Ramblings of a Monk

Below is part 1 of my reply to an open question posted on Leave a Message

1) My dad says that we must respect books because some divine beings might be living inside it, if we disrespect the book( e.g stepping on them, putting them in an untidy manner etc.), we will not get good results in examinations and will not gaining enough knowledge. Is that true?

So there are two parts to your father’s claim:
1. That there are some divine beings living inside books, and
2. By disrepecting them, there will be some consequences, such as poor exam results and being knowledgeable.

First off, there sure are beings living in books, but divine or not, I know silver fishes lives in books, especially the old ones.  There are some legends that some spiritual beings or guardians protects books, and that they may get pretty angry if anyone mistreat the books they protect.  Such legends probably evolve or develop from earlier legends about guardians of knowledge or wisdom, which books are the physical representation of.  These latter legends may themselves have been derived from the view that knowledge or wisdom is sacred and thus should be respected and held in high esteem.

Knowing this probable origin of such claims can help us relate to books in a proper manner.  Consider how paper, printing and publishing were pretty scarce in the past.  An attempt to preserve the books and inculcate a healthy attitude towards books may spin off into legends and myths quite easily.  Such development of legends can be found not just in Asian societies but in almost all countries that exist long enough for folklore to develop.  So we should perhaps see and understand this claim just as other claims from other culture or religions in a similar light, and understand the original intention when the legend began.

The second part of the claim is that there are consequences to showing disrespect to books.  I have to agree that there are consequences here, although the consequences may not a) be due to divine being’s retribution on us and b) be the same as claimed.

To get good results, one just have to do one thing: get the right answers to the examination questions.  Even if one were to put the books on an altar and perform all the world’s religious rituals and treat it with the most respect, one will not be any better off at answering the examination questions.

Gaining knowledge from a book is done by reading, analyzing, contemplating and reflecting over the content, the meaning of the book.  To me, that is the right way to “respect” books.  Conversely, the way to show “disrespect” for books is to neglect them, and not read them.  That is one sure way to be closed to whatever the book may offer, and would thus make oneself ignorant (as far as the book’s content is concerned), and in the case of school textbooks, a potentially poorer examination result.

Just a casual note, “stepping on books, and putting them in an untidy manner” … why would anyone be stepping on books, never mind whether you respect them or not?  As for tidiness, I for one will attest to having had an untidy “organised mess” of computing reference books and yet, I say without boasting, that I excelled in programming nonetheless.  My seemingly untidiness definitely did not hinder my learning.  (ok, maybe I may become the president scholar I never was, but there is no way to find out, is there?)

I am not encouraging anyone to be untidy, but to me, it is a matter of preference.  As long as such preference do not hinder the goal of learning or result in hygiene issues, then I’m pretty ok with it.  Whether your parents are ok with it, is a different story altogether!

Recently when I was in Kuala Lumpur (KL) to speak at a conference, I had the opportunity to speak to a group of 50~60 nice folks from Kelantan, Malaysia.  Very friendly and lovely bunch I must say.

I noticed that some of the locals in KL were eating live seafood and so I quizzed them on how that relates to the first precept of non-killing.  After a very lively discussion, we concluded that eating live seafood crossed the line for non-killing.  Consider how the fishes were happily swimming around in the tanks … ok, maybe not so happily … but nonetheless, alive and swimming.  Then someone may come along to the restaurant and order a meal, resulting in one or more of them being killed for our consumption.  At that point, it became clear that the meal was quite the cause of death or at least the reason.  So far so good, as far as understanding how we relate to the first precept of non-killing.

Then someone pointed out that sometimes, actually most of the time, only one person do the ordering, so perhaps he is the only person bearing the karma of killing.  I threw it open to the floor for discussion and went through a few possible scenarios regarding the causal consequences of the meal.

Case A: Person ordering get 100% of killing karma, while the eaters get none.
Case B: Person ordering get a majority percentage of say N% of killing karma, while the rest share in the 100% – N% of killing karma.
Case C: Everyone gets an equal share of the killing karma.  So if there were five diners, each get 20%.

Then someone further suggest that those who eat more, should be more responsible!  So the formulae became

Case A: Person ordering get 100% of killing karma, while the eaters get none.
Case B1: Person ordering get a majority percentage of say N% of killing karma, while the rest share in the 100% – N% of killing karma.
Case B2: Person ordering get a majority percentage of say N% of killing karma, while the rest share in the 100% – N% of killing karma on a pro-rata or weighted basis.
Case C1: Everyone gets an equal share of the killing karma.  So if there were five diners, each get 20%.
Case C2: Everyone gets a share of the killing karma depending on the amount they ate.

Things were getting complex!  In the end, we simplified and just considered the original three cases, although as you will see, the reasonings for each case would lead us to similar conclusions.  Bear in mind that we did not assume any of the case to be the actual mechanism behind how karma would or should work out; we simply cover all possible scenarios as much as we can.  So for the following analysis, we then look at each case and say, if this were true, how would or should we act differently?

Case A, while the person ordering gets 100%, should Buddhists who embrace values and qualities like Loving Kindness and Compassion allow someone to bear the brunt (100%) of painful results for one’s meal while one selfishly tucks into the meal knowing that someone else (both the fish and the orderer) is suffering for us.  While highly unlikely, we saw it unseemly for us to partake in such a meal as it is both selfish and unkind.

Case B, letting someone get the majority share and each diner receiving partial payout for the karma of killing didn’t seem to be such a good idea as well.  Nope.

Case C, for most people in the discussion, going pro-rata seem to be the most likely mechanism for karma, but it then becomes even clearer why we should not partake in the meal altogether!

We could have, and were tempted to, gone further and consider many other factors, including those who arrive late, those who fail to turn up but were on the diners’ list, those who were not, but turn up after the ordering, those who were not but turn up before the ordering etc etc.  But we did not.  Most were duly satisfied with the discussion and analysis and left it knowing how better to relate to the precepts in future.

So what did you eat today?

PS: I do not advocate eating as a means of enlightenment, and the discussion of food was really a day-to-day affair that to me mattered to some of those lay Buddhist I met.

I was recently talking to a friend and she indicated that she is keen in volunteering to help out in Marine Life protection.  So I was wondering if anyone would know where she can volunteer in.  Kindly leave a note.

On a side note, for those of us who may not be ready to volunteer our time to save marine life, we can avoid harming them.  For a start, you may want to give up the rod and stop fishing or netting fishes, crabs etc.  I do agree that going out to the beach or sea is rather relaxing and calming, and I know of friends who join in such fishing trips, not really to fish, but for the company or just to enjoy the sea breeze.  However, one could still enjoy the sea breezes without leaving the hook out in the sea.  And if one really wants to feed the fishes, just bring along the appropriate feed and scatter them into the sea without the hook!  Trust me you, the fishes would appreciate it a lot better!