In the award-winning ‘The Rabbi’s Cat’ (Le Chat du Rabbin) by Joann Sfar, which ‘The Boston Globe’ calls, ‘An affecting, fraught, and yes – sometimes hilarious tour de force about the complexities of living faithfully in a godless world’, a rabbi’s cat begins to talk after he eats a parrot. In one part, the cat narrates the story and says…

‘He [the rabbi] wants me to study the Torah and the Talmud – the Mischnah, the Gemara. He wants to put me back on the straight and narrow [because I lied about not eating the bird]. He tells me that I have to be a good Jew, and that a good Jew does not lie. I answer that I am only a cat. I add that I don’t know if I’m a Jewish cat or not. The rabbi tells me that of course I’m Jewish since my masters are Jews. I tell him that I’m not circumcised He tells me that they don’t circumcise cats. I tell him that I haven’t had a Bar Mitzvah. He tells me that the Bar Mitzvah occurs at thirteen years of age. So I tell him that I am seven years old, and for cats, the years are multiplied by seven; therefore, it’s as if I were seven times seven years old, which is definitely more than thirteen. I tell him that if I am a Jewish cat, I want to be bar-mitzvahed, We go to the rabbi’s rabbi to ask him if a cat that talks can be bar-mitzvahed. The rabbis rabbi says no, that Bar Mitzvahs aren’t for cats, I ask him what the difference is between a human and a cat. He replies that God made man in his own image. I ask him to show me a picture of God. He tells me that God is a word.

Read more

In ‘Green Lantern: Secret Origin’ by Geoff Johns, Sinestro teaches Hal Jordan on how to use his power ring, which can manifest any form he visualises to rescue or defend beings in need – ‘Your constructs are weak. They’re laced with anger. And although the guardians [of the Green Lantern Corps] believe fear creates cracks in our willpower, anger will distort it. Anger will make it unfocused. A Green Lantern needs to be focused.’

That’s good advice – even for us, who don’t have such power rings – because what mentioned still applies to all Bodhisattvas-in-training! As such, all Green Lanterns are only as powerful as their minds are strong in calmness, clarity, compassion and wisdom. Working together, these qualities manifest as skilful means to help the needy, as projected and magnified by the power rings which serve like wish-fulfilling jewels.

Related Article:

Power of Altruistic Wishes
http://moonpointer.com/index.php?itemid=1669

Here’s my Dharma interpretation of a song by Coldplay to share:

A Message

My song is love
Love to the loveless shown
And it goes on
You don’t have to be alone
Your heavy heart
Is made of stone
And it’s so hard to see you clearly
You don’t have to be on your own
You don’t have to be on your own

Comments: Amitabha Buddha’s (Amituofo) 48 vows proclaimed is his song of unending True Love for all beings, especially the loveless, lonely and hardened, who cannot see see themselves clearly on their own. His vows assure us that the challenging path to Buddhahood need not be tread alone, that his other-power can empower us too.

And I’m not gonna take it back
And I’m not gonna say I don’t mean that
You’re the target that I’m aiming at
Got to get that message home

Comments: Amituofo is not going to take back his words. We are the targeted ones he vowed to rescue from Samsara. This is the message he wants all Buddhas of every direction to spread beings of their worlds (as stated in the Amitabha Sutra).

My song is love
My song is love, unknown
But I’m on fire for you, clearly
You don’t have to be alone
You don’t have to be on your own

Comments: Amituofo’s song sings of True Love that might otherwise be unknown to us. As a Bodhisattva in the past, he had braved the elements to perfect his True Love, and continues to do so, even as a Buddha.

And I’m not gonna take it back
And I’m not gonna say I don’t mean that
You’re the target that I’m aiming at
And I’m nothing on my own
Got to get that message home

Comments: Amituofo would not be able to attain Buddhahood without having given rise to Bodhicitta, the aspiration to guide all beings to Buddhahood. And his attainment of Buddhahood would be meaningless if he does not continue to help all beings.

And I’m not gonna stand and wait
Not gonna leave it until it’s much too late
On a platform I’m gonna stand and say
That I’m nothing on my own
And I love you, please come home
My song is love, is love unknown
And I’ve got to get that message home

Comments: Amituofo does not simply wait for us to reach his Pure Land. As above, he requests all other Buddhas to urge as many as they can to be born there, to see it as the True Home, where there is no suffering, where enlightenment is definite.

A young nephew didn’t understand the rationale of sharing, and became distressed when it was suggested to him that the iPhone lent to him for playing games should be passed in turn to other kids in the house too. Took me a while to conceive of how to share the value of sharing with him. Here’s how it goes:

‘Do you remember that the phone was lent to you by Aunt?
She shared it with you because she wanted you to be happy.
If she didn’t share, would you be happy?
Because you are happy, she is happy too.

So, if you share to make others happy, you can be happy too.
Isn’t it better to have more happy people?
The more you share with others, the more others share with you.
If no one shares, how sad it will be!’

Not sure if this is too philosophical for a kid!

A Tit for a Tat (122)

Tit: Be responsible and put the extra fork you took back!
Tat: You be responsible!
Tit: Huh?
Tat: Be responsible by showing me how to be responsible!
Tit: My responsibility is just to remind you to be responsible!
Tat: Action speaks louder than words!
Tit: Your action to undo your mistake speaks louder than mine in this case!

Next aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/another-way-to-grab
Previous aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/well-never-know

A Tit for a Tat (121)

Tit: Why didn’t you finish reading the book?
Tat: I read only the parts that interest me.
Tit: Why buy the encyclopedia (about graphic novels) then?
Tat: You mean you read encyclopedias back to back?
Tit: Ya.
Tat: What encyclopedias have you bought and read fully?
Tit: None.
Tat: I rest my case!
Tit: Just because I haven’t bought any doesn’t mean I will not read it all.
Tat: We’ll never know! Want to try this encyclopedia?
Tit: Am not interested in this one.
Tat: I rest my case!
Tit: Just because I don’t like this one doesn’t mean I will not read another.
Tat: We’ll never know till you do!

Next aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/you-be-responsible
Previous aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/not-real-either

Q: If a friend owes me money but says she is not able to pay me back because of financial difficulties, which seems to be true, will she create negative karma, if I have decided not to pursue the matter?

S: Here are some questions to think over:

[A] Did you give any time limit – that she can’t meet?
[B] Is she unable to return the money now or unable to return it for the rest of her life?
[C] Have you tried asking her to pay back at a comfortable rate via installments?

Remembering that karma is created based on intentional action, here are some possible scenarios:

(1) If her intention was to not return the money –
even before getting the money from you, it’s deceit – and there is negative karma created.
(2) If her intention was to return the money before getting the money from you,
but turns out to be really unable to, there is no deceit and no negative karma created.
(3) If her intention is to not return the money after getting the money from you,
but turns out to be really able to, there is deceit and negative karma created.

But the truth is, things are often not so black and white – as there is another possibility – that she MIGHT be able to return the money – if she REALLY wants to. She herself might not be mindful of this possibility or not. If she can return the money if she puts in effort, but decides not to, there is still deceit to some extent, and negative karma created. If not, there is none.

As hinted by questions [A], [B] and [C] above, usually, if you don’t set a solid deadline, while asking her to pay back gradually in parts, it is possible to return the money – unless she is really very poor, cannot work and cannot save. There is a big difference between being unable to return the money and being unwilling to return the money. Suggesting the installment method can urge her to cultivate some basic financial management skills too. If you don’t want to push her to return, you can still suggest the above to her and ask her to consider it. You can even send this discussion to her.

The fact that she is able to successfully ‘borrow’ (or is it ‘take’?) money from you means she had positive karma to receive kindness. However, if she chooses not to reciprocate with gratitude by taking it for granted and does not return the kindness when she can and should, she does create some negative karma and will be karmically less likely to receive such kindness in future.

That said, when lending money, it’s best to consider the worst case scenario of not getting the money back before lending – because the truth is, many people lend money and can’t get it back. Only when you really cannot get the money back through any reasonable means should you really resign to the idea that it’s your negative karma to lose money this way. When we let others off the debt hook too easily, we are not helping them to treasure and top-up their positive karma too.

However, if you lent money out of kindness, you should never regret your good intention in the first place. When we regret our actions done out of kindness, we lose some of the positive karma created through the action. Helping the friend to learn how to be debt-free is the real help in the long run. Helping to introduce her to the Dharma is even more helpful – because the Dharma learnt and practised well can benefit one and others life after life, while money is just a resource that comes and goes.

Related Article:

To Lend Money or Not?
http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/to-lend-money-or-not

Q: As Amitabha Buddha has 48 vows and Medicine Buddha has 12 vows, when one practises either teaching, must he or she make the same vows?

A: As the Buddhas made and fulfill the vows to help us, we don’t have to make those vows (unless we want to be exactly like them). What we need is to vow to be reborn in either Pure Land of these Buddhas, that we wish to go to. We can make similar vows when more ready too – e.g. when we are well-trained in Pure Land.

S took a cursory glance at some alternative seats at the centre, where there is a full-house Dharma talk about to start.

S: There are better seats there by the side of the building (which is out of the line of sight).
G: What’s wrong with here?
S: The seat here is on sloping ground and it’s much hotter. Come and see what I mean!
G: Nay, it’s okay.
S: See you – I’m going over.

G later realised that the area S went to had many cooling electric fans. He had assumed that there are no chairs there, that he had to sit on the floor, when there are many chairs available. S thought aloud to G at the end of the talk, ‘Thinking that there’s nothing wrong with where we are is exactly what’s wrong. WE then suffer needlessly. When others shared the Pure Land teachings with me, I used to disregard them, thinking Samsara is good enough. But if I don’t even appreciate a place that empowers me to exit Samsara easier, how am I ever going to leave here? If we believe there are worse places for practising the Dharma – like the hells, why do we not believe there are better places to practise the Dharma, like Pure Land?’

A somewhat funny text exchange with a friend yesterday:

E: Can you help me reserve two seats – for me and my friend, who is attending a Dharma talk for the first time?
S: Sorry leh… I don’t encourage reserving of seats for free public talks.
E: How come? I do so to encourage friends to come. It’s a good motivation.
S: It’s messy if everyone reserves seats for someone, and unfair to those who came earlier. (So, my motivation is good too hehe.) There are already sets reserved for VIPS too.
E: Are there differentiated VIP reservations?
S: Monastics are the VIPs (who get the best seats)… plus you and your friend… if I reserve for you two! As I’m not the organisers, I can’t decide who deserves VIP reservations!
E: Anyway, okay… I’ll let ‘destiny’ take its course!

In the graphic novel ‘The Nobody’ by Jeff Lemire, a man arrives in a small town bandaged from head to toe, while wearing opaque goggles. A curiosity at first as to who he really is and what happened to him to require the bandages, it was somewhat inevitable that he became demonised in time. Is he a wanted man hiding his face? Should his real identity be forcibly revealed? Questions like these arose.

Here comes the huge irony. Being inspired by H.G. Wells’ ‘The Invisible Man’, he had literally ‘nothing’ to hide – at least, not physically. In fact, the bandages were to hide this truth that he has ‘nothing ‘to hide. He was the unwitting victim of an experiment gone wrong, who sought a quiet place to restore his visibility. He had every right to conceal the fact that he was invisible – or he would be further demonised by questions such as… What if he sneaks around to commit crimes under the cloak of invisibility? Should his freedom be inhibited then?

Yet, despite his mindfulness of the need of secrecy and the rest not knowing his secret, he became penalised as the guilty one for crimes not committed by him. It’s also ironic that wearing the bandages was an expression of respect too – to not be an unseen disembodied ghost who terrorises the town secretly. That he never went about without his bandages safeguarded everyone. But this went unrecognised. What he was underneath became more a concern that his blameless behavior. As such tragedies go, self-fulfilling demonisation drives him to take drastic measures for self-defense – making him a real criminal.

Maybe there are invisible people lurking among us. We’ll never now since we can’t see them. No… wait! There are indeed invisible folks around – unseen beings, ghosts and gods… and even ‘nobodies’ like wallflower people. We are all invisible people to some extent. Even though we might not wear physical bandages, there are aspects of our experiences, character and thought, that we deliberately conceal from others. How do you know what are these invisible aspects? How about living with an invisible person? This just might bring about the best and worst in you, revealing to you what you yourself have never seen of yourself. (There’s a trailer of the novel below.)

What we cannot see in ourselves
is often more terrifying than
what we cannot see in others.

- Stonepeace

Read more

Many staff quit organisations with Big Boss Syndromes (BBS), which is the ‘I’m always right’ attitude – while the Big Bosses are unaware that they quit precisely because of their huge egos. Due to BBS, staff don’t dare to feedback honestly to their Big Bosses, because they know that they don’t take feedback well. Even for Big Bosses who are erratic, as in being able to take good advice half of the time, they are still seen as not receptive enough. A ‘just-pass’ is not a good pass, and when staff mark such bosses to have failed, and if they have better places to go, they’ll leave. And since the Big Bosses are not receptive to advice, they will never really know what they have lost – the talents they have let slip away.

There is much talk of 360-degree feedback these days, where bosses allow staff to critique them too, instead of just the other way round. Sounds like a solution to cure BBS? Not necessarily. Those seriously inflicted with BBS will never think of implementing 360-degree feedback – because they think they are already good bosses, who don’t require such feedback. Even those semi-inflicted by BBS, who eventually implement 360-degree feedback lack adequate objective maturity to receive feedback well. Knowing the above limitations due to BBS, and despite knowing that true and sincere implementation of 360-degree feedback will improve their organisations, staff do not even dream of asking their Big Bosses to implement it.

Interestingly, any organisation that is ready for real 360-degree feedback is already rather good by default, while those that are not ready are rather lousy. Take for instance, an imaginary organisation that implements a feedback system that is vetted by a department that the other departments don’t trust enough, that rigidly processes only non-anonymous feedback. The very implementation of such a feedback system already spells the immaturity of the organisation and its insincerity in seeking truly open feedback.

Some organisations are able to grow in dynamic ways due to initial random, loose and superficial management by their Big Bosses in their formative years, which allows for creative, constructive and successful staff initiatives. However, such bubbles will tend to reach a bursting point. When the organisations are deemed successful by others, the Big Bosses’ pride swell accordingly and eventually take greater ownership. This is when the trouble begins – with increase in micro-management and pickiness for ‘maintaining’ the organisation and helping it to ‘grow’ – that instead begins to impede newer ‘creative, constructive and successful staff initiatives’ – that made the organisations a hit in the first place.

For any organisation, BBS syndrome is often sustained and reflected by Bosses too, the second in line next to Big Boss. Bosses are also staff, who are also afraid to be frank to Big Bosses. BBS thus spreads downwards to permeate the organisation. Good collective karma for the organisation is when there is a Boss who does not have to fear for loss of his or her ricebowl, who readily speaks his or her mind with good suggestions that are capable of changing the mind of Big Boss. While some wait for this ‘Bodhisattva’ saviour to appear, some simply put their efforts elsewhere to be their own bosses. They might continue working under Big Boss, but their hearts are already elsewhere with their personal side projects that truly fulfill their dreams. In this way, the organisation loses heart day by day.

If you suffer from a Big Boss who exhibits BBS too, you may want to send him or her this article anonymously as a wake-up call for more enlightened management.

Please note that BBS can apply to you too, even if you are not a boss – because you might behave with BBS in how you relate to colleagues, family and friends with great self-righteous ego – who never feedback to you to let you know you have BBS. BBS is thus not just a worldly problem at work, but a potential spiritual problem too.

This is an abridged version of a few interesting ‘chats’ with many people, on whether it is alright to kill bugs on purpose. If you find it too long, I recommend reading only D‘s entries, which speak up for the practice of Metta (Loving-kindness), while the rest, unfortunately, mostly kind of try to rationalise killing in various ways.

M: … Believe me when I say, ‘I hate bed bugs’… Well, a fortnight ago I found a bed bug in my bed. I was not a happy monk. The next morning I thoroughly checked the mattress, sheets, pillows, the bed itself but found none of the tell-tale signs of their presence. A week later another bug crawled out of a book I was reading. Then a day later I found another one.

I realized it was time to take action. I took all the furniture outside and tipped boiling water over it – not just to kill the little blighters but also any of their eggs that might be there. Then I went out and bought some insect spray and sprayed every nook and cranny in the room. I soaked all my bed sheets, pillowslips and robes in boiling water and then put them through the washing machine twice. Then I put all my books in large plastic bags, sprinkled them with moth balls (naphthalene) and sealed the bags for a week…

I am also thinking. I know I deliberately and with full consciousness killed three living beings and probably killed at least a few more with my boiling water and insect spray. I’m a Buddhist monk, supposedly a model for how the devoted Buddhists should live. But are their circumstances when killing, at least killing insects, is justifiable, or perhaps understandable, or perhaps excusable?

D: There’s no need to kill. What’s worse is that the killing was from aversion. It is clearly breaking of the first precept. From experience with many bugs, you just need to radiate genuine Metta (Loving-kindness) and urge them to leave. There are many cases of this working all over the world. This works when there are many insects too. You can also donate your mattress to the bugs by discarding it where few people frequent.

On a related note, the Ahina Sutta at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.067.than.html tells of how a monk died after having been bitten by a snake. The Buddha remarked so: ‘Then it’s certain, monks, that that monk didn’t suffuse the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will, he would not have died after having been bitten by a snake.’

And from a film review at http://tinyurl.com/hongyi : ‘Venerable Hongyi is renowned for his mindfulness of abiding by the precepts, and his advocating of compassion in the small details. For example, he authored the famous “护生画集” (Poem & Pictorial Series on Protection of Life). When I first heard of his inspiring conduct many years ago, the anecdote that impressed me the most was how he would always make it a point to inspect chairs for the possible presence of bugs before sitting on them. This touching practice has since made me sensitive to insects since – in the positive sense. In the film, he carefully scoops a bed bug from his head, before laying it down, chanting “Amituofo” (Amitabha Buddha) to bless it. I sincerely hope those who see this scene will learn to be similarly kind to animals.’ An additional piece from http://tinyurl.com/sadinsects :

Tit: Hey, why spray the insects?
Tot: Because they are pests. (Tot is four years old.)
Tit: Because Tot wants to kill them, Tot is a big pest to them!
Tot: But they sometimes dirty the place.
Tit: Because Tot sometimes dirty the place too, should we spray Tot too?
Tot: Oh no! Mummy and Daddy will be sad.
Tit: Hey, insects have Mummies and Daddies too!

Read more

Among all negative karma, that of killing is the heaviest.
Among all positive karma, that for releasing life is the highest.

- Acharya Nagarjuna (The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom)

Question:

A common question on the Buddhist practice of animal or life liberation is this – ‘After setting free a certain kind of animal, can I still eat its kind?’ A more specific version of this question is as such – ‘If I liberated a few fish into the sea, does it mean I should abstain from eating all fish for life?’

Answer:

There are three possible answers to this question, beginning with the most ‘liberal’ one:

[1] NO, it’s not a must : As saving animals on the brink of death purifies much negative karma, it is good to participate in proper animal liberation once there are opportunities. There is no need to hesitate as such a deed of charity is wonderful in itself – whether one refrains from eating similar animals or not. Doing any general good deed now does not guarantee that you will always do good later. The fact that you might not do good later means you should seize the opportunity to do more good now. Along this line, just because you might be eating some fish  later does not imply that you should not save some fish now. In fact, it is precisely because you might be eating some fish later, you should save even more fish now.

There is no obligation to abstain from consumption of the kind of animal you liberated. What matters is not to consume the specific animals you liberated. For example, if one catches or commissions others to capture the individual fishes freed moments ago for eating, this would defeat the purpose of setting them free in the first place – rendering it a somewhat hypocritical act of kindness. It is not always easy to be sure that any of the fish one eats in future are not the ones once liberated by oneself – which is why it is safer to abstain from all fish. However, since the Buddhist practice of animal liberation aims not just to save animals’ physical lives, but to ‘jumpstart’ their spiritual lives by connecting them to the Triple Gem for better rebirths, it is still important to liberate animals if one adheres to the ‘No answer.

[2] MAYBE, as it’s up to you : This is so as it is natural to toggle in uncertainty between yes and no on this tricky question. If one is uncomfortable with a straightforward yes or no, it might be a sign of one’s compassion and wisdom with regards to animal welfare still in gentle blossoming. One should reflect on the pros and cons of eating versus not eating the kind of animals liberated before deciding to do either.

But what if one is still undecided after much consideration? The moderate approach for beginners is to make a resolution, according to one’s personal comfort, to refrain at least from eating that kind of animal liberated – for a certain duration. For example, for that day the animal liberation was done, or for a week, a month, or longer. To take baby steps to cultivate compassion is better than not taking any steps at all. One can also resolve to be vegetarian on new and full moon days, or any other special days, including those with celebrations which involve larger meals and possibly more demand for meat. One can also resolve to abstain from eating animals that one sees, hears or suspects to be killed for oneself (e.g. live seafood).

[3] YES, you should : Since the practice of animal liberation is ultimately to help us nurture universal compassion for all animals, it should be an extension of the cultivation of compassion to abstain from eating animals – at least the kind one liberated – for a start. In time to come, the more kinds of animals one liberates, the more kinds of animals one should resolve to abstain from consuming or exploiting, directly or indirectly.

The fuller meaning of animal liberation is to free all animals from one’s dining table too. However, even if this is not accomplished within this lifetime, it is alright – because whatever worthy acts of animal liberation done are still worthy, spiritually meritorious in their own right. It is better to have liberated a single animal but still eat all kinds of animals, than to not liberate any animal and remain non-vegetarian.

Analysis:

There is no one-size-fits-all right or wrong answer to the question as different individuals have different capacities of compassion towards animals in the moment. However, it is good to consider the rationale for each of the answers – before picking that which one prefers for now. It is important to note that the path towards the perfection of compassion does involve voluntary stretching of one’s limits of compassion. Generally, to one who is very apprehensive of commitments after liberating a kind of animal, the first answer (No) is a skilful one to give when the question is asked. For those with moderate apprehensiveness, the second answer (Maybe) is skilful, while the third answer (Yes) is the most skilful for those who have no apprehension at all. This article can be shared with those who ask the question too.

Ideally, with more practice of animal liberation, greater compassion in action, the easiest being abstinence from eating the kind of animal freed, will arise as the natural response to resolve any moral uneasiness. If one is true to the essence of the practice, the answer one is comfortable with will naturally graduate from ‘No’ to ‘Maybe’, and ‘Maybe’ to ‘Yes’. It is important not to be moralistically demanding of others in terms of expected future dietary commitments, as this would deter many beginners from contributing funds and efforts to animal liberation. This means there would be no opportunity to even be comfortable with the ‘No’ answer, much less to graduate from ‘No’ to ‘Maybe’ and ‘Yes’. It is better to start by sticking to the ‘No’ answer and begin practising animal liberation, than to have no answer and not even begin.

With regular practice of animal liberation, ideally in person, as one has more contact with various species of animals, one is likely to develop greater compassion for more beings. Nurturing compassion to different kinds of animals over time can urge one to progressively and eventually become vegetarian, and even vegan (by abstaining from use of any animal products – e.g. leather, milk, eggs, honey, silk, wool, fur, gelatine) too.

May all being be free of fear and harm.
May all beings be well and happy.

Amituofo,
Shen Shi’an

Related Articles:

~ Why Animal Liberation: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zeph/message/465
~ Elaboration on Animal Liberation: http://moonpointer.com/index.php?itemid=609
~ Proper Animal Liberation: http://www.TheDailyEnlightenment.com/life.jpg
~ Prayer for Animal Liberation: http://moonpointer.com/index.php?itemid=1394
~ How to Practise Animal Liberation Wisely (DVD): http://www.moonpointer.com/index.php?itemid=2231

A Tit for a Tat (120)

Tit: Look! You have a little tummy!
Tat: No worries… It’s not real.
Tit: Huh?
Tat: It comes and goes with big meals taken and digested!
Tit: What makes your tummylessness any more real then?
Tat: It’s not real either! Because it comes and goes too!
Tit: What’s real then?
Tat: Tummy up, tummy down, tummy up, tummy down… Change is more real!

Related Article:

Temporary Tummy
http://moonpointer.com/index.php?itemid=2515

Next aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/well-never-know
Previous aT4aT: http://moonpointer.com/new/2010/03/everyone-should-come