A Mouse Merchant in Real Life or the Red Paper Clip Man

The Mouse Merchant [Diligence and Gratitude]

The Khuddaka Nikaya is the fifth of the Nikayas found in the Sutta Pitaka, and consist of a collection of short suttas.  Amongst them is the Jataka, which contain the birth stories told by the Buddha.  In one such sutta, CULLAKA-SEṬṬHI-JĀTAKA, the Mouse Merchant, the Buddha tells of a rags-to-riches story of a young man who takes on the advice of a King’s adviser he overheard, and becomes wealthy
through his hard work and determination.  The young man began with a dead mouse and in the end of the story, he returns the favour to the adviser out of gratitude by offering half his fortune to the adviser.  I’ll leave you to read the sutta with the link below. ^_<

Now, I’ve shared with many people those wonderful stories found in the suttas, and many often dismiss them as being more of a fairy tale or legend that having anything in parallel.  Well, a while back, I read of a man who had a similar experience of starting off with something small (a red paper clip) and ending with a tidy fortune (I’ll leave it to you to read about it as well).  Amazing?  Truly.  Just as amazing is the young man in the Mouse Merchant Jataka struck his fortune with something insignificant and small (a dead mouse), working his way up through his diligence and diligence.

The next time when you read one of the Jataka stories, remember, as amazing as they are, they can happen in real life, as the Mouse Merchant did, or should we say the Red Paper Clip Man? ^_^

Reference

Full Sutta, http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1007.htm
Birth Story part of the sutta, http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/bt1_04.htm

The amazing story on news sites and links
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2171378
http://news.cnet.com/Blogger-asks,-Wanna-trade-a-paper-clip-for-a-house/2100-1025_3-6061438.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

The blog that started it all
http://oneredpaperclip.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_archive.html

A Moment of Sadness, a Moment of Silence

Dear friends,

Let us take a moment to remember those who suffered and perish in the recent spate of disasters.

Earthquake in Samoa, Indonesia, and Typhoon in Manila, Indonesia.

May they receive help swiftly and find peace and comfort where ever they are. May those who perished have good conditions to be reborn in the human realms where they can learn and practise the Buddha-Dharma and in due time attain Final Liberation, Nibbana.

With so much suffering around already, may the rest of the world find peace in their mind and lay their arms to rest. May they not incur any more suffering onto others through mindless wars.

The Only ‘Stupid’ Questions Are … …

I often have people asking two questions in a row, with the first one being “Ven, can I ask a stupid question?”, followed by their actual question.  Sometimes I’m like, can I say No?

I sometimes will tell people this: “The only ‘stupid’ questions are those that are not asked!” 🙂

Sometimes we really do not know enough to ask questions; other times we are unconsciously stifled by ourselves to ask questions.  We should learn more like kids.  Kids will ask anything that comes to mind.  There may be many reasons for this, and I reckon, is in part due to A) an openness of their mind to see various aspects of the subject matter and B) the absence of embarrassment of asking.

Their openness is in turn likely due to an absence of assumptions about how things should or should not be while their absence of embarrassment is due to an absence of assumption of who they are and what they should or should not know.  As kids grow up, they learn more and more about this world.  What they learn become part of their experience of how things are.  These become patterns that describes the behaviour of the world we are in.  It is this ability to retain patterns, recollect and reuse them that allow us to become wiser or intelligent about the world.  This is also what assumptions are about.

The patterns we learn about the world, which we call knowledge, becomes the assumptions we may have in predicting or anticipating a future event.  Having the ability to predict future events can be very useful, say when it comes to crossing a busy street.  We observe movements of the cars, and colors of the traffic light and we learn that cars in general follow a certain pattern in relation to the traffic lights.  These assumptions allow us to cross the streets safely but sometimes when we rely overly strongly on these assumptions, the consequences can be dire.  Assuming that cars will stop at the red light can sometimes prove to be fatal, while assuming that pedestrians will not jaywalk can be risky business.

Assumptions in general allows us to not have to overload ourselves in considering all the possibilities in our daily activities.  Some people looses this ability and live in paranoia about everything around them.  We may be onto something here, but that
is another blog entry.  When this assumption mechanism lapse into our learning process, then we loose the ability to see different facets of the subject matter.  We are conditioned by our past learnings, our knowledge, to see differently like a child.  It is not that the children are super creative or smart, it is that they are not bogged down by the assumptions (knowledge) that we have.  So, while assumptions are helpful, we got to learn to relate to them differently and put them aside where suitable.

The other side effect of assumptions is in assuming who we are.  Throughout our lives, we play many different roles; we start off as a baby, and then a child, a kid, a student, a teen, a youth, a young adult, an employee, a partner, a spouse, a parent etc etc.  Children are very good with playing make believe games and they can switch roles very easily.  I believe it is because they do not know or assume themselves to be anything, that is why they can be a fireman at one time, and then a doggie next etc etc.  Some adults are good at it too, and they play with kids very well, because they are able to immerse into the kids world and play at the kids level and not be stuck with being an adult.

Some adults however, are not able to step out of a role and switch into another one easily.  We probably have met the teacher who sees everyone as a student, the nurse / doctor who sees everyone as a patient and the gambler who sees a winning combination in any number they encounter.  As they say, to a hammer, everything is a nail! … oh, and did I mention about how to a monk, everyone is a student in need of a three hour discourse? 😉

If we can step out of our usual role, be it a parent, a manager, a teacher, a policeman, a whatever, and just not assume any role for awhile, then perhaps we won’t have the related assumptions of how we should be or should know.  If at all, we should assume the role of a child, and learn in a child-like fashion, then we would not feel embarrassed to ask questions.  For if we see ourselves as a child, we would not assume ourselves to know anything.  Then we will perhaps be able to ask questions with the openness of a child-like student.

As the Chinese word for ‘knowledge’ goes, “學問” literally means 學Learning-問Asking, so

“As we learn, we ask; and as we ask, we learn!”

The Four-Fold Community

In Buddha’s time, monastics did not have a fixed abode. This means that lay buddhist could not easily give support or learn from the Buddha or Maha Sangha. Lay buddhists would, in time offer groves, gardens or parks to the Maha Sangha to reside so that the lay people have the opportunity to give their support and learn from the Buddha and the Maha Sangha. This allowed the Four-fold community, ie. Bhikshu*, Bhikshuni*, Upasaka and Upasika (Monks, nuns, lay men and women), to grow together healthily.

Even with some lay people being enlightened, they never ventured into establishing a standalone lay community isolated from the Maha Sangha. Perhaps it is precisely because these lay people were enlightened, that is why they did not seek to establish a separate sasana from the Maha Sangha. Rather, they became even more ardent and earnest in their support of the Maha Sangha as they realise that the monastic life as instituted by the Buddha provided the best avenue for anyone willing to take up the robes, to practise the Noble Eightfold Path and attain Nirvana.

The Maha Sangha likewise was not to become isolated from the lay community. It was advised by the Buddha to neither neglect the spiritual needs of the lay people nor become inexplicably intertwined with them. The sangha if it became isolated from the lay, would lead to a decrease in the learning and practise of Buddha-Dharma in the lay, and over time the demise of the Sangha. If the lay isolates itself from the Sangha, it too cannot claim to be a complete four-fold community and without the Maha Sangha, whenceforth comes the Triple refuge?

Footnote:
Bhikshu (Sanskrit) – Pali: Bhikkhu
Bhikshuni (Sanskrit) – Pali: Bhikkhuni

EDIT: Thanks to a Venerable, Lay man and woman spelling in Pali is corrected. 🙂

Who Slammed the Door?

Sometimes when a door or window slams, do you find that someone, sometimes ourselves, would respond with a “Who was that who slammed the door (or window)?”. And if the response is “Oh, it was the wind”, then almost magically, the agitation or annoyance subsides or disappears! If it turned out to be someone responsible, then a further exchange may take place. The annoyance becomes directed to the person responsible.

We like to find people to blame (or praise), don’t you think? This tendency to do that is preceded by the habit to affix a persona behind any experience or phenomena worth noting. In a way, this habit is also driven by the need or habit to blame. So this two tendencies are mutually supportive of each other.

Sometimes when we find that there is no person behind, say the slamming door or window, we are not satisfied. We are very smart. We use our intelligent mind to further investigate. Then we ask “who left the door open without securing it?”. And if that turned out to be indeterminate, we may continue pursuing until we find someone to blame. We are so full of energy when it comes to blaming people ya?

No, we are not like that? Yes, most people are not like that usually. But when we are in this energetic mode, then all hell breaks loose. We drill and question and conduct forensic analysis, just to get to the bottom of things! “Justice must be served” we might even exclaim!

What is the purpose of this “Justice” or “Rights and wrongs” if all it gets us into is this find-someone-to-blame-mode?

Coming back to the slamming door example, consider both possibilities, where someone slammed it or where the wind blew it shut, slamming it. In both cases, there was energy imparted to the door, causing it to move. Kinetic energy from the wind did the job in the latter, while kinetic energy from someone did it in the former. Both are energy. Does the door know the difference between the two sources of energy? No. Does the door slam differently in either cases? Nope, except when the energy imparted is of a different intensity.

Does the door slam with a “Ah Beng slammed the door” or “The wind slammed the door”? Nope. Yet, we impute additional meaning to the slamming door. I’m not denying that it is either the wind, Ah Beng or some sources that did it. I’m saying that

1) if the distinction of the sources is not meaningful in our and others’ happiness, then it is not meaningful to discern and cling strongly to such distinction.

2) the distinction is imputed, because the direct cause of the slamming is basically kinetic energy!* Not some person, or a being.

Discernment #1 is easier to accept and do, and it appeals to our pragmatic wish to be happy. It, however, only mitigates one’s problem. Discernment #2 is easy to understand, but harder to recognise internally or apply directly. If one is able to do so, then one weakens the root of the problem (Sakaya-ditthi) and in due time, cuts the very cause of suffering!

Many years back, I was at the Fa Yun monastery and was having lunch one day. One of the duty person dripped gravy onto the outer surface of my alms bowl. Being the unenlightened monk, a thought arose “Aiyaya! How careless!” After awhile I caught myself and reflected somewhat mindfully and all was well. Then another time, when I was on duty serving, I dripped some gravy on my own bowl! I simply wiped it off without a second thought or agitation. Then a thought arose “HA! …. ….”

I will leave you to ponder what followed that “HA!” … ^_^

Footnote:
* — If one observes rupa (form) mindfully with respect to the four elements, one sees
clearly that the slamming door, the wind or a “person” slamming it are basically a function of the wind element. In modern speak, kinetic energy.

Disagreeing or Not Understanding (Knowing)

There is a subtle difference between “not understanding” vs “disagreeing”.
Something that we commonly mix up and are blind-sighted to.

A: I disagree with this teaching.
B: So which part of this teaching do you not agree with?
A: I don’t know.
B: What do you mean?
A: I do not understand or know the teaching.
B: If you do not understand or know the teaching, how can you disagree with it?

Was having a chat with my mom, and had this epiphany!

This is a common problem we have. We tend to disagree with something that we do not know or understand. But to disagree with something, we should and need to first know what it is, before we can agree or disagree.

With
metta, ^_^