The Million Dollar Question…

Q: How do you admit how you cheated if you did not?
A: You don’t – or you would really be cheating – yourself and the world!

The hero of ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ is a story of the power of integrity, of how it truly shines despite the desperation of the situation. It would be even more terrific if the movie was based on a true story! Jamal, a poor boy from the Mumbai slums looks for a big break to change his life and suceeds against incredible odds by winning ‘Who Wants to be a Millionare’ – all the way. Due to his shabby background, he is suspected of being a cheat, deemed guilty till proven innocent. Is it safe to assume that the poor have less integrity while the rich have more? I think wealth and status have no concrete links with one’s honesty. There are beggars who are petty con-men just as there are the rich who embezzle tons of money!

How much is integrity worth? It is priceless, more than a million dollars can buy. Though Jamal was not well-to-do or well-educated, he was neither poor in spirit nor integrity, even when looked upon as a destined loser. A victim of his karmic circumstances, he nevertheless struggled well and gained adequate street wisdom to survive. Through a poignant chain of karmic cause and effect, he gathers the necessary general knowledge from the harsh ‘university of life’ to answer most of the questions in the game show. He makes a couple of ‘lucky’ guesses though, but had enough merits to deserve glorious victory. That’s life for you – just do your best and make a few calculated leaps of good faith when you should!

In ‘Kin: The Good Neighbours’ by Holly Black, Aubrey the faerie father tests the human Thaddeus on his love for his daughter Nia by asking him to pick her among her three other similar-looking sisters. In truth, Thaddeus only had superficial understanding of Nia, as he was mostly entranced only by her appearance. He should had realised this, and declined to ‘guess’ which was Nia, since he didn’t really deserve her hand in that sense.

However, in the nick of time, a friend hinted to him to look at the sisters’ feet. As Nia had danced with Thaddeus, her feet were muddy. Pointing at her, Thaddeus ‘guessed’ correctly. Along this line, I think this is a good test of how mindful we are of those we think we know and care about – even though Thaddeus was still judging only by appearances (of mud on her feet) – but you get the idea. If we imagine we really know someone inside-out, would we be able to discern this person… from not just any crowd, but a crowd of ‘clones’? How deep (or shallow) is your love (or infatuation)?

Beauty is only skin deep,
and the skin is not very deep.

- Stonepeace

From ‘The Twilight Zone: The Monsters are Due on Maple Street’ by Rod Serling (adapted by Mark Kneece), a mysterious blackout strikes the suburbs. The townsfolk gather and a boy suggests that it might be the work of invading aliens, who are simply waiting in the dark to grab whoever ventures into it, saying that they might even be human-like, living among them now. The folks then rationalise various conspiracy theories and demonise one another. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy when the groundless belief that there are monsters among them bring out the monsters of paranoia and hatred within them, resulting in crazed arson and murder. Most ironically, a couple of aliens were watching in the distance, discussing their observation.

Alien 1: Understand the procedure now? Just stop a few of their machines, shut down their energy sources, eliminate the reassuring flow of pictures and sounds [TV and radio] to their primitive minds, throw them into darkness for a few hours… sit back and watch the pattern.
Alien 2: And this pattern is always the same?
Alien 1: With few variations. All we need it sit back and watch as they destroy themselves.
Alien 2: Then I take it this place… this Maple Street… is not unique?
Alien 1: Their world is full of Maple Streets. And we’ll go from one to the other and let them destroy themselves. One to the other… one to the other…

In the actual now classic Twilight Zone episode, Rod Serling would narrate, ‘The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices – found only in the pettiness of the human mind. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own… for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is… that these things cannot be confined… to the Twilight Zone.’ Though this apocalyptic episode was aired in 1960, the genuinely creepy part of this essentially non-supernatural tale is that it still seems credible, despite the ‘end’ of the Cold War. As long as the Three Poisons of greed, hate and delusion are rife in our world, we already dwell in the darkness of the Twilight Zone. Just as the the integrity of the Dharma in our world can only be destroyed by Buddhists who do not practise the Buddhadharma well, the integrity of humanity lies in the hands of humans.

I once had an acquaintance in school. She had long straight flowing hair and big round eyes. The usual attributes that would make one a classic beauty, as many might feel? Within my clique, many would call her Miss Candy (Xiao Tian Tian), and that would please her very much. Little did she know, they were just being sarcastic. In their eyes, she broke the convention of how a pretty girl ‘should’ look like, despite having the traits above, especially since her character wasn’t exactly ‘beautiful’. Miss Candy’s label was just a tease. I was never able to call her that. I thought it would be too cruel.

So what is beauty? You might have noticed the recent S(enseless)-Factor reality TV contest. (Okay, I don’t want to be too rude here, that’s why I used the word ‘senseless’ instead of its worse synonyms which also begin with the letter ‘S’! ). If you catch a few minutes of the show, you would have a faint idea of what society considers to be stereotypical beauty for mass-consumption. Well, I can’t deny that looks do attract or repel. Good-looking persons tend to have more (superficial) advantages than an average-looking person, just as the latter has more advantages than a ugly-looking one.

A colleague once said no boss would hire someone dull to look at every day. But what about talent and creativity? We are much luckier as many in some countries faced looks-discrimination on a larger scale. It was in fact a trend that many Koreans go under the knife for better jobs and career advancement. On the other end of the spectrum, Bhutanese women are considered beautiful not because of having delicate skin and luscious figures. To them, to be beautiful is to be strong, capable of working in the fields while managing the household well. Now isn’t this a much healthier perspective of beauty?

As the society tends to have fixed standards of beauty (though they do change in history), it’s largely collective and individual karmic trends at play. This body of ours is the result of our past karma. We deserve every inch and ounce of it, even for those who choose to go under the knife. Whether surgery is successful or not is karmic too. This is not fatalism though, because if we look deeper, we can see that it is cause and effect at work. Of course, the less good-looking must have done something positive in the past to be able to have enough opportunity to meet a good doctor to reshape one’s appearance… while the good-looking must have done something negative to experience disfigurement.

While beautiful people and things are nice to look at or admire, let’s not forget the greater importance of inner goodness – for both good and less good-looking folks. How we perceive others’ appearances is none other just our limited dualistic minds at play. Everything is indeed more than what meets the eye. When I was little, I used to wonder why we don’t all look alike… like our shadows with no specific differences. I’m glad I have found a world that shares this ideology of equality, that however immeasurably better – Amitabha Buddha’s Pure Land – where all beings suffused with equanimity look equally magnificent! Let us aspire to reborn there, to be as majestic as the Buddhas in body and mind. Amituofo!

Shakespearean English,
unless spoken at plays,
sounds like bad English in our times.

Modern English,
unless spoken in our times,
sounds like bad English too.

Even the rules of grammar change
along with vocabulary,
as words are dropped in and out of dictionaries.

Only the Dharma remains unchanging,
only the letter and spirit of the truth lasts,
only the Dharma is refuge.

In ‘The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor’, the first emperor of China (Qin Shihuang), after his conquest of the whole of China, felt compelled to conquer what he perceived to be his last enemy – death, because he wanted for more than the span of a single normal life to fulfill his further ambitions. In short, he wanted immortality. What he didn’t realise was that what he really needed was peace of mind, to make do with his impending and inevitable demise. Death wasn’t his real enemy; craving to live on and on was what kept contentment and happiness at bay.

His worldly ambition and fear of death held him prisoner, even though he had ‘all under heaven’ (the whole of China) to roam freely in. Nothing that he conquered could be brought over to his next life, even though he desperately attempts to do this by planning for a mass burial of treasures and even armies of terracotta soldiers. Wanting immortality to hold on to everything worldly would only mean the immortality of suffering – because it can never be done. There are only two ways to attain eternal life – to be reborn in Pure Land, where the constant creation of merits sustain one’s life indefintely, and/or to realise the deathlessness of Buddhahood!

Here is an analysis of the poll question ‘Should All Taking the Three Refuges Commit to the Five Precepts Too?’ As of today, the results are:

66% : Yes
20% : Doesn’t matter
07% : No
07% : Dunno

In the Theravada tradition, the 5 precepts are taken with refuge. In the Mahayana tradition, the precepts are optional when taking refuge. When the precepts are taken in the Mahayana tradition, one can choose to take 1,2,3,4 or all 5 precepts. Which is right or better on the priority of observing the precepts? The Theravada or the Mahayana tradition? Each has its own rationale for conducting refuge and precept ceremonies the way they do. An idealist at heart will see directly the sensibility of taking precepts in full with refuge – for what is the meaning of committing to the Triple Gem for life while giving oneself leeway to live immorally?

But as the Mahayana tradition aims to reach as many as possible, it gives some compassionate leeway for those who wish to take refuge, but who are unsure about observing the precepts. It is better that someone ‘commits’ to the Triple Gem though he or she has not yet made the resolution to observe the precepts, than to not commit to the Triple Gem at all. If one feels unready in terms of upholding morality as according to the precepts, he can choose not to take the precepts first. But if he or she is truly sincere in following the Buddhist way, he or she should actively work towards being able to observe the precepts fully in good time. Observation of the precepts is really a basic aspect of commitment to that central to Triple Gem – the Dharma.

Whatever tradition one follows, it is universally recognised that to take refuge and observe the precepts in full is better than just taking refuge. Likewise, it is better to observe 5 precepts than just 4, better to observe 4 than 3, better to observe 3 than 2, better to observe 2 than 1, and better to observe 1 than none! What matters is to continually working towards perfecting morality. It is also better to commit to observing the precepts in full as it further serves as a moral deterrent, since whether one has committed to observing the precepts or not, the effects of karma from being immoral are still there.

We also have to remember that morality is just the first aspect of the Threefold Training towards Enlightenment – which should lead to the practice of concentration and the attainment of wisdom. In the Mahayana path, there is also the emphasis of cultivating and perfecting compassion so as to be able to help others in their Threefold Training. For this, the practice of upholding morality is crucial.

Related Articles:

The Five Wonderful Precepts ~ Key to Moral Happiness
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zeph/message/584
The 5 Precepts & 5 Ennoblers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zeph/message/786
Story of the Notorious Five (A Tale for Children)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zeph/message/622
The Danger in Not Observing the Fourth Precept
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/message/301
The Danger of Not Observing the Fifth Precept
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zeph/message/785

< Movie poster for Singapore

The award-winning movie ‘School Days with a Pig’ tells of a teacher’s special project for his class of grade 6 students to learn more deeply about the connection between life and food – by raising a piglet together, before eventually eating it. This premise is actually rather disturbing (though there is not a single gory scene) as it’s quite bizarre that both the teacher and 28 students were agreeable to the conclusion of the project before it began. It’s easy to assume the film to be a cutesy comedy with piggy misadventures (which it is mostly), but the ending is such that it becomes a ‘horror’ movie – albeit not readily depicted. As expected, the class splits into two factions as the story progresses. One side feels that pigs are meant to be eaten, and that humans need food anyway, while the other side feels that doing so lacks compassion. What missed elaboration is the fact that humans don’t really require any animal produce to survive. It’s out of ignorance and greed for taste that meat-eating is perpetuated. Throughout most of the show, the teacher doesn’t educate on the possibility of taking up a kinder diet (vegetarianism or veganism), and remains mostly neutral and ambivalent, letting the class debate on the future of the pig.

< A scene from the movie

Naturally, the pig gets named (P-chan) by the kids, which some felt to be a mistake – because it meant bonding with him, making the prospect of departure harder. Even the ones who were initially pro-eating him became attached to some degree. Some start questioning why P-chan must be eaten – especially since he became not just like a classmate, but a pet and friend too. In fact, he becomes the jolly mascot of the school. This reminds us of a famous quote by George Bernard Shaw – ‘Animals are my friends… and I don’t eat my friends.’ In fact, the Buddha even encouraged us to befriend all sentient beings with harmlessness and loving-kindness (Metta). The issue of hypocrisy arose too… Why would it be okay to eat other living beings if it’s not okay to eat P-chan? Is it just because they became attached to P-chan? But must attachment be a requisite for universal kindness to function? Not at all. The teacher didn’t want to use a chicken because he felt it would be ‘too easy’. He wanted the kids to learn to care well for an animal, so as to maximise the lessons learnt. The kids learn to nurture P-chan, play with him, feed him and defend him. They even gladly build a house for him, and clear his poop and pee regularly.

< Movie poster for Japan

The more the bonding deepens, the more disturbing it becomes as the kids’ graduation day looms closer. For what is their kindness to him ultimately for, when P-chan is to be sent to the slaughterhouse by them? Does the bad faith not intensify? As the kids became preoccupied with P-chan, to the extent of eating less personally to save leftovers for P-chan. This led some parents to wonder if their kids attend school to learn or to raise a pig. That’s short-sighted of course, because raising a pig offers opportunities to learn priceless lessons about unconditional love and responsibility to a fellow sentient being. The film consists of many one-line debating points on the ethics of eating P-chan versus not. Here are some… One says that since the project’s finale was to eat P-chan, they should do just that, as a matter of principle. But isn’t sticking to principles rigidly and needlessly itself a poor principle in practice? Is raising an animal to eat cruel, or is it the eating itself that is so? What’s the difference between creating a supply for meat and sustaining a demand for meat? In the Lankavatara Sutra, the irrefutable interdependent economics of the meat-seller (killer) and meat-buyer (eater) is stated – and it’s a cycle of violence that one can opt out of.

< Another scene from the movie

Pigs, like any other animals, don’t exist just to be killed and eaten by others, just as humans don’t. Humans are the ones who decide how to relate to weaker beings. When we choose the easy way out for our convenience and greed, we are really spiritually weak beings, truly incapable of caring for them. If so, humans shouldn’t domesticate animals in the first place – especially since it is to exploit them. We don’t need to eat any animal to stay alive, while every animal need us to NOT eat them to stay alive. Since there was domestication of P-chan with no proper way to return him to the wild, the kids ought to care for him throughout his natural lifespan. Someone remarked that P-chan already lived a full life of six months, but to measure lifespan unnaturally by the yardstick of slaughterhouses is as twisted as it is to let a murderer determine you own lifespan. Another kid rationalised that after P-chan gets killed, he would just be meat, no longer P-chan. This is unsound logic, because one still kills P-chan as P-chan. Yet another rationalised that killing and eating are entirely unrelated, that eating inherits the life of the eaten to let them be part of us. If so, why do we not eat our beloved family and friends when they pass away?

^ Even Homer the glutton couldn’t stand a pig being killed for food in ‘The Simpsons Movie’

The matter of discrimination arose a few times. Isn’t it clearly favourtism to fight only for P-chan’s life, while eating other pigs? Isn’t it clearly speciesism to not eat P-chan, while eating other animals? A cook saw pigs as monsters, who are nevertheless ‘delicious’ when cooked well (with vegetarian seasonings actually!). But isn’t the one who demonises, exploits and kills animals the real monster? The kids mistakenly assume that pig farmers love pigs like pets, that they too feel attachment to them before they get killed. If the attachment is so real, why let them be killed… continuously… and in countless numbers? They have probably gotten numb to the suffering of the pigs to be part of this bloody trade. A child felt that if they are responsible for P-chan’s uncertain future, they should eat him. This would save others the heartache of probably ‘needing’ to send him to the slaugherhouse later. This was accused as being heartless by another. The class had hoped to handover P-chan to juniors to care for him as there was no farm which wanted to adopt him for life. Should P-chan be killed simply due to their lack of time to care for him? A class of grade 3 students volunteers to take over, but they were deemed too small and young. But couldn’t they be taught how to care for P-chan as a team with the help of more guiding teachers? Isn’t it better to learn respect for life from young?

< ‘Babe’ is a better pro-animal rights movie

The ending of the story is a distasteful one. The class cast equal votes for letting P-chan be adopted by the grade 3 students versus sending P-chan to a ‘meat-centre’, which is really euphemism for a merciless slaughterhouse. The teacher was forced to take a side by casting the deciding vote. He chose the latter, because he felt that the kids were already overburdened by the whole issue. This is a bad decision because he chose the easy way out for everyone – by sacrificing P-chan. He selfishly rid self-chosen human misery by subjecting an animal to ultimate misery. It also hinted that all domesticated animals should die and be eaten in the end? The truth is, the voting was totally unnecessary – because only P-chan’s vote mattered. But how could he vote, since he couldn’t speak? He could vote a resounding ‘Yes! I want to live!’ by screaming and kicking when he faces the knife. It is this final scene of P-chan’s life that the kids and the audience never get to witness. The teacher truly failed in teaching the kids about the source of their non-vegetarian food – by not arranging an excursion for them to see this. The P-chan adventure was only half-lived. As the film was partially based on a true story, P-chan was really sacrificed. Seeing P-chan go under the knife, not that I want to, could save many more animals. As Stonepeace put it, ‘The sight of blood and gore is only good for one thing – to prevent further blood and gore.’ The movie was unfortunately just another desensitised film that failed to deliver greater lessons on respect for life.

< Siddhartha’s early compassion

When Siddhartha (the Buddha-to-be) was a child, he once rescued a swan shot by his cousin Devadatta. Reluctant to hand it over to him, it was judged by the wise that the swan belonged to those who saw value in its life, not its death, to those who wanted to save it, not to those who wanted to kill it. It’s disturbing how the teacher voted against letting the grade 3 students take over when he had the final say over P-chan’s life. In this sense, the teacher’s special project to educate on the meaning of life and death had ‘died’… in his own hands. If the kids were to be taught the true meaning of responsibility for P-chan all the way, they ought to kill him personally – since they voted for the death sentence. Why pay others do the dirty job? Then again, true responsibility would mean not even considering killing as an option. Also disturbing was how the pro-life half of the class never spoke up more enthusiastically to win the teacher’s vote. How could they collectively think that an early death is better for a hale and hearty P-chan? What if sick and aged human parents are involved here? Would we send them to the slaughterhouse? Also in the Lankavatara Sutra, the Buddha taught that all animals (all beings in fact) had been our parents at some point in time in our many previous lives. Even more disturbing was that the grade 3 students were deliberately concealed from the fact that P-chan would be sent away to be killed. The bitter hard truth of the source of their meat was not passed down to them. However, I hope it has been passed on to you – via this review! May all beings be free from harm and danger. May all beings be well and happy.

< Click for free stickers and decals

Pic: Dharma Hall at Kong Meng San

After lunch, just before the next round of the Pureland retreat recitation, I realised I had a piece of vegetable wedged between two teeth in a corner of my mouth. I tried to extract it with the tip of my tongue, but to no avail. I took a few sips of bottled water and gargled discreetly. But nope, it stayed stuck. The chanting began and I had to make peace with the irritant. A trip to the restroom to pick it would be disruptive. But as the chanting resumed, the presence of the stray food felt more conspicuous, as the aversion increased. At one point, I tried to use my fingers to dislodge it. But still, it remained fast.

Then I realised I really had to make peace with it – till the session was over – or I would be wasting this precious practice session by being preoccupied with it. The truth is, I could leave for the restroom at any time, but I wanted to train in discipline, in making do with whatever situational ‘constraints’ I faced. Counter-intuitively, it was by being mindful of Buddha’s name that would allow me to make peace with the discomfort, as I take my mind off it by being wholehearted with the chanting. To fret physically and mentally over a disturbance that can’t be helped then would only keep peace at bay.

Many idealistically imagine that all our worldly concerns and even physical discomforts will be timely resolved before we lay on our deathbeds. But that all loose ends could be tied up in time would really require a lot of effort, wisdom and good karma. Chances are, there might be some dissatisfactions left. This was probably the case in the last moments of our previous lives, which made us crave to return to Samsara. Even a piece of vegetable can dislodge your mindfulness of Buddha – if you allow it to! When you should let it all go, you should. If not, welcome back to Samsara… where the momentum of your dissatisfactions perpetuate.

‘Perfect’ moments without any physical dis-ease or trouble in mind for practising the Dharma are few and far in between, if any at all. Dharma practice is especially for the moments when we have much dissatisfactions. If the moment already seems ‘perfect’, there might be less conviction to practise instead. Dukkha should drive us towards the Dharma, not away from it. And time is always running out. Miss the golden opportunities to practise the Dharma it’ll be too late… till the next life. If we do not start breaking our samsaric habits now, not only are they likely to continue in future lives, they might be further fortified.

Catch the new single from Depeche Mode’s new album ‘Sounds of the Universe’ (performed live in Berlin). After the lyrics below are my reflections on them.

Wrong

I was born with the wrong sign
In the wrong house
With the wrong ascendancy
I took the wrong road
That led to the wrong tendencies
I was in the wrong place at the wrong time
For the wrong reason and the wrong rhyme
On the wrong day of the wrong week
I used the wrong method with the wrong technique
Wrong
Wrong

Read more

We were there among the some 12,000, and it was truly fantastic. (Yes, I said it before.) Many say it was one of the best gigs Coldplay had for this season. Above is an unofficial video from the March 23 2009 Viva La Vida concert at Singapore Indoor Stadium. (Not filmed by me though. See paper maple leaves falling as confetti… I hope they recycle them!) A line from ‘Lovers in Japan’ resonated with me when I heard the CD, and especially strongly during the concert. ‘Soldiers… you’ve got to soldier on.’ On the video wall then was a dated film clip of soldiers marching on. The way the line was sung seemed to fit the sentiments of the footage well.

Lovers, keep on the road you’re on [towards True Love for all without attachment?]
Runners, until the race is run [towards the destination that is enlightenment?]
Soldiers, you’ve got to soldier on [for whatever good cause you are 'fighting' for?]
Sometimes even right is wrong [So please be sure your cause is right!]

At that moment, some feelings of existential anguish (Dukkha) welled up in me, as thoughts of the samsaric grief and ‘injustices’ that I have gone through surfaced. That line sung of empathy and encouragement to me. It reminded me to soldier on for whatever I do, against all odds, because it is worthy, and because I really do know this is so. A bittersweet wave of emotions swept over me. It made me want to cry, but it made me hold back… and let it go too. It was recognition of Dukkha, yet swiftly followed by the resolution to get over it. I think I left the concert a subtly stronger person. Long live Coldplay! (Below is the official music video of the song – where you can hear the song better.)

Received my cert for the MA in Buddhist Studies in the mail recently. Ironically, it reminded me of how little of the Dharma I know, not how much I’d ‘mastered’. ‘Master of Arts’ in Buddhist Studies? Hardly a master! Though three years were spent, with lots of midnight oil burning for study of the various Buddhist traditions, I’m conciously clear that what learnt merely scraped the surface of the breadth and profundity of the Dharma – and it’s only theory too.

However, I’m also reminded that there is no need to learn absolutely all Dharma methods to advance towards enlightenment – because there are 84,000 skilful means that lead to the same goal. And the Buddha, who is the true Master of the Dharma, did not expect all to master everything he taught in this human lifetime. And he had no worldly certification for his enlightenment too! Why then, did I take up the course? Simple – to inspire myself systematically and comprehensively with the Dharma, and hopefully, use the certification to inspire more confidence in the Dharma that I share. Amituofo.

You can change the side of the road that you walk down every day.
Even if the road is the same, you can see new things.
Isn’t that enough to live for?
Or does that mean that it isn’t enough?

- Kannam, one of the kildren

From the makers of ‘Ghost in the Shell’ comes a meditatively paced anime called ‘The Sky Crawlers’. In an alternative world, giant corporations who manufacture weapons pit their fighter jets and pilots against one another for profits. There is no mention of governments in the story, which eerily suggests that governments have become corporations who fight for gain. Peace becomes but a by-product of sickly efficient and brutal war games. Which is worse – to make war a game or to see war as a game?

No one really knows which pilot is a ‘kildren’ (children who kill?) – genetically engineered pilots, who are really human ‘weapons’, killing ‘machines’ who are cloned versions of their ace pilot predecessors. Even the kildren themselves do not know that they are kildren, much like us who have forgotten our past lives. Despite having deja vu of familiar people and places, some are dispassionate about their hazy past, while there are those mindful of the haziness of the past and future as a problem, thus experiencing existential angst.

In a way, the mindless kildren represents those of us who are immature, who refuse to grow up, who are thus at spiritual standstills – being nothing more than perpetual rebirths of our predecessors. One of them remarks that since they might die tomorrow (in their war games), there’s no need to grow up. Then again, doesn’t that make it more urgent to grow up? And what if they do not die tomorrow? Are we not kildren too, who have vague memories of our past? No longer children, we might age physically, but do we grow spiritually?

One of the kildren felt that people need wars to feel alive and appreciate the contrasting peace – just as the pilots fight to feel alive most… on the brink of death. But doesn’t this make peace but a relative quality, with a bloody price tag? Such peace cannot be true peace. True peace is not conditoned by violence; it must radiate outwards from within. The adults who wage war and engineer weapons are really childish children too, who repeat history and refuse to learn from it.

The same kildren has a deathwish – due to the exasperation of seeing loved ones die and reborn repeatedly, sending her emotions through pointless cyclic highs and lows, because they do not remember their attachment to her, while she remembers hers. However, realises she has to live on, until a way is found to change the cycle they are stuck in. Indeed, suicide is never the solution for any problem in life, for we will likely to be karmically reborn into similar situations till we realise how to have a genuine breakthrough – while alive – now.

Grow up children, don’t you suffer
At the hands of one another.

- Vanishing Point (New Order)

During my college days, I had to learn to cook to survive the grey days of England. I remember telling myself, ‘ What’s so hard about cooking? All I need is to be able to get the seasoning right and everything will taste perfect!’ Well, it wasn’t at all perfect for the first few rounds. I still remember the awful food I had to eat to prevent waste. After some trial and error and many yucky meals, I finally got the hang of it. I was able to mix and match seasonings and sauces without any measuring tools. I was never really a big fan of cooking but I felt joy when my guinea pigs genuinely enjoy the dishes.

The practice of good cooking is like a form of meditation in motion. The ideal ingredients are simple – harmlessness, loving-kindness and mindfulness. A meal that does not involve bloody killing, that is prepared out of loving-kindness can never taste bad. Imagine a doting mother going through great lengths to buy, wash, cut and prepare ingredients just to cook for her only hungry child. Mindfulness would be likened to the fuel of dedication or fire of passion that cooks the dishes.

For an authentic and exquisite meal, one need not spend a fortune at an expensive restaurant or have a meal made by a famous chef. One does not even need any rare or costly ingredients. All one needs is to fill one’s mind with loving-kindness, see the kitchen as a meditation hall and simply cook mindfully. May all always have the opportunities to prepare, have and share hearty compassionate meals!