How About That Fish?

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXingLeave a comment

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.

Shifu Can I Do This or That?

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXing1 Comment

Shifu, can I do this?  Shifu, can I do that?  Can I kill insects?  Can I drink whisky?  How about beer?
Can I pay for less bus fare than I travelled?  How about overtime pay?  Can I dock in more hours than I worked?

The answers to the above, would be yes, yes, yes … and more Yes!
If you had asked, can I breathe through my lungs underwater unassisted, it would be a no.  It would be a no to “Can I have an unassisted controlled flight?”, and by controlled flight, free-falling is not included.

Before you quote me saying that I allow you to do all the above former, think again.  You may think that I’m forgetting about the Buddhist precepts that advocate non-killing, non-stealing etc, ala the five precepts (Panca-Sila in Pali).  You see, what most people are mistaken about the Buddhist teachings is that it does not stipulate a “The Buddha says you cannot kill” and impose it upon you.  Instead, it says, killing is harmful to others (apparently!), is in turn unwanted by ourselves, results in pain, suffering and/or stress, amongst other things, and is to be avoided, for the sake of one’s welfare and happiness and that of others.

When we observe the Buddhist precepts, we are really declaring to ourselves and others that having considered carefully, we are choosing not to kill, because doing so (killing) is not fruitful and leads to much suffering.  Further, we recognise that all that are
alive and sentient, cherishes their life; so we seek to protect and care for their well being.  It is not that we are unable to or cannot, it is that we actively choose not to kill.

It is also not that we choose not to kill, so that we can placate the Buddha and ask for blessings.  Instead it is because we choose not to kill, that this positive wholesome karma (or energy if you will) “protects” us.

As Buddhists, we should use our intelligence and common sense to learn the precepts so that we can make well-informed choices and do the right thing on a daily basis.  This can and is what blesses us!  It is our actions, through our body, speech and mind, that if pure and wholesome, protects and blesses us. The Buddha blesses us through his teachings.

For that matter, even if you are not a Buddhist, does it not occur to you that having angry feeling is unpleasant?  And if that anger fester, it may lead to ill-will arising in you?  And if this ill-will, which is unpleasant as well, is left to nuture, you may physically harm someone.  Without being a Buddhist or subscribing to its teachings, would it not make sense that the above train of thoughts and course of actions is unpleasant and leads to stress in oneself and others?  Further, after harming others, would we not feel anxiety of being discovered later?  These are applicable facts or truths that one can observe and see for onself without having to believe in a god or deity or declaring oneself to be a Buddhist.  And seeing clearly, one avoids the path that leads to suffering, and takes that which is more conducive to happiness.

That is why the Buddha’s teachings are declared as Truth, open for enquiry and investigation; ready for us to see for ourselves.  The teachings (Dharma in Sanskrit or Dhamma in Pali) can be adopted by all without going into a sectarian dispute.  It is in many ways, common sense.

So, fellow humans, wake up to your common sense, and do something sensible for someone today! 🙂

Got $60 Million to Spare?

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXingLeave a comment

Got US$60 million to spare?

In this crisis, are we still able to give? For some of us, we may not be directly affected and may still have a pretty stable job, but the very fear of possible retrenchment and further worsening of the economy may stifle our giving heart or even immobilise it altogether.

Give within your means. Heard some say “Give with your heart.”. I say “Give with your heart, or at least with your wallet”. 🙂

“A Gift of Dhamma is supreme” — The Buddha
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than.html#iti-098

Read on and be inspired to give.
Here’s someone who is not. Caveat emptor: He is able to give US$60mil because he can afford it. However, many others can afford it, but may not be giving enough.

From the link below:
Lots of bosses say they value their employees. Some even mean it.

And then there’s Leonard Abess Jr.

After selling a majority stake in Miami-based City National Bancshares last November, all he did was take $60 million of the proceeds — $60 million out of his own pocket — and hand it to his tellers, bookkeepers, clerks, everyone on the payroll. All 399 workers on the staff received bonuses, and he even tracked down 72 former employees so they could share in the windfall.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/904842.html

Singapore Buddhist Federation Web Site

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXing6 Comments

Hi all,

Here’s the web site for the Singapore Buddhist Federation
http://www.buddhist.org.sg/sbf/

A snippet here:

English Dharma Course
(Info on Chinese Dharma Course is available at the site above)

Objective:
To develop participants’ understanding in basic Buddhist teachings for life enrichment.

Contents:
Lectures and panel discussions on the life of Buddha, a brief history Buddhism, Buddhist teachings, application of Buddhist teaching in daily life.

Entry Qualifications: Age above 16 and fluent in written and spoken English.
Duration of Course: 3 years with 2 semesters per year.
Date: Every Friday from 6th of
March 2009
Time:8.00pm – 9.30pm
Venue:Singapore Buddhist Federation
59 Lorong 24A Geylang, Singapore 398583
Tel: 6744 4635 Fax: 6747 3618

Registration
Fee: Adult $50; Student $25
Certificate of Completion: Certificate of completion of the course will be issued to each participant who has satisfied the set criteria Registration:
1. Photocopy of NRIC or Passport;
2. One recent passport sizes photo.
3. Registration at:
Buddhist Federation,59 Lorong 24A Geylang, Singapore 398583
Tel: 6744 4635 Fax: 6747 3618
Off hours: 0900 am to 5.00 pm Mon to Fri; 0900 am to 100 pm Sat

* Registration form is available for download at the above site.

Applying Meditation Skills to Daily Encounters

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXingLeave a comment

Hi all,

Hope the new year is treating you well.  I just came back from a three month retreat and thought I’ll share something here.  (Strictly speaking, because of immigration requirements and some talk engagements I committed to, it was not a full three months! 😉 )

Below is an email excerpt I sent to fellow buddhist on meditation.  Thought I’ll share it here as it may be useful for some of us trying out meditation.
1.  Feeling frustrated the day after meditation
Hmmm …. that’s an interesting one.  Before I jump to any conclusion, maybe some clarifications:

+ How long do you meditate per session?
+ How many times per day?
+ Do you do walking meditation with the sitting?
+ How many times do you meditate per week?

While it is true that improper postures can cause some discomfort, it usually occur under some specific conditions.  Shed some light as above and we go from there.

2.  Becoming more sensitive to our surroundings and people
Becoming more aware and sensitive is always better.  So good start there! 🙂 What we do with this new awareness and sensitivity is a different thing altogether. 🙂

While it would be good if after learning the Dharma and meditating, we are able to simply face all situations head-on and come out ok.  Unfortunately reality differs, as you have noticed. 😉  Fortunately, the Buddha is kind and realistic enough to suggest that we take it gradually.

The Buddha is Realistic!

Not specific to your situation, but in the AnguttaraNikaya 5.161 Grudge, the Buddha do not advise the monks to go head on and reflect on emptiness or anatta.  Instead he suggested five ways to deal with it.  “If a grudge arises towards any person, then one should cultivate loving-kindness, or compassion or equanimity to wards him. Or one should pay no attention to him and give no thought to him. Or one may apply the thought: his only property is his actions; whatever he does, good or bad, he will be heir to that. In these ways, all grudges that have arisen can be removed. ” Search for “grudge” in http://www.triplegem.plus.com/tipintr3.htm

I feel that the Buddha’s very realistic approach may also apply in your case where you feel “something” towards people who seem to be doing things wrong.

1.  External
+  Avoid if possible.
2.  Internal
+  Do not give attention to what had been done
+  On that which we have seen, heard or suspected, hold your judgement *or* direct your mind to the positive qualities of these people
+  If you find that you cannot find anything positive about them, reflect on how others are not disturbed by the so called perceived negative or wrong actions.
+  Direct your mind towards the Triple Gem
+  Direct your mind inwards towards your own practice

To be honest, I went through a stretch where I had much -ve towards ppl around in much the same way as you did.  I came to a point where I reflected and concluded that a) how wrong they really are may be subjective and b) even if they are truly wrong, getting upset with them does not help
them … *nor* me!  and c) “getting upset” is itself a defilement, never mind whether they are really right or wrong.  Hence I should resolve my own defilement of being upset before I go poking into ppl’s backyard.

!Applying our meditative practices to use!

When we meditate (止 samatha), we are really doing two things:
1.  Bring the mind away from its favorite past-times (aka distractions) and
2.  Anchoring it on the meditation object.

Easy said than done.

But we’ve done it before as well.  Although the mind may still wander off, we have succeeded in doing it before, both bringing it away from distractions to our meditation object.  We learn to maneuver the mind.

We also succeed in anchoring the mind, albeit maybe just for a few moments or seconds for some, in the meditation object.  This is commonly the breath, and we did do just that.

When frustration or -ve thoughts arise, it is like the mind wandering away from our meditation object.  We should extend our meditation skills to everyday life and catch ourselves when that happens.  After catching it, we should steer our mind away from those mental objects (thoughts or memories!) towards good or +ve (happy?) thoughts or objects.  Then we should anchor it there.

Try it and see what happens.  After some exercise, one should be able to do it easily.  That should allow the -ve thoughts to die down by itself.  This is the samatha method and it does only one thing.  Mitigation.  It does not solve the problem, but it gives us a breather *and* it breaks the momentum of the angry mind.  It weakens habitual anger if it is present and prevents its formation if not.

Our task is not complete yet

Meanwhile, our task is not complete yet.  Having this calmness is sometimes mistaken as the end goal for Buddhists.  That is plain incorrect.  This is like a pit-stop or a transit.  A shelter to wait out the storm.  While you slowly weaken the defilements, one should strengthen calmness and develop observation and insight into nama-rupa (mind-body).  Seeing truly how nama-rupa is, ie impermanent, subject to change, subject to suffering, is empty and non-self, one then cuts off the root of the problem, craving and attachment stemming from the distorted views of the world.

This requires 观 or insight meditation.  Bear in mind, this is not one particular meditation technique found only in one school or tradition.  As far as I am concerned, the different schools in the different traditions have different techniques for both samatha and vipassana that should lead to concentration and wisdom.  Use the one that works for you.

Footnote:

I didn’t go into specifics of insight meditation for the timebeing as I wanted the person to clear her present difficulties before moving onto the later exercises. 😉

Different Ways, Different Destinations

Posted onAuthorShi ZhiXingLeave a comment

Back in 2007, I was in conducting a four-session workshop on The Heart Sutra.  In the last session, one student from a western country commented on an interesting sight he has so far only witnessed in Singapore.  He was very amazed at how there are numerous locations where he found a mosque, a temple and a church next to each other.  This was something that he said cannot happen where he was from or perhaps in many other countries as well.

In a multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious society such as Singapore, religious harmony is especially important.  Religious harmony is especially important and religious leaders participate actively in the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) which resolves to strengthen religious harmony through mutual tolerance, confidence, respect and understanding.

In participating in the IRO events, I’ve noticed that there are many who are geniunely trying to promote understanding between people of different faiths.  This is heartening and is definitely the way forward in the increasingly globalised world.  Some have also adopted a Homogeneous stance suggesting that all the religions are teaching the same truths.  Same final goal, just through different roads as some would put it.  This may seem viable initially, but can be hard to reconcile when one goes into the crux of various religions.

The way I see it, the different religions are like different vehicles on the highways.  Each different from each other, yet common in some ways.  The different vehicles are common in the sense that they are all means of transport and can take us to where we may want to go.  Due to different spiritual maturity, each may adopt different vehicles and seek different destinations.  Everyday when we go to work or back home, we may go by bus, taxi, car, train or a combination.  While on the road, would we stop others from going to their destinations just because it is different from ours?  Would we ask everyone to get on same bus or get off the same station?  The world would be in chaos if people start doing that.  Would we ask everyone to go to the same office with us or return home with us just because our home is warm and pleasant to us?

In a similar way, we need to recognise that religions have common grounds but also have their differences.  Religions, at a base level, advocates values such as giving, harmlessness, humility, kindness, love etc while at a deeper level, we may differ in terms of our core beliefs and ways of seeing the world.

Recognising that religions bring people to their respective spiritual goals is crucial.  This knowledge does not need to assume a common goal, but sees the common
function of religions, i.e. bring about spiritual maturity towards their own goals.  We need to recognise that just because the goals are different does not mean that they are wrong or evil per se.  To say that different goals are wrong is like saying that people going their way to their offices and homes are going the wrong way.

I say, let’s work on common values while recognising the very human need for different “happiness”.  One day when we are spiritually matured enough, then perhaps we can sit down and discuss the differences without getting at each other’s throat.