to the flag, the state, the nation, to every single citizens of Singapore, to work together regardless of race, language or religion.

It is a not a pipe-dream.  It is a reality that has allowed us to live together in harmony all these decades.  Life is tough enough without such discrimination.  We don't need more discrimination.

Do it not to win some international award or to show other people.   Do it because it is our pledge to one another.  Do it because it is the way forward.

I've met some folks who shared their thoughts on vegetarianism with me.  They reason that vegetables are alive as well and if Buddhists do not eat animals out of compassion and do not wish to have a living thing killed for their food, they should not eat vegetables as well.

I present to you Carrots and Rabbit.

I know, I know.  This is an imbalanced comparison.  For most people who are omnivores would not eat rabbits anyway.  But the principle is this.  Given a choice, which would you pick?

Between vegetables and animals, when I ask a number of people to choose one to kill, cook and eat, most people would choose to eat carrots.  The answer is unanimously because it is easier to 'kill' carrots, cook and eat it.  When asked further, why it is easier to 'kill' carrots, they replied that because it is comparatively less alive than the rabbit.  I've not had one person choose carrots simply because they don't eat rabbits.  But I digress.

How about the following?  Is it because we have been conditioned to accept certain living beings as food for the table? 

Or is it because both do not exhibit life?  Is that why it is somewhat easier for people to choose between carrots and meat?  

References

Pictures from the following respective sites

http://vegetablezone.blogspot.com/2011/04/carrots-daucus-carota.html

http://www.wallcoo.net/animal/rabbit/html/wallpaper29.html

http://sylbestine.blogspot.com/2007/11/luncheon-meatbanned.html

In the mid 80s, there was a TV programme called "Me & My Micro", a production by British Broadcasting Corporation with Fred Harris.

That is how I really started learning programming at home when I was studying in secondary one.  

In the programme, he would showcase some new technology or software written by a guest and have a section where he introduces programming concepts and source codes in BASIC.

Here are two clips.  Enjoy!

This morning started off as Tuesdays do for me since 2009 September.  My Dharma brother Cheng Soon and I would meet at the Buddhist Library and we would do translation of the Buddhist teachings, from Chinese to English.  Today was no different.  Except when I read the sms from Sister Theresa Seow about the Straits Times article "Quiet contemplation on common ground" by review editor Chua Mui Hoong.

Over the last weekend (7th & 8th January 2012), representatives from various faiths came together for a seminar on "The Contemplative Dimension of Faith".  The theme and title was "common ground", representing the contemplative practice (meditation) that is common in many religions.

As I read the article before lunch today, a line grabbed my attention.

http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=26114

"… they are all engaged in a practice both unique to their tradition, and common to all faiths: reaching God through silence."

 I reread the article and line a few times but did not seem to figure out how that came about.  I've posted the picture below on my facebook wall to highlight that it is either a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of Buddhist meditation shared during the seminar.

In my . . . → Read More: Do Buddhists meditate to “reach God through silence”?

Dear friends,

Below is a pdf of the slides presented by myself on Buddhist Meditation today during the Common Grounds seminar at Catholic Junior College.

Sr. Theresa and Sr. Dewina are trying get it printed out if possible for participants without internet access.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28050252/BuddhistMeditation.pdf

Note about the booklet given.

On page 40 and 41, the passages under "A Reading from the Dhammapada" and "A Reading from the Heart Sutra" was provided by other parties.  The readings from the heart sutra is unfortunately wrongly placed.  They are not from the Heart Sutra.  I'm trying to determine the source of these verses with Sr Theresa and Daulet.  Below is a translation and explaination notes that I prepared for a series of workshops on the Heart Sutra for your reading.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28050252/2010heartsutra.pdf