Category: Buddhism

FYI: Naming Trivia for Monastics

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXing3 Comments

Here’s a short article about how monastic names come about. Just so you know. 🙂

The surname adopted in the Chinese Mahayana monastic tradition is Shi “釋”. It comes from the Shi “釋” in the Buddha’s name “釋迦牟尼佛”, a transliteration of Shakyamuni, meaning the sage of the Shakyan clan.

My ordination name was 釋智行 Shi ZhiXing and it was given by my late teacher
and ordination Master, Master Miu King 上妙下境老和尚 when I was given the “going forth” in 2002.

In Singapore, I’m also known by 釋傳觀 Shi ChuanGuan. This name was given by my then mentor Master,  when I took mentorship in 2006.

So, 智-Zhi and 傳-Chuan is the ‘generation’ character. Under the lineage stemming from the Buddha to the Chinese masters, the Chinese sangha adopted the naming convention in use by the Chinese. so a monastic from a certain lineage would have the lineage / generation (middle) character that follows a certain order. Based on one’s lineage / generation character, one could trace your Dharma lineage accordingly.

行-Xing and 觀-Guan is the ‘name’ character. Depending on the master or community, there may be some naming convention in place.

IMHO, this elaborate system can be useful to avoid undue duplication of names when there were hundreds or thousands of monastics. Kinda reminds me of the IP address system (Internet Protocol), ###.###.###.### …. (Comp. Engr or Comp. Sc. students should have a chuckle on that! 😉 ) … but I digress!

Also, this naming system was adopted from the Chinese naming convention when Buddhism took root in China.

Therefore, “Shi” is the surname, and “Zhi-Xing” is the complete name, and not Zhi-shi or Shi-Zhi or other permutation! ^_^

Say, for a fictitious monk by the name Shi Mou Jia 釋某甲, in formal writing, one may refer to him as Venerable Shi Mou Jia, while in spoken form, one would simply address him as “Venerable Mou Jia”， “Mou Jia fashi 某甲法師” or “Mou Jia shi 某甲師”.

In some writing convention, it is also common to join characters together if they are meant to be joint as a phrase or name. Eg, Ven. Moujia instead of Ven. Mou Jia.

In various communities, both Theravada and Mahayana, it is common that a monastic may be known not by his ordination name, but by a common name based on the location this master came from. Eg, Chanmyay Sayadaw, means the Meditation Teacher from Chanmyay (a place in outskirt of Yangon, Myanmar).

Another example would be Dharma Master Tang San Zang 唐三藏  法師. This indicated that he is a Tripitaka master from the Tang dynastic empire. The tripitaka reference may also point to his pilgrimage to India to bring back the teachings (tripitaka) instead as his motivation for the trip was to clarify certain discrepancies in the existing texts. His Dharma name was 玄奘 Xuan Zang (or Xuan Zhuang) and is what is commonly found as the translator for various sutras in the Mahayana tradition.

In Buddha’s time, Dharma names were not explicitly given to new monks. Rather, they were simply known by the existing names. Eg, Upatissa became known as Ven. Upatissa. Upatissa was the name of Ven. Sariputta. Sariputta means “Son of Sari”, “Sari” being the name of Ven. Upatissa’s mother.

While the tradition of giving and receiving Dharma names came later on, it can serve monastics in a meaningful way, to mark a departure from our lay life as we embark on our spiritual journey towards Nibbana.

Hence, if you have a friend who has went forth as a monastic, it can be better to start addressing them by their Dharma name. Even though words and names do not make one enlightened, it can remind both parties of the change in role and path in life, and gently urges the monastic onwards in their daily endeavour on the path.

So, now you know! …
With metta, ^_^

An Interesting Feature about Google Maps

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXing4 Comments

If you are reading this blog, you probably know what google is.  It is the search (advertising) company who’s name has become a verb, i.e. “I googled and found the meaning of ‘ergo'”.  Besides providing search services, it also provides the popular gmail, calendar, google docs, and map services etc.

Dynamic Scaling

Recently, I discovered that on google maps, as you tour the globe fairly smoothly without leaving your desk, the little scale legend at the bottom left corner dynamically changes.  The scale tells us how large or small the map actually represents.  So if you are looking at some region, and it displays the scale marker is one inch length and the number reads 500mi, it means that one inch length on the map at that scale represents 500miles in real life.

This means that with a fixed-sized scale, two regions of different sizes would appear to be of different sizes accordingly.  With a dynamic scale, as I mentioned earlier, two regions of different sizes may appear to be of a similar or identical size when in fact they are not.

Why Do That?

Why are they doing this?  I don’t know.  This could be a feature to allow users to remain focus on finding useful information without having to dabble with zooming in and out of a region unnecessarily.  However, this also gives a false impression as far as the actual comparative size between regions are concerned.

Another reason could be technical.  The map data stored in the google servers could be optimized at different scales, and hence the easy way to represent the maps would be to adopt the native scaling stored in the database.  This reason however, does not quite cut it.  Given the engineering strength of Google’s R&D, normalising the scale of the stored map data before representing them visually should not be a problem.

So why are they doing it?  Maybe someone can clue us in.  But you can try it out and see for yourself.

So are they lying?

Technically, google is not lying about anything at all.  Afterall, it dynamically adjusts the scales and displays it rather prominently on screen.  What is perhaps disturbing (for me) is that everything is so seamless, the scaling is virtually undetectable unless you notice the change in the scales.

Lying and Business / Work

A number one reason many people gives when asked why they do not undertake the five precepts is Work.  “I’m in Sales.”, “I’m in Marketing”, “I’m a Buyer”, “I’m in HR”, “I’m …. ”

I like to analyse this using a simple table.

Truthful Lying
Success [ A ] [ B ]
No Success [ C ] [ D ]

In the above table, there are four scenarios, A, B, C, D. “A” represents someone being successful while being truthful, while “D” represents someone who is unsuccessful while lying.

Let’s look at B & D.  Both B & D lies at work.  This is the category we are tempted to follow, believing that it leads to success, or at least success with securing our job.  Is it true that there are people who find success at work while lying?  Yes, it seem to be the case.  We always hear of anecdoctal stories of some back-stabbing co-worker who lied his or her way around deals and up the corporate ladder.  But is it true that everyone who lies will succeed?  If we really think about it, we know that it is not true as well.  While some succeed (B), some will fail (D).  So it is not true that lying guarantees success.

Next, let’s look at A & B.  These are the ones who succeed.  This is the category most are trying to be in.  Is it true that all those who succeed lied their way through?  I doubt so.  I believe there are those who used their skills, intelligence and competence to succeed without having to resort to lying.  From my experience, it takes some courage to be honest at work.  But it pays off.  You earn your superior’s trust and your peer’s respect.  Your customer knows that they can … well, trust you when they engage your services or buy your product.  Looking at A & B, if you can succeed without lying, why should you lie at all?

Now, one might ask.  What about case C?  What if your honesty does not pay off and you do not succeed.  Well, between you and me, I would rather go away without success, knowing that I can sleep at night, with my conscience clear than failing *and* worrying about integrity (case D).

So my friend, will you dish out the Truth at work?

Some Thoughts about Evolution and Cancer

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXing2 Comments

PS: This is a long article and in retrospect, may have more implications to Buddhism than I have explored.  I have decided to leave it as it is and perhaps explore these connections in other articles.

You know, evolution, the Theory of Evolution that is getting a lot of press time in US? Yeah, the one Darwin proposed as the manner human and the various types of animals came to exist the way they exist? That they evolve from earlier simpler forms and are evolving into more complex forms.

I’m not a scientist or a biologist. I never studied biology or anthropology and I’m not even good in Chemistry. I’m just a monk with no training in these fields. But I have an interest in science since young and of late, due to the sheer volume of online articles about the Theory of Evolution (TE), I cannot help but read a few and learn something more.

TE states that as species evolve different traits, the ones with traits that are more suitable for survival tend to be passed on to later generations through the genes, because their hosts survive. On the other hand, species with incompatible or loosing traits die out and these traits die out with the genes. In short, survival of the fittest, with the best evolutionary traits. See Evolution in wikipedia for more info.

Recently, I was thinking about how this may explain why human beings seem to be getting weaker and have more and more illnesses.
Read More …

LEGO: There Are No Cars or Houses

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXingLeave a comment

LEGO, the famous toy that kids around the world played with, is a very interesting toy that I grew up with.  In its simpler earlier form, it comprises of identical building blocks, differing only in color and sizes.

The human figures were also modular, meaning that the head-gears, head, upper torso, lower torso were interchangeable. You could have a figure with yellow face and brown hands and any colored legs.  The really adventurous can even swap the limbs, but that would make this article PG-13, so we’ll leave that for another article! 😉

To those who know, LEGO is written LEGO, and not lego, or Lego.  It is officially trademarked as LEGO.  But there is more to the name as well.  According to wikipedia,

The company name Lego was coined by Christiansen from the Danish phrase leg godt, which means “play well”. The name could also be interpreted as “I put together” and “I assemble” in Latin, though this would be a somewhat forced application of the general sense “I collect; I gather; I learn”; the word is most used in the derived sense “I read”. The cognate Greek verb λέγω (lego) also means “gather, pick up”, but this can include constructing a stone wall.[1]

This is very apt in describing the way LEGO is played.  It is meant to be put together or assembled.  It is interesting that while I never knew what LEGO meant in Danish, it didn’t diminish the fun I had in playing with LEGO, the hours I spent assembling the blocks.  It makes me wonder if sometimes, it is so important that we must understand every single
word recited in Buddhist pujas.  After all, not knowing what LEGO really meant still allowed us to have a good time, do we really need to know all the meaning of what we chant, especially when the chanting itself is at times targeted at devotional or tranquility development purposes.  But that is another story altogether … mmm … …

The interesting thing about LEGO struck me awhile back.  Something so obvious staring in my face (yours as well perhaps?) suddenly leapt in my face.  There are really no cars or houses! If you get it already, you can stop reading and go extend this thought / reflection on your day, week and / or life and reflect how there is no intrinsic characteristic in (every)thing!  If you still haven’t get it, read on.

When we build a car with the LEGO blocks, a car appear to exist, albeit a toy car, but still a car!  But when we examine the individual building blocks, there is no “car-ness” in them.  If there were any such “car-ness”, we cannot later disassemble them and build houses with them.

When we build the house, there is also no “house-ness” in the blocks, otherwise we couldn’t use it to build the car we built with earlier or spaceships later on! 😉

This in short, is Emptiness 自性空. The blocks are empty of any intrinsic characteristics, empty of any car-ness or house-ness. The car-ness and house-ness do not exist.

Further, if the individual item has no “anything-ness”, then the combined item also does not have it as well (ie car-ness or house-ness).  What exist is a car and a house that arises dependent on the building blocks.  Yes?  …. No!  Not just that.  It is a car, that arises dependent on the building blocks, our labelling of it as a “car”, our definition and identification of the function of a car etc etc.

This means that while there is no car-ness (before the car is assembled, or even when the car is built!), a “car” arises dependent on many condition.  We say that a “car” do not inherently exist, it exist or arises dependent on conditions.

In short, this is what is meant by Dependent Arising 緣起有.

Ok, let’s recap:

Before the car is built, there is no car-ness.  When the blocks are assembled, a car ‘arises’.  The car arises dependent on many conditions (blocks, our labeling, concept etc). When we later, disassemble the car, there is no more car.  When there are no coming together of such conditions, there is no more a car; there is again no car that can be found.  However, even when the car is built, there is still no car-ness (‘no-car-ness’ == emptiness).  Only a dependent arising car exist.  Emptiness is ‘there’ whilst the dependent arising car exist.  Emptiness in fact, is the dependent-arising-ness!

Hence, dependent arising car is ’empty of car-ness’ (ie empty), the emptiness of car-ness is precisely because the car is dependent arising!  Ergo: 色不亦空、空不亦色，色即是空、空即是色.

The car is not a car, it is just called / labelled a “car”

And finally, reflecting on how the car do not contain any car-ness, but whatever car we can say exist, exists dependent on the conditions, including our labelling of it, as a “car”.  If it was a car, or is known as a “car”, we would not have to further label it “car”.  We would not have to be taught in school “this is a car” or “這是輛車子” or “kore wa kuruma desu”.  It is therefore, not just lacking in any car-ness 性空, it is also not called a “car”, but it is just labelled 唯名 a “car”.

Hence,  together, 緣起性空 性空唯名, dependent arising, empty of intrinsic characteristic; empty of intrinsic characteristic, is only labelled such.

This is the teaching of Emptiness in the Madhyamika school 中觀.

Didn’t know that the Danes were into Buddhism did you?  Maybe
they didn’t know as well! 😉

Hungry for more?  Tuck in for A bowl of Delicious Laksa.

How to Discipline Your Child (Part 1)

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXingLeave a comment

I read a really interesting post about someone learning his lesson as a child and thought it is a really good example of fine parenting.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?like_id=1990748&node_id=1953527&op=ilikeit

I was perhaps 9 years old when it happened.

I had a terrible habit as a kid to want to sleep in until the last possible moment. Ok, who am I kidding? I still do that. I’m usually about 30 seconds late for work everyday. But when I was a kid, this drove my mother to the brink of sanity. She put up with it for a long time, always managing to get me roused and dressed, books in hand and out the door for school just in the nick of time. Sometimes she’d peek her head in my bedroom door every 10 minutes and check in, making sure I was on track. And generally I managed to get myself together with seconds to spare. But there WAS that one time…

6:45am
Mom: “Sweetie, it’s time to get up and get dressed.”
Me: “Uhhhhaaaaaaaaaaamffff…”

6:55am
Mom: “Honey, we have to leave at 7:30 if we’re going to get you to school on time. Please get up and start getting dressed or you won’t have time for breakfast!”
Me: “Ushdfgakjasgh…”

7:05am
Mom: “Justin, get out of bed. I mean it. You’re already going to be pressed for time to eat breakfast. We’re leaving at 7:30, whether you’re ready or not.”
Me: “Arrrrggghh…Ok, I’m up, I’m up.”

7:15am
Mom: “Sweetie, are you dressed yet? I’ve got your breakfast ready…”
Me: “Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz…”
Mom: “DAMN IT! Wake UP and get READY!!! I swear to you Justin, we’re leaving here at 7:30. I don’t care if you miss your breakfast. I don’t care if you aren’t dressed for school.”
Me: “Ok, sorry…sorry. I’m up.”

7:25am
Mom: “Are you still awake? Good…why aren’t you dressed? Get dressed
NOW or you’re going in your underwear.”
Me: “Ok.”

7:30am
Mom: “Alright, let’s go. Grab your backpack.”
Me: “But Mom, I’m not ready…”
Mom: “Tough.”

She grabbed me by the arm and escorted me out the front door. No shoes, no shirt, not a stitch of clothing besides my tighty whities. She held me by the wrist and led me to the car. I can’t remember this very clearly because I was somewhat upset. I do remember that I was crying uncontrollably. Likely pleading and begging in some fashion. She put me in the back seat, got in, and drove away casually as if nothing in the world was out of place. And as I began to calm somewhat, I sat, mostly naked and full of fear, in the back seat pondering my next move. I didn’t have any more outs. I had no clothing and no plan. I was fucked. I was going to school in my underwear.

Never once did it cross my mind that this could be a bluff. My mother didn’t bluff. She wasn’t turning the car around. Heck, we were halfway to school already! Here I was, in my undies and headed toward certain ridicule and major embarrassment of the worst kind, the ridicule of grade-school peers. And all because I’d chosen to sleep when I should have been getting dressed. When I should have been enjoying a nutritious breakfast. I slept this upon myself. I had learned my lesson. It wouldn’t happen again. I’d always get up from now on at first call. Various other reasoning and begging followed. I gazed into the rearview mirror, looking her in the eyes. I grovelled. And she stared back and me, cold and firm in her resolution.

We pulled into the driveway of my school, and up the lane to the front doors; the main car-rider drop off point. My mother didn’t even put the car in park. She just looked at me expectantly in the rearview. Not a speck of emotion. “Well?…,” said her eyes. I began to cry again. She put the car in park, killed the engine, unfastened her seatbelt, and got out. I was completely prepared. I had mentally readied myself to be dragged from the car, in a cliched kicking and screaming fashion. My mother went around back of the car and opened the trunk, from which she removed a brown paper grocery bag. She came back around to the side and opened my door. She stood there looking at me, like I was the worst child ever. And she handed me the brown bag with my clothes inside. “Get dressed.”

Twas indeed the last time I ever failed to hearken to my mother’s wakeup call.

The problem I see in many cases of parent-child discipline issue, is that the parent either do not follow through with a prior ultimatum (eg, “if you do ABC again, I will …”) or out of anger, frustration or bad mood, simply scold, cane or punish a child even if it is not warranted.

Don’t say something you won’t do; don’t do something you didn’t say.

Be well. ^_^