Visited St. Patrick’s School again, a couple of days ago, to give a presentation on the Buddhist perspective of life and death. Instead of using the usual lecture theatre, the school hall was used instead – as there were 130 Catholic boys this time. Above is a picture of a powerpoint slide used, featuring a short video clip from ‘Little Buddha’ for introducing who the Buddha is.

I almost didn’t recognise the place. This was where I played table tennis and sat for my ‘O’ Levels many years ago. Under the shamrock logo on a corner of the wall were the core values of the school – ‘Humanity, Humility, Honesty’. Interesting. These are some of the qualities the Buddha advocated too. Yes, the Buddha exemplifies perfect humanity (in terms of perfect compassion) and honesty (in terms of sharing the whole truth realised with his perfect wisdom). Did he exemplify humility? He presented himself in a humble manner, yet in a sense, he didn’t need to – because he realised non-self, and had no ego that needed conscientious subduing! Thus, when the Buddha announced that he is fully enlightened, it was not an egoistic statement, but a statement of truth made out of pure compassion and truth to inspire confidence.

The boys sat on two sides of the hall, with me standing on the centre aisle. For some reason, the guys on my right weren’t very attentive, while those on my left were very attentive. Somehow, it spontaneously reminded me of a Bible quote (Matthew 25:31) about Jesus separating the sheep from the goats into two sides one day – with the first representing the faithful and the latter the rebellious. Of course, I’m no Jesus and this is definitely no ‘final judgment’ in any sense. Yes, nothing’s really final till full enlightenment is realised. I didn’t do any segregating either, and tried to be equally appealing to both sides. It’s just a matter of different karmic affinity and choice – that some are interested in the Dharma and some are less so. It was just a little amazing that both sides were so distinct. After a Q&A session, my parting joke was a slide that said, ‘Don’t believe in rebirth? Maybe next life!’ With that, I thanked everyone. There was laughter and a boy yelled, ‘Woohoo!’ I’ll take that as a compliment… I think!

Related Article:
Are You a Buddha?
http://moonpointer.com/new/2009/03/are-you-a-buddha

Something written for the press that went unpublished:

I refer to the letter ‘Town council right in culling pigeons‘ (Mar 14), which stated that it was right to poison pigeons which dirtied HDB blocks. However, since pigeons naturally flock to where humans leave food, it is obvious that the cause of the problem lies with inconsiderate human action. Culling is thus not the long term solution if such feeding continues.

In reference to the letter ‘Dad hospitalised because of birds‘ (Mar 14), which stated that the writer’s father was ill due to a neighbor’s breeding of mynahs above his flat unit in a rusty air-conditioner unit, we need to remember that it was supposed to be a reply to another letter on the pigeon problem, not about other birds that are deliberately bred; but about pigeons left in whatever little wild that remains in Singapore due to rapid urbanisation. Let us not drive them to extinction by careless calls for culling. Also referring to the letter ‘Explore more humane ways to control bird population‘ (Mar 14), the title is ironical as one of the suggestions, of using artificial nesting boxes to collect and destroy fertilised eggs, is also cruel – as this still involves killing.

Finally, with reference to the letter ‘Employ more humane culling methods‘ (Mar 15), which stated that ‘It is better to take precautions [by killing pigeons] than do nothing but wait helplessly as disease [due to them] becomes rampant’, this suggestion is unnerving indeed – because if an animal species needs to be culled en masse simply as a ‘precautionary’ measure, I suspect there will soon be very few animals left in our world. Surely, with the need to nurture more kindness in our world, we do not wish to ‘educate’ the young with our harsh examples, to see killing as the most ‘efficient solution’ to all similar problems.

So much said, there is a simple and humane solution to the pigeon problem. What we need is the relevant animal welfare authorities to work with Town Councils to provide more prominent signages that advise against the feeding of wild birds, and to assign personnel at reported hotspots to catch and fine feeders in the act. Educational advertisements and reports in the papers on the issue would prove helpful too. Let us live and let live best we can. It would be a great shame if Singapore, which is renown for its greenery, becomes equally known for its cruelty towards hapless animals.

More on the issue: http://savepigeons.blogspot.com

Something written for a magazine:

Q: Why do Buddha images differ? What do different poses and expressions reflect?

A: Buddha images in different countries evolved according to the cultural preferences of each. For instance, images in China came to resemble the Chinese. Chinese images of the Buddha are usually more plump or even slightly fat, as this is seen as a sign of prosperity and well-being in Chinese culture. This creative approach is not seen as blasphemous as the Buddha is believed to be able to manifest according to the preferences of the audience he teaches too.

In fact, when the Buddha images of a country begin to resemble its people, it is a clear sign that the Buddha’s teachings have assimilated so well into their culture that they now see the Buddha as ‘one of their own people’. For instance, Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in UK today and the Buddha images there now resemble Westerners.

Buddha images are portrayed in four key leg postures – walking, standing, sitting and reclining. The first three postures are meaningful when coupled with hand gestures called mudras, which represent various aspects of the Buddha’s teachings.  The reclining posture depicts either the Buddha resting or entering parinirvana (relinquishment of his body). Different Buddhas are differentiated by their mudras or items held too.

Technically, all Buddha images have only one facial expression – that of looking at all beings with calm compassion and wisdom – though this can be expressed with variation due to the above points mentioned. Buddha images can also be expressed in wrathful forms to depict how Buddhas can manifest accordingly as a skilful means to subdue stubborn beings. However, these forms are usually as Bodhisattvas.

In the latest movie depiction of the most turbulent years in the life of ‘Confucius’, there was a scene where Confucius spoke up for a sacrificial bird in court. There was a discussion over whether the bird, who bit off its main tail feather, ought to be killed as scheduled for the gods or liberated into the wild – since it seems pretty inauspicious that such an ‘offering-to-be’ is not incomplete. Now, the fact that there was killing intended is already inauspicious – for the bird! And the killer would create inauspicious negative karma for intentional killing too.

Confucius then seized the opportunity to speak against the custom of sacrificing humans for the rich and powerful who are deceased. When a minister expressed indignation against his proposal, Confucius remarked that since that minister is concerned, and that he is dear to the deceased, it would be more sincere if he could sacrifice himself! Indeed, true sacrifice must be of oneself or something from oneself; instead of external things, animals or even people. Of course, the Buddha does not advocate sacrifice of one’s life for minor purposes or when one is not ready like a well-trained Bodhisattva. The most immediate items to sacrifice, as encouraged by the Buddha, are our defilements of greed, hate and delusion.

It is a common misunderstanding that Confucianism is totally aligned with Buddhism – when there are a number of Confucian teachings that are anti-Dharma. For instance, in one scene, Confucius sees a lazing student and made a famous remark – that ‘rotten wood cannot be carved.’ Well, a human, being a sentient being, is not a block of wood. All sentient beings have the potential to change, to awaken their Buddha-nature. This might seem to be a minor point of difference but it is not, as it is unfair to label or to be labeled ‘rotten wood’ – especially when no one is ‘rotten’ all the way to the core. All the ‘rotten’ need to do is to chip away their defiled parts. This itself is already carving in process – to uncover the Buddha within. In fact, the more ‘rotten’ a person appears, the more should he or she be helped to discover Buddha-nature.

In the film, Confucius also advised rulers on warring matters that involved mass-killing, and advocated nationalistic pride of wearing one’s helmet… even if dying on the battlefield. Now, the Buddha would disagree on this pointless attachment to pride during one’s final moments. Such worldly attachment can severely disturb one’s peace of mind. In the worst case scenario, it might even lead to an unfortunate rebirth.

Interestingly, Confucius was shown to have dialogues with Lao Tze (Laozi; Laocius), the founder of Taoism. Lao Tze, who had already renounced worldly life to be a wanderer, urged Confucius to give up his mission of going against the grain of predominant ugly human-nature then. However, Confucius was bent on spreading his teachings of benevolence for kings and their people. It struck me that Confucianism is a thoroughly worldly set of teachings on ritualistic political and social conduct, that does not touch on deeper spiritual matters such as the afterlife, while Taoism in its earliest phase advocated non-contrived naturalistic individual conduct.

Taoism focuses on nature and Confucianism focuses on nurture. Buddhism, however, takes the Middle Path, and pays just enough attention on important worldly matters, while not forgetting the ultimate goal of spiritual liberation. Though the Buddha conversed with kings and queens, and advised them on all kinds of matters, he was clear about keeping a distance from politicising his teachings. Confucius, by the end of the story, finally relinquished politics after years of ‘banishment’ and disillusionment, and decided to focus only on teaching. Confucius is said to had remark that Lao Tze was profound and ‘dragon-like’. If only Confucius met the Buddha! [Please note that this article is a movie review, which might reflect the movie's inadequacies.]

‘Pride and Prejudice’ tells the tale of how the aloof Mr. Darcy came to be with the feisty Ms. Elizabeth Bennet. As usual, for classic romances, it would be wrong to call it wholly a love story per se, because theirs was a love-hate relationship before they finally decide to let their love dominate. Pride made their love difficult to blossom well because true love does require the forgoing of pride (which gives rise to prejudice), which is a strong sense of self-love versus selfless love for another. However, behind fierce pride is often vulnerability, that one is too proud to admit.

Elizabeth: He’s been a fool about so many things… but then, so have I. You see, he and I are so similar.
[starts laughing helplessly] We’ve been nonsensical! Papa, I…
Father: [also starts laughing, softly] You really do love him, don’t you?
Elizabeth: Very much.

It’s a common belief that ‘opposites attract’, but this didn’t seem so in the case of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, for both mirrored each other’s pride and prejudice. Opposites can attract when each party sees qualities missing in oneself complemented by another. Being together thus becomes fulfilling, as if completing each other as halves. Is it for better or worse if a couple are opposites in character? The up side is that if each partner is mindful, both can learn to see and nurture the missing qualities in themselves. The down side is that if each is unmindful, both might take each other’s qualities for granted and not acquire them personally.

On the flip side, is it better or worse that ‘similars attract’, that each mirrors the other? The up side is that if each partner is mindful, both can learn to see themselves more clearly, as reflected in the other, and thus realise what positive qualities need to be strengthened, and which negative ones need to be weakened. The down side is that if each is unmindful, they might frustrate each other to no end, or the loving of the other might become an essentially narcissistic love, an extension of self-love – since the other resembles oneself so much. Yes, it all pivots on mindfulness. Yet, if all are perfectly mindful, there would be no need to be with another to better oneself. Come to think of it, both Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth had similarities AND differences, for no two people are exactly the same or entirely different.

Elizabeth: Are you to proud Mr. Darcy? And would you consider pride a fault or a virtue?
Mr. Darcy: That I couldn’t say.
Elizabeth: Because we’re doing our best to find a fault in you.
Mr. Darcy: Maybe it’s that I find it hard to forgive the follies and vices of others, or their offenses against me. My good opinion, once lost, is lost forever.
Elizabeth: Oh, dear, I cannot tease you about that. What a shame, for I dearly love to laugh.

In case there is some confusion, pride is different from dignity. Unless we are talking about ‘taking healthy pride’ in something worthy, pride is largely useless and even harmful – because it punishes oneself and others through the creation and sustenance of grudges. Jane Austen originally called her novel ‘First Impressions’. Some say ‘first impressions last’. In the negative sense, they only last only as long as we are prejudiced, when we measure others pridefully with our imperfect momentary perceptions, and refuse to change our opinions when the truth presents otherwise. Thankfully, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth realise this before the end of the story, thus ending their pride and prejudice. That’s some good ‘sense and sensibility’!

With close reference to Buddhist scriptures, here are three interesting articles with the Buddha’s perspectives on the origin of humans and their belief in a creator ‘God’:

Can a ‘Creator God’ be ‘Created’?

Unless out of Bodhicitta,
wanting to create something external
is a sign of internal imperfection,
incompletion and discontentment.

- Stonepeace

In the Brahmajala Sutta (http://tinyurl.com/sutta1), the Buddha tells of a long time ago, when this world system is naturally and cyclically dissolved after a lapse of many aeons. During this time, beings are mostly reborn as gods with radiant light from their bodies in the Abhassara heaven (the highest of the second jhanic heavens) nurtured by jhanic bliss. (See http://tinyurl.com/31planes for planes of existence) When the world arises again after a long time, a palatial Brahma abode manifests naturally (in one or all of the three first jhanic heavens – of Maha Brahma, his ministers and retinue). One of the Abhassara beings is reborn into this lower heaven due to exhaustion of his relevant positive karma or lifespan. There, he lived alone for many aeons, becoming weary and lonely. Longing for company, he uttered, ‘Would that some other beings come to this place!’ By a string of karmic ‘coincidences’, other beings from the Abhassara ‘fall’ and are reborn there.

‘Seeing this, the ‘first’ god thought, ‘I am Brahma, the great Brahma (Maha Brahma), the conqueror, the unconquered [almighty], omniscient, the subjector of all to his wishes [lord of all], the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller… and Father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings…’ These beings revered him as they too assumed that he created them – as he was there before they came into being, and that they too had forgotten about their past lives. However, this was simply because the first god there karmically has a longer life, more beauty and power than the following ones. When the Earth is formed later, one of these gods dies and is reborn as a human, who becomes an ascetic. Through diligent mental cultivation, he is able to recall just one immediate past life, from which he concludes that Maha Brahma creates humans, and that he is ‘eternal’ and ‘unchanging’.

The Buddha thus showed how belief and worship of a creator god arose. Incidentally, the Buddha was first invited to teach the Dharma by Brahma Sahampati from the highest fourth jhanic heaven. Being an enlightened ‘Teacher of Humans and Gods’, the Buddha clearly saw that world systems undergo natural cycles of formation, evolution, dissolution and destruction, which interact with beings’ karma without any creator god. He also realised how beings can be reborn as wondrous gods through meditative virtues, though they are still spiritually short-sighted, unmindful of many past lives and the existence of higher heavens. It is by karmic default that some gods naturally mistake themselves to be perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creators, when they are not – due to their inadequacy, pride and delusion. Though they live the illusion of ‘eternal’ life in ‘eternal’ heavens, they too are trapped in rebirth. Interestingly, the Kevatta Sutta (see Realisation at http://tinyurl.com/kevatta) says Maha Brahma already realised the Buddha’s superiority!

The ultimately enlightened [Buddhas] are so
because they are able
to understand and explain everything ultimately.

- Stonepeace

From: http://www.thedailyenlightenment.com/enewsletter/30.php

How Were The ‘First’ Humans ‘Created’? (Part 1: Sutta Summary)

The Dharma is the best thing
for people in this life
and the next as well.

- The Buddha (Agganna Sutta)

Taught by the Buddha, the Agganna Sutta is fascinating because it demystifies many mysteries, such as how the universe, the Earth, humanity, civilisation, defilements and spirituality evolved – with practical perspectives too. During the previous cyclical contraction of the world system a long time ago, beings were mostly karmically born in the Abhassara (Brightly Radiant) heaven, where they dwelled afloat in bodiless self-radiance for a long time, feeding on jhanic bliss from meditative absorption. When the world began to expand again, most of them are reborn on Earth. After a long time, a sweet savoury earth spread over its dark waters. One of the beings tasted it on a finger out of greed, and craved for more, followed by the others, as they broke and ate pieces of it. As a result, their luminosity disappeared, and the moon and the sun ‘appeared’ in contrast, distinguishing night and day, months and the seasons.

The more the beings ate, the coarser their bodies became. As arrogance and conceit arose when the better looking ones despised the uglier ones, the savoury earth disappeared, leading to lamentations. In replacement, a sweet mushroom-like fungus cropped up, which they ate for a long time, as they became coarser and further differentiated. With more arrogance and conceit, the fungus disappeared and was replaced by bamboo-like creepers, followed by fragrant rice free from powder and husks, which replenished itself over a day or night. After feeding on it for a long time, female and male beings developed sexual organs, as they became lustfully preoccupied with each other. Those seen indulging in sex were barred from villages for a month or two, as they built dwellings to hide their activities.

It then occurs to one of them to be lazy, to gather rice for both breakfast and supper at once instead of twice a day. Gradually, the others also gathered for more and more days. When the rice was stored, powder and husk began to envelope the grain. Where it was reaped, it did not grow again, and they had to work harder and harder to tend to it for food. Lamenting that wicked ways have become rife among them over time, which affected the changes, they divided the rice into fields with boundaries. When a greedy one stole crops from another’s plot, he was caught and reprimanded. However, he repeats stealing, which led some to hit him with fists, sticks and stones.

The beings then appointed the best-looking, most pleasant and capable one to censure and banish those who deserved it, giving him a share of their rice in return. He came to be called Maha-Sammata or ‘the people’s choice’. Thus began the ‘Khattiya’ or ‘Raja’ class, who were supposed to be ‘lords of the fields’ and ‘he who gladdens others with Dharma (Truth and the path to it)’. Some thought that they ought to put aside evil conduct (such as murder, theft, sexual misconduct and deceit) and came to be known as ‘Brahmins’ and ‘Jhayakas’, which means ‘they who put aside evil unwholesome things’ and ‘they who meditate’. They made huts for forest retreats and meditated there, gathering alms for their evening and morning meals in villages. Some who were unable to meditate settled around villages and compiled texts, and came to be known as ‘Ajjhayaka’ or ‘they who do not meditate’.

Some paired off, adopting many trades, and came to be known as Vessa (traders), which means ‘various’. Some went hunting, and were known as ‘Sudda’ (hunters) or ‘they are base who live by the chase’. All the castes’ origins were in accordance to the Dharma (and how it was interpreted), and not by others. Some Khattiyas, Brahmins, Vessas and Suddas who were dissatisfied with their own Dharma, renounced household life to be wandering Ascetics. Karmically, anyone who was ill in thought, word and deed, and had wrong views would be reborn in a lower realm in suffering, while anyone who was good in thought, word and deed, and had right views would be reborn in a higher realm in bliss. Those who have mixed karma experience mixed consequences, while those properly restrained could eradicate their defilements and attain enlightenment, becoming chief among others in accordance with the Dharma, such as the Buddha, whose wisdom and conduct is the best among humans and gods.

Despite being karmically unequal,
we can all strive to be equally liberated
from the shackles of unequal karma.

- Stonepeace

From: http://www.thedailyenlightenment.com/enewsletter/32.php

How Were The ‘First’ Humans ‘Created’? (Part 2: Sutta Analysis)

What is the point of being ourselves [who are imperfect],
if we cannot recreate ourselves [to become perfect]?

- Stonepeace

Like other natural cycles such as the water cycle, the Buddha taught that the universe undergoes beginningless cyclical expansion and contraction, which is similar to the scientific model of the oscillating universe, that explains how the universe forms and ‘deforms’ through rounds of the Big Bang and Big Crunch. The Abhassara gods are energy beings who attained their heavenly rebirths due to strong loving-kindness and/or meditative mastery of the second jhana. Due to the expiry of their limited heavenly karma, they ‘fell’ to the Earth, where probably moss-like vegetation developed on the seas. Giving rise to physical greed for it, their subtle mind-made forms became progressively material, coarse and complex. The meeting of the first being with this food probably resembles how the primordial soup seems to be given a spark of sentient life. Though ‘equal’ in place of origin, with the proliferation of mental defilements, physiological differences due to gender, appearance and such arose, leading to discrimination.

When sexual attraction and coupling began, it led to the need for property and privacy. Vegetation devolved to be grosser and harder to harvest as an expression of the beings’ increasing negative karma from greed and desecration of nature. Due to rise in crimes, a monarchy was formed via democratic election for the best leader to mete out punishment and manage the masses. The king was seen as worthy because of his righteousness; not due to any ‘divine’ right. The salary to reward his service was voluntarily given, which evolved to be compulsory taxation. Since the Dharma (Truth and the path to it) is the best thing in the world, everything was done, measured, and valued upon it and not anything else. As time passed, a caste system developed, which later became rigid when its origins were forgotten. This corrupted system was the one the Buddha spoke against. However, all could abandon the caste imposed on them to become Ascetics (or monastics) to seek, practise and realise the Dharma – like the Buddha did.

The Agganna Sutta hints of some agreement with Darwinian evolution as it describes increasingly complex graduated changes in flora and fauna due to their cross-interaction over a long time. In Buddhism, there is no first cause of life as rebirth occurs cyclically. The theory that there is a first cause of life which is another lifeform does not explain how did this lifeform originated, while ‘there must be a first cause’ of that life too. Science too does not detect spontaneous unconditioned generation of life. Even evolution can be naturally cyclical, because beings can devolve too, as in the case of the fallen gods. Though the Buddha did not advocate creationism in the usual sense, there is ‘creationism’ in terms of how sentient beings can proactively (re)create their destinies, thus (d)evolving physically and spiritually via their choice of thoughts, words and deeds. This can occur both on an individual or collective karmic level. In this sense, Buddhism can perhaps be seen to present a Middle Path between ‘evolution’ and ‘creationism’.

If beings can spontaneously come into being,
there is no need for a creator god.
If beings cannot spontaneously come into being,
there can be no creator god.

- Stonepeace

From: http://www.thedailyenlightenment.com/enewsletter/33.php

Related Articles:

Complete Agganna Sutta
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/AggannaSutta.pdf
How Baka Brahma Realised He is Not a Creator God
http://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html
How the Goldilocks Effect Affects You
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/message/305
Why “Intelligent Design” Lacks Intelligence
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/message/221
Where Does Water Come From?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zeph/message/889
Have You Heard of the Principle of Universal Importance?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/message/257

Question: A temple is promoting beliefs that some Buddhas and Bodhisattvas protect people born in certain years. They have booklets in print and online on such ideas too. Are these beliefs Buddhist?

Answer: The short answer is that these beliefs are not Buddhist. Here is an analysis of a sample booklet, using the one for those born in the year of the tiger as a reference.

[1] There are no sutra quotes in the book linking any of the 12 animal signs of the Chinese zodiac to any Bodhisattva. P.8 says the book is to help relate the 12 signs to the original vows of the related Bodhisattvas, so that devotees can benefit. However, there are no vows of any Bodhisattvas stated, that link them to beings born of the 12 signs. Just because this belief is found in Japanese culture doesn’t make it true.

[2] All Bodhisattvas’ vows are based on universal compassion to help all the beings they can. How is it possible that each of the listed great Bodhisattva helps only those born under 3 signs? The book limits the compassion of the Bodhisattvas, while potentially disconnecting readers from getting to know other Bodhisattvas (who are mistaken to be not ‘their protectors’). It can be disturbing to readers when they ‘realise’ the Bodhisattvas they are used to are not ‘their protectors’, while they have to learn about another ‘foreign’ Bodhisattva, whom they might have less affinity with. It is better to create a single book on all the Bodhisattvas and state that they can help all beings.

Read more

Alternative Alice (2): What is Not Cat about the Cheshire Cat?

Cheshire Cat: Which part of me is not like a cat?
Alice: You tell me!
Cheshire Cat: Let me fade away part by part, to help you decide which is the non-cat part. (He fades… till his grin remains)
Alice: That’s what’s not cat about you – that silly grin!
Cheshire Cat: Now that all the cat parts are gone, what am I then, if not a cat?
Alice: A grin that talks?
Cheshire Cat: And if I stop talking, what am I?
Alice: Nothing more than a grin?
Cheshire Cat: (Does not talk and grins on)
Alice: Tell me!
Cheshire Cat: (Reappears and grins on)

Next AA: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/05/why-does-the-cheshire-cat-grin
Previous AA: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/is-the-cheshire-cat-a-cat

A dialogue inspired by the writing style of Lewis Carroll.
I’ve been wanting to write a book called ‘The Alternative Alice’.
Guess this is a start, as a random episode!

Alternative Alice (1): Is the Cheshire Cat a Cat?

Cheshire Cat: Greetings!
Alice: Are you a cat?
Cheshire Cat: Do I look like anything else?
Alice: No, but I would hardly think you are one!
Cheshire Cat: Why would you say that?
Alice: All the cats I’ve seen never smile, much less grin so much!
Cheshire Cat: Surely, I’m none of the ‘other cats’ you have seen.
Alice: But I’ve never heard any cat talk either!
Cheshire Cat: Not any more!
Alice: Okay… You are somewhat like a cat, but somewhat not like a cat too.
Cheshire Cat: You seem somewhat confused!
Alice: I’m not confused! You must be confused to think you are a real cat.
Cheshire Cat: Before meeting you, I’ve never seen an Alice or heard one talk either. Does that make you not Alice?
Alice: Who else could Alice be?
Cheshire Cat: And who else could I be?

Notice that the Cheshire Cat never said he is a cat or not -
while it was Alice who was trying to figure it out!

Next AA: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/what-is-not-cat-about-the-cheshire-cat

Based on the book, the ‘Diary of a Wimpy Kid’ movie reminds me of a phase of growing up that is probably more terrifying than being smack in the middle of the adolescent years. When is that? It’s the beginning of the above – that awkward transition when one tries to hasten growing up – cluelessly! This corresponds to the beginning of the middle school years – when one struggles with ‘Zen’ conundrums like ‘Should I just be me? Is it awesome or uncool to be me? Who am I really? Is it cooler to just be me or to follow the cool crowd? But who is really cool?‘Greg, the protagonist kid realises that trying too hard to impress is… well… unimpressive, that being cool is to stick up for your friends, even if they seem conventionally uncool. In short, counter-intuitively, being cool is not being pretentious, self-conscious or full of self, but to be selfless in helping others in need. Of course, it’s even more cool to win more friends through this! The ‘wimpy kid’ realises this and sheds his wimpiness when he decides to remove the dreaded ‘curse’ of the Cheese Touch and save his friend Rowley from certain shame when the latter was forced by bullies to nibble the nasty cheese.

The Cheese Touch is really a childish ‘game’, that originated from an accidentally and anonymously dropped piece of cheese on the school’s basketball court. Neglected over time, it became increasingly mouldy and disgusting. From the book by Jeff Kinney, ‘Then one day, this kid named Darren Walsh touched the Cheese with his finger, and that’s what started this thing called the Cheese Touch. It’s basically like the Cooties. If you get the Cheese Touch, you’re stuck with it until you pass it on to someone else. The only way to protect yourself from the Cheese Touch is to cross your fingers.’

On a graver note, the Cheese Touch fosters senselessly paranoid discrimination, that renders one unfortunate student after another an immediate ‘pariah’ upon contact, a social outcast. Oh, the cruel games kids play! Incidentally, the Buddha spoke against unfair societal caste systems and supported the ‘judging’ of individuals by their nobility in thought, word and deed. The Cheese Touch curse needed a hero to vanquish and Greg saves the day by pretending to have picked up and eaten part of the cheese. In a somewhat profound speech on the stupidity of the Cheese Touch to schoolmates who gathered to see him with the cheese, he tells them that he was doing them a favour. Being less ‘enlightened’, they run away. However, Greg wins back his best friend Rowley.

My take on the real Cheese Touch is that non-vegan and thus dairy cheese shouldn’t be ‘touched’, much less eaten – because of the cruelty involved in manufacturing it. From http://viva.org.uk/goingvegan: ‘Cattle reared for milk production are exploited and made to suffer, just like animals reared for meat. They suffer from lameness, mastitis (inflammation of the udders) and other illnesses and – worst of all – they are forcibly separated from their calves just days after they are born so that humans can drink their milk. Cows are not some kind of special animal that produces milk automatically: just like every other animal, including us, they only produce milk to nurse their young. Male dairy calves, meanwhile, are useless to the dairy industry and are usually shot at birth.’ Supporting such cheese is truly a curse for seriously exploited cows! Shun it!

A friend is getting married. But like many non-vegetarians, she’s offering a feast of many sentient beings. Me being the only vegan in her entourage, has special arrangements prepared for. It was very nice of her to call to go through the vegetarian menu with me (as I don’t take many mock stuff). Not many people will bother at all. I had been to several non-vegetarian wedding dinners, where the vegetarian dishes were not up to standard. The last one I attended had most of its eight dishes made mainly of a few kinds of shitake mushrooms. But why? There’s certainly no shortage of vegetable varieties in Singapore. This only showed how uncreative and patronising the chef was.

I really wish it’s becoming a dying ‘custom’ for Chinese weddings to serve shark fin soup – one of the most cruel dishes in Chinese cuisine. Not only does it have no nutrition value, but how it’s derived is utterly brutal. Sharks are captured and de-finned, and tossed back to the sea to die a painful writhing death. I called up my friend the next day to dissuade her to drop shark fin if she’s having it. Thank goodness, she was aware of the issue… although it’s still not a ‘perfect’ celebration because of the number of other animals to be killed.

I guess it’s relatively rare to encounter a fully vegetarian wedding dinner… unless you have many like-minded friends. Sadly, there are some vegetarians who even choose to yield to family pressure to serve meat. It’s even rarer to have non-vegetarians doing a full vegetarian wedding dinner. It’s unthinkable that any celebration should involve intended killing. How can anyone rejoice when there is deliberate killing involved for one’s happy occasion? Please celebrate with kindness.

To learn more about sharks’ plight, please click here: www.sharkwater.com & www.abandonfear.com

Here’s a list of restaurants which we think are good enough for wedding lunches or dinners. Please do call and check with the respective restaurant for capacity and ambience.
Read more

Only Buddhas,
who are perfect teachers,
do not require [constructive] criticism from their students.

- Stonepeace

What do you do when you encounter a Dharma teacher who teaches in ways far from perfect? I used to slap an invisible label of ‘lousy’ on him or her, and shun his or her teachings indefinitely. Thankfully, after I started teaching, my attitude changed. I became eager for feedback on my imperfect teaching. In time to come, I realised that some of the best improvements I’ve made in my teaching come from the most honest feedback. In contrast, those who merely complimented (who are more than those who ‘complained’) mostly motivated me to maintain my current standard. But, hey, compliments are important too – because they show you that you are doing something right, while complaints show you how you can be even better.

If we, as Buddhist students, do not help Buddhist teachers (especially those who don’t seem to have other teachers ‘above’ them) to improve by offering our feedback, who will? Guru devotion, especially to the more influential ones, also means devotion to helping the guru improve. After all, the essence of guru devotion does not lie in flattering any guru with sweet words; what we are devoted to is the Dharma embodied and expressed. If teachers’ offering of feedback is important for their students, students’ offering of feedback to their teachers is even more crucial – because this can help many more students taught by these teachers in their lifetimes. It is much easier to feedback to busy teachers these days, who might find it difficult to find time to discuss with us on our points of concern. I do it by sending sincere and detailed emails.

We need to note too, that just because a teacher does not seem very well-versed in a teaching does not mean he or she is not proficient in other teachings. That said, it is the responsibility of teachers to study and practise the relevant aspects of the Dharma well, before teaching accordingly from theoretical and practical points of view. Failing to do so could mean there is lack of respect for the teaching and its students. Even though it is common for teachers to give opening disclaimers that they have imperfect grasp of the subject being taught, the point is to prepare and present it best they can – because students will always be looking up to teachers to do their best, and are mostly unaware of which parts of the teaching having blemishes that distort what ought to be learnt.

As long as unenlightened,
the best teachers
are also the best students.

- Stonepeace

A line from ‘Flash Forward’ session two goes – ‘It’s not fate versus free will; it’s fate and free will.’ Someone asked me if the protagonists can’t really change anything. I replied that of course they can. If not, what kind of am engaging TV series can it be? What kind of life would it be to know what’s coming up and be unable to do anything to better it?

So-called ‘fate’ is simply past karma that has occurred, that cannot be altered, while free will allows us to change our destiny in the moment and for the future, as the attitude that we use to face our present circumstances and what we choose to do now creates fresh karma, that can even alter the course of past karma as it bears fruits.

Only after we have tried our best to shape our future, only after an outcome has become unalterable can we say it’s so-called ‘fated’ to be so. Yet, even so any fate is the result of our efforts or lack of them – which is karmic in nature either way, as long as there is intention involved, even if it resulted in inaction.

A friend came across these phrases in a Buddhist website – ‘Who is Buddha?’ and ‘Buddha’s teachings’. He asked whether they ought to be ‘Who is the Buddha?’ and ‘The Buddha’s teachings’. He remarked that it’s ironical that such incorrect English is used very often in the West! I agree, because:

1. It’s wrong to skip ‘The’, as ‘The Buddha’ refers specifically to
Shakyamuni Buddha instead of other Buddhas.
2. Buddhists refer to ‘the Buddha’ as… well… ‘the Buddha’!
3. The title ‘Buddha’ by itself is somewhat disrespectful.
E.g. We say ‘the King’ instead of ‘King’.

(I like the installation art in the picture. Does it imply self-reflection?)

A Tit for a Tat (123)

Tit: Hey! Don’t lean on the train pole!
Tat: Why not?
Tit: It’s a grab bar!
Tat: So?
Tit: It’s for grabbing! Give some space for others to grab!
Tat: But no one else is around, and I’m grabbing it too!
Tit: How so?
Tat: With my whole body!

Next aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/04/wrong-number
Previous aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/you-be-responsible