|
Articles
Eating Right It is commonly understood that monks are not supposed to be choosy about their food and should eat whatever is given to them. Is that in accordance with the Buddha’s instructions? Let’s see what VEN KUMARA BHIKKHU has to say. I found an interesting quote on a health website. It is supposed to have come from a hieroglyph found in an ancient Egyptian tomb. It says: “One-quarter of what you eat keeps you alive. The other three-quarters keeps your doctor alive.” While I cannot be sure how true that was then, it seems to hold some truth now considering the eating habits of the many in modern society. Perhaps only one quarter of what people eat now is really good and necessary for them. The question is “Which quarter?” Ven Aggacitta believes he has found his answer to this. If you have been with Ven Aggacitta some time in the past one year or so, you might have seen him dangling a pendulum over offered food. If you, like most people, were not familiar with the use of pendulums, you might have asked, “What’s Bhante doing with that thing?” If you were curious enough, you might have approached him and asked what in the world he was doing, or eagerly joined in if someone else had asked. Then you would have probably heard his explanation that he was using it to determine whether a particular food was suitable for him. If it goes clockwise, it means yes. If it goes the opposite way, it means no. Plain and simple. Now, if you were sophisticated enough to ask further about how it works, he might tell you that it is based on a natural law of bioresonance1 explainable by quantum mechanics. Ahah... So, now you can understand. (If not, please see text box.) Under normal circumstances, he would eat the ‘yes’ food and set aside the ‘no’ food, untouched. If this pendulum-dangling business is done privately, then no issues would arise. However, if it is done in public, when the donors are around to see if the venerable eats their food, that is where some ‘feelings’ may arise. After one of Ven Aggacitta’s recent Dhamma tours, someone very politely questioned him through email about his ‘eating ritual’, whereby “some food would inevitably end up being accepted whilst others may end up being rejected.” Looking at how the questions were phrased, I speculate that there might have been at least a bit of stress during or after a dana session that the writer participated in. After some gentle lead-in to the issue, he asked
Such questions must have arisen many times and it’s only now that someone is willing to voice it, so that we may explain with a reply. For that, we are grateful. In his reply Ven Aggacitta, after thanking the devotee, said
It can be found repeated in the suttas that the Buddha instructed his disciple thus
From GanakaMoggallana Sutta (MN 107), “Old feelings” probably means hunger, and maybe some other possible feelings too, but what does “new feelings” mean? It does not say. However, by common experience, we can understand that it could include a wide range of feelings including that of overeating, indigestion, stomach ache, heat, cold, headache, and any other form of pain or discomfort. So, following the Buddha’s instruction, we are to eat to quell our hunger, and perhaps other feelings due to ill health (considering that the right kind of food can be medicine), while being careful not to create “new feelings” of any kind, which can arise due to eating food that is plainly unhealthy, or unsuitable to the individual, be it chillies, coffee, brinjal, cheese cake, guava, pork, glass, or whatever else. In his reply, Ven Aggacitta also said:
Should not we be more concerned with health rather than likes and dislikes, be that of the eater or the giver? Furthermore, while in the past one probably only needed to be concerned with suitability and amount, these days healthy eating has become much more complicated due to the many so-called ‘modern’ farming, processing and cooking methods that can be detrimental to the body. So, among the many kinds of food kindly offered, would not it be better for monks to choose those that may be conducive to their health, regardless of whether he uses a pendulum? By being heedful of the Buddha’s instruction to eat properly, we will be in better health to learn, practise, realise and teach the Dhamma. I’m sure our kind devotees, wishing for our well-being, would agree. To our devotees—we are grateful to you who have been so kind to us. We accept whatever the Buddha allowed us to accept, and hope that you will rejoice regardless of the food choices that we make.
1 “Congruence between two bio-systems or a bio-system and a bio-frequency” (S. Decker & M. Wilson, 2004) 2 (Sanskrit) ancient medical knowledge of Indian art of healing and prolonging life Deity Speaks on Anger by KUMARA BHIKKHU I am not one afflicted in mind, Nor easily drawn by anger’s whirl. I never become angry for long, Nor does anger persist in me. When I’m angry, I don’t speak harshly And I don’t praise my virtues. I keep myself well restrained Out of regard for my own good. (extracted from Samyutta Nikaya 11:22) These words were spoken by Sakka, king of devas. He was probably a sotapanna by the time he instructed the Tavatimsa devas with these words. However, not being an arahant yet, he was still not free from anger. Yet, although he was sometimes beset with anger, he was able to exercise restraint. To practise restraint from anger (or any other unwholesome tendencies), it is necessary to have mindfulness (sati) and clear comprehension (sampaja¤¤a). I suppose Sakka had these qualities, to the point that he was never angry for long. We too can achieve that if we really try. When anger arises in us, instead of acting upon it with words (or action!), we can choose to mentally step back and watch that anger—as soon as possible. See how it is affecting our mind and body. See how we are torturing ourselves with our own anger. Do that patiently. Are we making ourselves happy or miserable? If we can honestly see our anger as it is, then the anger will naturally ease off. Whoosh! With such persistent and firm wholesome effort, anger simply cannot survive. Cool, huh? A meditation teacher once gave me this advice: when angry, it is better not to speak. Otherwise, with anger in the mind, our speech tends to be unwise. I think that makes a lot of sense. We may try to control our speech that is spoken while our heart is still heated with anger; but if we were to be thoroughly honest with ourselves, we can see that the words we use will tend to be improper. Even if the words are not literally harsh, the tone is likely to be spiked with anger. Under the influence of anger, that is to be expected. So, when we are angry, it may be best to keep our mouths shut and patiently watch the anger with detachment until it dies off. But what if we are in a situation where we find that it is better to say something at that time and place? I suppose there are situations when we should speak, despite the lingering anger, such as when a parent needs to admonish a child at a specific juncture. Although admonishing a child, or anyone else, can be and is best done without anger, we may find situations where it is better to speak there and then although the anger is still there. If that is the case, we had better double check first to be sure that it is really useful and suitable then. The mind can certainly be quite tricky. In such a situation, be extra careful about our words and tone. Not being eager to speak or act would certainly help. So, besides the anger, the eagerness should be watched too. If it were not necessary to speak at that time, then it would be better to plainly keep our mouths shut and patiently be with the anger till it dies off. Then, having cooled down, our speech will naturally not be harsh, since anger is no longer there as the motivating force. Sometimes we may even find what we earlier thought was so very necessary to say, is better left unsaid after all! All these may seem somewhat complicated, but if mindfulness and clear comprehension are present, we’ll naturally know just the right thing to do at the right time and in the right way. It wouldn’t be complicated at all. Watching anger instead of expressing it may be difficult for people who are prone to anger but I believe that with persistent practice of mindfulness and clear comprehension, it should become easier. If we choose to assert ourselves instead of applying restraint when angered, we may cause harm to the other party and we will certainly cause harm to ourselves. I know of a man who was highly regarded by many people. However, in a severe display of anger, he managed to destroy much of the respect people had for him. On top of that, he also put himself under a whole lot of unnecessary stress. In the Culakammavibhanga Sutta (MN135), it is stated that a habit of displaying anger can lead a person to hell. However, if he is lucky enough to be reborn as a human being, he is ugly wherever he is born. Therefore, while we are still not free from anger, we should emulate Sakka and be mindful of it and exercise proper restraint. This is, after all, for our own good. Labels: Kumara SBSWhen IS Noon? By Kumara Bhikku Last Sunday, I was at Grand BlueWave Hotel in Shah Alam attending a workshop for Buddhist webmasters.It was about 12.10pm when the keynote speaker finished his address. Almost immediately after that, he walked towards me with an apologetic look on his face. “I’m so sorry, Reverend,” he said while showing me his watch. “It’s already past noon.” I smiled and told him not to worry, because the real noon for that day in Shah Alam was 1.12pm; so, I still had about an hour’s time for my meal. “I’ve checked.” I assured him, seeing that he didn’t appear to be utterly convinced. One of the most well-known rules for Buddhist monks is that they are not allowed to eat after noon. Technically speaking, the rule requires all Buddhist renunciates to abstain from eating food at the wrong time. “Wrong time” here refers to the period between noon and the next dawn. When is noon? Most of us would think that it is the time when the clock says “12:00pm”. But, as a matter of fact, that is not the “real noon”. During the Buddha’s time, there were no clocks. To tell the time, sundials were used. A sundial shows noon when the sun reaches its highest point (i.e., when it crosses the meridian). In relation to our clock, real noon shifts throughout the year within a range of about 31 minutes. In fact, in Peninsula Malaysia, real noon never occurs at “12:00pm”. The earliest possible noon here is about 12:47pm. I’ll explain why later. Let us be clear that the “noon” the Vinaya speaks of is the solar noon, and not the clock noon or zone time noon. This noon follows the sun and not the clock. “So what?” one may ask. Dhamminda Bhikkhu in his book “Dawn and Noon” puts it very clearly: The difference between apparent solar noon and the zone time noon of a clock means that a monk who eats up till 12 noon according to clock time will commit an offence for eating in the afternoon in certain places and at certain times of the year. However, at other times and places, a monk can eat until after 12 noon clock time and not commit an offence. The same also applies to lay people who have undertaken to observe the precept of abstaining from eating in the afternoon. For example, if a monk or an eight-precept holder in Moulmien, Myanmar eats past 11.44am on 3 November, he would have committed the offence of eating at the wrong time. However, on 12 February in Balik Pulau, Malaysia, he can eat until 1.33pm and still not commit the offence. Why is it so? The full explanation is rather complicated and is outside the scope of this article. So, I shall just touch on it briefly: • The Earth’s orbit around the Sun is not circular but elliptical • The Earth turns at an axis that is tilted about 23 degrees from the ecliptic. • Our clock time is based on a certain mean solar time decided by the government. (The time zone of Peninsula Malaysia used to be at GMT +0700 some decades ago whereby the solar time and the clock time were quite close. For some reasons, it was shifted three times: 15 minutes ahead on the first two occasions, and 30 minutes on the third. Now, the Malaysian time zone is set at GMT +0800, which is actually more than an hour ahead of what should be the standard time if we take the longitude of Kuala Lumpur as the guide. That explains the apparently late real noon here.) • Because of the three points above, we see an apparent error between what our clock says and what the sundial says. Fine and dandy! Now, if we can’t rely on our clocks to tell us when the real noon is, how then are we supposed to know? We sure don’t have sundials around to tell us. Fortunately, there are many ways to find out. If you live in a country like Malaysia you can refer to the zohor time indicated in a local Muslim calendar. Only the times of the state capitals are given. However, if the longitude of your location is not too far apart from that of the town or city, the time difference is quite negligible. To be on the safe side, give a five-minute allowance. That should be more than enough (for Peninsula Malaysian states at least). A more accurate but complicated way is to use a formula and a chart showing the equation of time. To explain this formula would be too long for this short article. If you are interested and have access to the Internet, searching the world wide web (using a search engine like Google.com) with the keywords “equation of time” should bring you to helpful websites on the subject. You can even use your findings to build a chart of noon times in your locality for the whole year! If you don’t want to go through all that trouble but want to know the noon time of a particular place and a particular day of the year, you can point your web browser to http://geocities.com/venkumara/suntimec.html There, you’ll find a webpage with a JavaScript program that uses the formula and the equation of time. According to what you specify, it will tell you the times for noon, sunrise and sunset of a particular co-ordinate and date. It is originally from the Surface Radiation Research Branch (SRRB) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the USA. I’ve modified it to suit Malaysian use. You can save it in your computer, make as many copies of that as you like or even modify it according to your needs. What about telling dawn? That’s even more complicated, far more complicated. As a quick sure-fire guide, when you can begin to tell the difference between red and green using sunlight, you can be certain that dawn has passed. That’s a matter of fact. SBS Attempting to Deworm Theravada by Ven Kumara A look at some of the issues facing Theravada Buddhism and the problems encountered in the effort to look for solutions. THERAVADINS (those who profess Theravada — “Doctrine of the Elders”) generally have a high regard for their tradition. They see it as the best among the major Buddhist traditions — in terms of authenticity in both scriptures and practice. However, if we were to look objectively at the present state of popular Theravada (“Doctrine of the Elders” — Gotama Buddha’s teachings preserved in the Pali language) we have to admit that it is not as pretty and healthy as we would like to imagine it to be. In fact, it is like a lion that is infested with worms that have silently, yet pervasively proliferated inside. In one of the discussion sessions of the Introduction to Monkhood Programme held in SBS in December 2003, we discussed some of the issues raised in an uncompleted manuscript by a concerned Buddhist on this subject. Here, let me share a few issues that we touched on and, more importantly, explore what we can do to help counteract the debilitating trends of the present Theravadin world. Selective Emphasis and Questionable Interpretations of Theravada The writer points out that Theravada does not equal the Buddha’s teachings as -recorded in the Pali Tipitaka (the Three Baskets). Rather, “Theravada is based on a particular interpretation of certain teachings from the Pali Tipitaka.” That is a fact that we cannot rightly deny. With more than two millennia of -inevitable transformation since the -Blessed One passed on to Nibbana (highest and -ultimate goal of all Buddhist aspirations, i.e. extinction of greed, hatred and delusion), we cannot expect any Buddhist tradition, as we know them now, to be an exact representation of the original teachings. Contrary to popular traditional belief, there are evidences within the Pali Canon itself (as we have it now) to show that it is not the same as the original sanctioned by the First Buddhist Council, which was held soon after the Buddha’s demise. Furthermore, we must understand that Buddhism did not split into just a few schools in India, but at least 18 of them. Not only did they bear differing views among them, but also differing sets of scriptures. A few hundred years after Theravada reached Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), it split further into a few sub-groups. Although they probably agreed on most texts of the Pali Canon (which was then committed into writing for the first time), they did have some dissimilar texts and they did not share the same -interpretations in all aspects. What we now generally accept as the orthodox Theravadin teachings is largely based on the interpretations of only one of those groups: the Mahavihara. (Their interpretations of the Pali Canon were compiled and sanctioned by them as what we now call the Atthakatha or the Pali Commentaries). This is so because all -other Theravadin lineages (notably the Jetavana and Abhayagiri sects) did not -survive due to various reasons. As such, the general understanding of the DhammaVinaya (Doctrine and Discipline) according to orthodox Theravada, as we know it today, may well be incomplete, and in some cases probably wrong. Nonetheless, historians generally agree that although the set of Pali Canon sanctioned by the Mahaviharins (members of Mahavihara sect) may not be an -exact “copy” of what the Buddha taught, it does contain the essence of it. Moreover, a careful comparison of the suttas -(discourses of the Buddha) and their corresponding commentaries also strongly suggests that the Mahaviharins were conscientious enough to not modify the teachings contained therein according to their understanding. We can see this in cases where their commentaries disagree with the literal and obvious meaning of what the suttas say. Therefore, while Theravadins now cannot claim their Pali Canon to be a carbon copy of that sanctioned by the First Buddhist Council, they can have confidence that it is fairly close to that. In fact, as a complete, codified set of Buddhist scriptures, it is probably the closest. On top of that, the teachings that an average Buddhist receives tend to be rather selective — in many cases not for the listener’s benefit, but the speaker’s. The writer boldly chided Theravadin monks who, motivated by self-interest, preach much about the benefits of -generosity towards monks and monasteries, but little about other greater virtues. Selective preaching of the Dhamma also occurs when the preacher wants to draw others to his point of view — he highlights suttas that seem to support his opinions and conveniently ignores suttas that contradict them. This is rather common among meditation debaters. Therefore, the question now is this: What can truth-seeking Theravadin Buddhists do under such circumstances? There is not much that we can do now to regain the complete original teachings of the Buddha (unless perhaps we are willing to trust certain individuals who say they can go back in time!). Nevertheless, if we wish to get as close as we can to the original teachings, considering what is currently available, the Pali Canon seems to be our best bet. Getting back to the irrefutable statement that Theravada does not equal the Buddha’s teachings as recorded in the Pali Canon, truth-seeking Buddhists should make the effort to study the canon. The best, of course, would be to learn Pali so that one can go beyond -interpretations (personal or from the commentaries) that tend to creep into translations. If that proves beyond a person’s limitations, he or she can at least study reliable translations by objective, learned and practising Buddhists (such as Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi) who are assisted but not confined by interpretations of the Commentaries. The only problem is that we do not have a complete set of such translations yet. As such, it is still necessary to learn Pali if we wish to have the full picture of its content. By doing the above, we can cut through the orthodoxy of Theravada and get closer to what the Buddha taught. These measures form part of what SBS is trying to do, and we hope others will join or support us in this task so crucial to the health of the Sasana (Buddha’s Dispensation). The Vinaya The writer also points out certain issues surrounding the observance of the -Vinaya in today’s world: 1. Rules that are irrelevant and meaningless outside the ancient Indian context. 2. Monks who follow rules according to their own traditions, which do not always agree with the Vinaya Pitaka. 3. Misinterpretation of rules, which lead to inane and even hilarious -observances. On the first point, we have to agree that some rules seem rather absurd to observe in our present world, and it does make some sense to do away with such rules, which have become more like mere rituals. Besides, in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha was said to have -allowed the Sangha to abolish minor rules if it so wished. However, as the Buddha did not say which rules are to be regarded as minor, it does not seem prudent for any one of us now to cite that allowance as a valid justification for abolishing rules. Why is that so? 1. The enlightened attendees of the First Council could not agree as to what the Buddha meant by minor rules, and instead agreed to keep all of them. Who among us now can say for sure what the Buddha meant? Are we to consider ourselves wiser? 2. If one group or even individuals (particularly respected ones) are seen to do away with what they think are -minor rules, we can only expect -others to also abolish what they think are -minor rules. Furthermore, if one group were to start abolishing rules, what is there to prevent future -generations from abolishing even more rules? If members of the Sangha keep pruning the Vinaya (in keeping with their traditions), can we expect the level of discipline to be better than if they had kept the Vinaya as it is? 3. We should remind ourselves that the splitting of the Sangha was due to the wish of a larger segment to change ten rules. Following that came an -unstoppable proliferation of new groups with differing ideas of not just the Vinaya but the Dhamma as well. Do we want to instigate a repetition of that regrettable episode of history? 4. Besides, if such abolishing is to be done, we should bear in mind that the Buddha allowed only the Sangha to do so — not individual members or chapters. This presupposes the need for a sanghakamma, a monastic legal action. To my knowledge, there has never been such a sanghakamma in the entire history of the Theravadin tradition — which is a good thing. Otherwise, with a trimmed down code of discipline as a guide for -monastic behaviour, what can we expect the Sangha to become? On the issue of monks who -merely go by their own traditions, it drives home the necessity to go back to the Vinaya Pitaka and uphold the Vinaya according to it instead of blindly following the norm of a certain community. Admittedly, this is quite impossible to implement in a large community deeply entrenched in its own norms. However, it can be done by small groups that -appreciate the -advantages of doing so for the benefit of the Sasana. As variations of interpretation are unavoidable, it is only fair that different communities agree to disagree in those areas so long as they do not contradict the original rules. As for the writer’s point about misinterpreting the rules, it is clear that monks need to have practical understanding of the Vinaya, which necessitates tutelage under a learned, qualified teacher. -Otherwise, it should not surprise us to find misguided monks who do such things as using tweezers to count money they have received (as mentioned by the said writer), thinking that they are being pure in their precepts. Becoming a Monk It should not be too difficult for well--informed Buddhists to realise that quite a large portion of the Sangha consists of people who seem to have entered it with not-so-pure motives. Although there are cases where some of such monks later discover their spiritual potential and grow to become respectable monks, it rarely happens. As for the rest of them, they naturally actualise their unwholesome -motives, thereby bringing disrepute to and consequent loss of faith in the Sangha in the eyes of the laity. This is another issue that the writer brought forward. “We need to have some quality control in the Sangha!” Such is the concern of many knowledgeable and observant Buddhists. However, in most Theravadin cultures — particularly long existing ones — this is hardly done. In Ven Aggacitta Bhikkhu’s “Role of the Sangha in the New Millennium: the Monastic Perspective”, he reiterated the need for Sangha quality control. For this purpose, it is the policy of SBS (of which the venerable is the abbot) that a person wishing to be ordained a monk here must be a postulant for at least one year before he can be considered for ordination. This also provides the monk aspirant an opportunity to try out the life very similar to that of a monk before he makes a deliberate decision. Many other monastic communities besides SBS have insisted on a similar policy and it has proven practicable and effective in filtering off unsuitable individuals. While we do not expect this to change the whole face of Theravada, we certainly hope that more communities will see its necessity and implement the same policy. A New Buddhism? There is no doubt about the grave -problems facing the present Theravada Buddhism and the writer’s call for change deserves much attention. While sensational and outrageous issues may grab our attention, they are relatively isolated and have more to do with the individual rather than the community. The scriptures tell us that such things also happened -during the Buddha’s time, though perhaps in milder degrees. As for those issues that are not so sensational but pervasive, they are in reality more pernicious and virtually impossible to uproot in places where immoral behaviour among monks has become the norm. At the end of the uncompleted -manuscript, the writer presented a proposal for a new sect of Buddhism. He shared a number of very constructive suggestions that are truly worthy of our attention. However, the proposal also includes certain things that are unsuitable and even deviate from the Dhamma-Vinaya as -enshrined in the Pali Canon. So, while we can agree with a large portion of the writer’s proposal, we cannot agree with that of creating a new sect, which has happened more than enough times in the history of Buddhism. Doing so has always opened new cans of worms — the gravest one being the breaking up of the Buddhist family, which the Buddha is known to have taken pains to prevent. Instead, we believe in revitalising the Sasana from within, starting with the core of the Buddhist community: the Sangha. Like natural medicine to cure a deep-seated illness, it may be slow, but it is steady. SBS is taking measures to this end. Care enough to join us? Note: 1. I have promised the writer not to circulate the manuscript outside SBS as he is yet ready for that. So, please do not contact us to ask for it. However, he did reveal his plan to publish it on the Internet for public discussion later this year (2004). 2. We will be happy to receive useful comments from you on the subject. Feel free to write to us. Labels: Kumara SBSFAQs about a Monk  Prompted by the Abbot to write something for the benefit of thosecontemplating monkhood, Ven Kumara decides to share his answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about his journey before and after becoming a monk. Having been a monk for four years, I've been asked various questions related to my becoming a monk. Some of these questions have been asked so many times that I sometimes wish I could gather all those who are curious to know and tell them all at one go. So, is that why I'm writing this article? The idea did spring from that, but there are better reasons. You'll see as you read some of the top questions and my responses to them. FAQ1 How did you decide to become a monk? In a way, the decision came suddenly; yet, it was the result of a gradual build-up - somewhat like a vipassana insight, if you like. When I was just a young boy, I was fascinated with reports of kids going for short-term novitiate programs. A past life tendency, perhaps? But due to lack of contact with Buddhist temples, I never joined any. My interest in Buddhism was revived about 15 years later, when I was in varsity. With the help of my Buddhist society friends, I was drawn into Buddhism and quickly agreed to join a week-long vipassana meditation retreat conducted by Ven Sujiva in Santisukharama, Kota Tinggi. The participants underwent a pre-retreat meditation crash course at Buddhist Wisdom Centre in Petaling Jaya. One of the facilitators, Tan Soo Pin, said something that I can still remember quite vividly: If you want to be a serious yogi (meditator), you have only four options in life: 1. Become a monk 2. Stay unmarried 3. Get married to a yogi 4. Get married to someone who can be made to become a yogi. That's it. No fifth option. Does that sound a bit too serious for you? Anyway, at that time, I was thoroughly inspired. There can be no other options for me. Period. Yet, the desire to renounce did not crystallise. I went to the retreat highly motivated and practised quite diligently. Near the end of the retreat, I thought, "Wow! This is the most worthwhile week I've ever spent in my whole life!" My faith in the Triple Gem took a silent yet significant leap forward. Some thoughts of renunciation did occur then, such as doing away with the extravagances in life. I was so engulfed in those thoughts that I could hardly meditate. Hor Tuck Loon, who was then a Dhamma worker there, became a victim of my desire to share my noble thoughts. I later came to know that it's common for a beginner to be sucked into that sort of thing. All the same, I knew then that my life had taken a fundamental turn. What wasn't clear to me was where it was leading. Meeting practising monks was perhaps the greatest influence on my decision to renounce. Ven Sujiva, who was my main meditation teacher, praised life as a renunciant and encouraged me to renounce. It seems he says that to most yogis he interviews. I also met some other good monks like Ven Suvanno, Ven Visuddhacara (who has just disrobed), and Ven Nagasena, and was attracted to the way they lived. Sure, it would mean no movies, no music, no eating whenever I like, no girls, etc. But, it would also mean no wife and kids to deal with, no income tax, no house and car to pay for, no debts and bills to settle, no money to worry about, no shopping for clothes… What a great life! Although I had never got myself fully entangled with the usual worldly burdens yet, there were enough examples around, such as my own parents, to give me a good picture. I didn't like it. I found it too wearisome. So, the notion of being free from all that, and having all the time to do Dhamma-related things, was something that I found extremely attractive. The eventual decision to renounce came quite unexpectedly, when I was somewhere in the middle of my final year of studies. Although I had chosen a course on education, thinking that being a teacher was what I wanted, there was still a nagging sense of uncertainty. I managed to find and downloaded a career guidance software from the Internet. It had an interactive questionnaire, which I worked through to find out the most suitable job for me. I hoped that it would just tell me that I should be a teacher and settle the matter. I was getting rather sick of the indecisiveness. What was the result? I can't remember. Certainly not a monk, though. Whatever it was, I don't recall being satisfied. So I wandered elsewhere in the program and chanced upon a passage that said something like this: Imagine if you were to live your life as events led you. You then approached the end of your life, and began to reflect on how you had lived. Now consider: How would you wish you had lived your life instead? Immediately, this thought occurred: "I'd wish I had lived my life as a monk... and worked towards enlightenment." I was quite surprised at my own response. "I'd wish I had lived as a monk." Those words echoed in my mind. I was utterly amazed. It was like some sort of sudden realisation. (Satori?) "That's what I want to do with my life: be a monk." Nothing else seemed worthy; nothing else made sense. There was not an iota of indecisiveness in my mind. I had sold my 'soul' to the Triple Gem! So, that was how I decided to become a monk. Strange, isn't it? Who could have thought that a career guidance software downloaded from the Internet would become my final divine messenger? FAQ2 Didn't your parents object? They objected. Oh, yes, they did. In fact, when my mother learned of my intention, she cried cats and dogs; and when my father found out why she was crying, he scolded me for making her cry. At that time, I hadn't even asked for permission yet, but there were clear indications that it was definitely not the right time. So I suggested, "Okay, okay! Let's just leave this aside. Let's not talk about it for now, okay?" Feeling like I was in hot soup, I was more than willing to abandon the issue - for the time being at least. As their faith in the Triple Gem was still weak then, I knew they would not be able to take it well, but I had to start somewhere. It was a difficult period that we simply had to go through. FAQ3 How did you get your parents' permission? Like most monks and aspiring monks, parental consent proved to be the most elusive condition to fulfil. Let me explain this first. When a person wants to join the monastic order, a member of the Sangha assembly will ask him whether his parents have consented. If he did not have their consent and answered accordingly, and the monks in the assembly ordained him nonetheless, each of those monks commits a Vinaya offence. If he said 'yes' instead, he would be lying. In either case, his ordination would not be impeccable. As I personally have never liked such a situation, I waited. During that period, I tried to make use of every opportune moment to gradually influence my parents to have a more positive view of monkhood. The stamp of approval finally came - about one and a half years after I had first revealed my intention to them. We were in the midst of economic recession in 1998 and my father was getting himself deeper into a financial mess. I was in the kitchen together with my mother and we talked about our situation. It somehow felt like the right time, and so I said, "Mum, if I continue to live my life as it is, I'd regret not having become a monk." "If you don't feel happy as a lay person," she said, "we shouldn't stop you." For a while, I wasn't sure what to say; then I thanked her. "Although I let you go," she added, "I do it with a heavy heart." "I know. " Later, when my father came to know about it, he didn't object. It seemed almost as if they had anticipated my asking, and had decided to give their consent. Aren't they great? After my ordination, my parents became better Buddhists and more active in the temple: attending Dhamma talks, joining a meditation course, providing services, etc. I knew things would turn out fine. FAQ4 How would a person know that he is ready to renounce? When I was first asked this question, I didn't know how to answer. Other monks that I checked with were equally at a loss. The fact is we never asked ourselves that question. When you want to renounce, you renounce lah! What's there to be ready about? We eventually agreed upon this answer: If a person asks that question, he is not ready. FAQ5 Are you allowed to disrobe later? Sure. There's no lifelong vow in becoming a monk. FAQ6 Do you intend to disrobe later (or be a monk for life)? Choy! How can you ask that question? Seriously, although I did enter monkhood with no thought of disrobing later, I can't be sure how I will think in the future. Perhaps I can only say that, at present, I can't find any reason to return to lay life. What's so great about it anyway? Conclusion To those who are on the verge of monkhood, I hope this article can somehow give a few nudges towards the wonderful life. As for the rest, may it plant little seeds in their minds - no matter how tiny they may be! Labels: Kumara SBSRobed Exploiters In the previous issue of Sasanarakkha we featured an article which touched briefly on the subject of con-men dressed in robes. Now read on for a more in-depth look at the same problem. By Kumara Bhikkhu It has been quite some time since Malaysians began to see shaven-headed men garbed in Theravada robes, females in Thai maechi clothing, and some in Mahayana robes going around with alms-bowls to collect money from the public. Some of them offer supposedly blessed strings and rosaries in return. Some are said to be working for syndicates who provide them with tools of the trade and necessary instructions. Out of ignorance and desire for merits or pure generosity, a great number of Malaysian Chinese, and some Indians too, have been exploited by these individuals. The Buddhist response to this has been quite varied. While some give with no questions asked, others look upon them with disgust, particularly informed Buddhists who know what a member of the Sangha should and should not do. Some Buddhists are particularly embarrassed when questioned by non-Buddhist friends, and are at a loss in answering. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? This question is an important one if we want to be clear about the issue in order to effectively seek solutions that work. Otherwise, all our efforts to solve the roblem will be geared in the wrong direction. Very often, we label them as "bogus monks". While this may be correct in most cases, to call them thus can also be inaccurate. Some of them are known to be real monks who are Thais, Cambodians or even Malaysians. Those from Thailand can even produce identification cards to show that they are registered monks. In fact, I was told that among a group of "monks" who were caught in Kedah begging for money, one had been a real monk for years. So, suppose you were to see someone whom you regard as a real monk collecting money at a night market, would you not be just as uneasy—if not more so—as you would be if he were bogus? Recently (13–25 November 2002), I conducted an informal survey through email to test this hypothesis. The results from part of the survey reveal a clear picture. Among the questions asked were these two:
I have chosen to use the word "unknown", instead of "bogus" because it is virtually impossible to ascertain if a "monk" on the street is real or not. Anyway, here are the results:
A detailed report shows that all the 72 respondents who said that they were irked/bothered to see an unknown "monk" accepting money in a market, were also irked/bothered if the "monk" were regarded as genuine. Going by the above analysis of the survey, the respondents who were concerned in such a situation were not really concerned whether the "monk" was bogus. This, I believe, is true for Malaysian Buddhists at large as well. For this reason, identifying the issue as a "bogus monk" problem, for all practical purposes, misses the point. A more crucial consideration is that this also tends to mislead efforts to curb it. Therefore, we need a more accurate label. At this point, I can't think of a better one than "robed (Sasana) exploiters". WHY BUDDHISTS SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT In the same survey, only about 5% of the respondents say they were not bothered at all but the rest said that they were bothered. Quite a number added comments saying that Buddhists should do something about it.  Our respected mahathera, Ven Dr K Sri Dhammananda was reported as saying that monks who begged Ven Dr K Sri Dhammananda Mahathera has often referred to these robed exploiters as "a public nuisance"-with good reasons, I think. Buddhism Misrepresented A major concern of the Buddhist community over the issue is the eventual negative public opinion of the Sangha generated by these exploiters. From the scriptures, we know that the Buddha did not permit such behaviour from members of the Sangha. However, most people tend to generalise. Thus, these offenders will tarnish the image of the genuine Sangha. What the Buddha allowed, and even encouraged, was for monks and nuns to live as "almsfood eaters". Such Buddhist renunciants choose not to accept invitations to meals at homes of families, but depend on food obtained by "going for alms". Besides food, they may also accept other things that are suitable, but never money. Our respected mahathera, Ven Dhammananda was reported to have said that monks who begged for money were violating the Buddhist code of ethics. (THE STAR, October 14, 2002) They violate the rule all the same if they give "holy" strings, rosaries, or any kind of things in return. This, however, is not known to many Malaysians. By continuing to give money to these exploiters, they are actually encouraging and indirectly perpetuating such gross misrepresentation of what Buddhist renunciants do, and what Buddhism is about. Faith Misplaced, Charity Misused Some of those who have been giving money to these exploiters may eventually come to find out what they really do with the money. When that happens, it can be most disheartening to the givers. If they do not know of monks or nuns who are better behaved, it can result in long-term disillusionment with members of the Sangha in particular and Buddhism in general. In an article "Preying on believers' generosity" in THE STAR, (Monday, October 14, 2002), an Indian lady who had been giving money to a monk, purportedly for a temple in Thailand, found him ... smoking in a back alley using his alms bowl as an ashtray. "I was so angry, I wanted to hit him," said Rajeswary. "All this while when I thought I was doing something good, he was spending my money on cigarettes and who knows what else." Once a Burmese man, who was in the Subang Jaya Buddhist Association for a short-term monkhood, told me a rather unforgettable story. One day he saw a "monk" with a pimp at the reception counter of a hotel. Later on, the pimp left while the the "monk" went to the elevator with a heavily made-up woman. Admittedly, we cannot be absolutely certain of what happened after that, but it is hard not to think the worst. Therefore, it is not difficult to see that this is an issue which we should get our act together to solve.  POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS Now, let us concentrate on solutions to this rather unhealthy phenomenon in Malaysia. Quite a few ideas have surfaced in recent years. I gather that there has also been some serious brainstorming to seek solutions, and even actual attempts. How effective are these possible solutions? Let us look into them. Sangha Member Identification Card At least one Malaysian Buddhist organisation publicised its effort to introduce some sort of identification card for Sangha members so that people can verify their authenticity. As mentioned earlier in this article, whether the "monk" is genuine or bogus has no relevance to the real issue at hand. Bearing that in mind, if we introduce such an identification card, how can it help curb the problem? While the advocators may have good motives in embarking on such a move as a possible solution, it is a misled one. This is a good example how a misleading identification of the problem can mislead efforts to curb it. Moreover, in the actual experience of countries where Sangha membership is acknowledged by the government through the issuance of special identification cards, it has not improved the behaviour of Sangha members. What effect then can we expect this practice to have on those who are not even true members? If carried out, this idea may also entail a host of problems problems, such as forged cards and need for card renewal. With due respect to those who are working towards this as a solution, I think instead of solving a problem, it would only create more problems. At any rate, this idea (as far as I know) never really took off; and, considering the reasons mentioned, I think Malaysian Buddhists should not waste their precious resources on this unlikely solution. Have them all Arrested! Quite a number of Buddhists are exceedingly disgusted with such misrepresentations of the Buddha Sasana. As they consider it to be utterly wrong, they feel that the exploiters should be arrested. I personally know of certain Buddhist friends who have seriously contemplated and even attempted to do just that. Some have tried working on the issue with the Malaysian Police Department and the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) to have these offenders arrested. However, there seems to be a few problems, mainly: On what grounds can we have them arrested?
Furthermore, the police seem to have limited power over these exploiters, even if they are willing to co-operate with Buddhists to nab only the offending ones.
Therefore, even with all the sincere help that we might get from the police and the MCA to have all these errant people arrested, it does not look like a workable solution.  "Good lah! Last time when I went for pindapat, nobody gave me anything!" -Ven Suvanno Mahathero Educate People through Mass Communication There have been some earnest efforts by some established Buddhist organisations to inform the public that they should not put money into almsbowls, that Buddhist monks do not go for almsround after noon, and of other relevant Buddhist monastic rules. Among the tools of mass communication used were leaflets and posters. I have no idea how far it reached the targeted audience, but I believe the distribution was somewhat confined to regions where the publishing organisations were located, such as Penang and Klang Valley. In Taiping where I stay, devotees from the Buddhist Missionary Society, Kuala Lumpur, brought some leaflets which did not go far beyond the hands of our society members who are already very much aware of the matter. A check with Lee Yu Ban, an active Buddhist member, revealed a similar pattern in the Klang Valley. As to why these materials have not been properly channelled to places where the education is necessary (instead of among Buddhist temples and centres) is to me quite puzzling. How can we expect that to bring about the desired effect? There have been quite a few newspaper articles about the matter as well. It is good to see that the press is also keen to do its part in educating the public. I do think that efforts to educate the public are heading in the right direction direction. However, since there are still many robed exploiters doing good business in many places in Malaysia, we know that the efforts still fall short of being successful. The idea of proper monastic conduct — that is contrary to what these exploiters are presenting — should be deeply impressed into the public psyche. Buddhist organisations and the media should keep up this effort and see to it that there is enough resonance among the public on the matter. Lee Yu Ban, who has been in crusade against robed exploiters, has some good ideas:
I think these proposals are viable and deserve consideration by Buddhist organisations. Same Method, Different Approach The method is there, but perhaps we should reconsider our approach. The strategy that I have seen appears to be twofold: to tell people
My disagreement with that kind of approach is that it appears (to me at least) to have an underlying motivation of anger. It appears somewhat unkind, somewhat "un-Buddhistic". I was told that once someone expressed his irritation over these "bogus monks" to Ven Suvanno Mahathero, and guess what the response was? "Good lah! Last time when I went for pindapat, nobody gave me anything!" [Note: Ven Suvanno is known to be the pioneer in pindapata practice in Malaysia.] Truly, giving is a virtue that is hard to fault fault. On the other hand, according to the Buddha, to discourage giving has negative results: ... whoever prevents another from giving a gift... creates an obstruction to the merit of the giver, an obstruction to the recipient's gains, and prior to that he undermines and harms his own self. Many people like to offer alms to Sangha members. A person in Buddhist robes collecting money in a market may actually be a thief of the Sasana, for he disguises as a Buddhist renunciant to deceive the faithful. Still, what is given to him is a "source of merit". So, are we in a dilemma? Not necessarily. What we can do is this: Instead of telling people not to give, we can tell them what to give give. We can encourage people to give food or other things that are useful and allowed by the Buddha for his ordained disciples. Regardless of who that robed person is, the giver gains merit and can rejoice over his giving. Furthermore, the receiver gets something to eat. And we who encourage righteous giving gain merits too for encouraging an act of good. Even if he refuses it you would still earn some good merits for making the effort to give. I must give credit to Ven. Kusala for this marvelous idea! So, perhaps we could try another round of mass effort to educate the public. This time, instead of an unfriendly approach, why not try a friendlier one? Give them food, or other things allowed by the Buddha. If they refuse it, you can eat it yourself yourself, , and still earn merits. If you would rather not give, that is fine. But there is no need to work yourself up over it. For all we know, they might have been shoved by oppressive circumstances into such an unacceptable way of making a living. If they were as fortunate as most of us are—materially and spiritually—what need is there for them to get involved in this? At any rate, we as Buddhists should know that expressing our anger is not the way. Experienced teachers know that a far-reaching method to change a student's bad behaviour is to express pity, and not anger. Perhaps this applies here too. So, let us take a kinder approach. If the Buddha were still around, I think he would approve of it. To those who are making efforts to educate people through mass communication, may I suggest that you consult those who are better informed about the Buddhist doctrines and discipline first before having the material publicised? It would certainly help to make the information more accurately, properly and effectively conveyed. Genuine Alms-round Having presented some possible solutions that have yet to be proven efficacious, let me now relate to you a proven one. For some months, Ven Kusala stayed here in Sasanarakkha Buddhist Sanctuary near Taiping as a visiting monk. Although we had arranged pindapata, he preferred to go to markets and food stalls. This is considered a "high-class" dhutanga (ascetic practice). A monk observing such a dhutanga practice would simply go with the almsbowl with no prior arrangements to places where people inhabit and stand silently at suitable places with the purpose of getting food. Before Ven Kusala began doing this, it was already common in Taiping to see "bogus monks" going around markets for money. So, in the beginning, people offered money, which he promptly declined. He would tell them that he was there to accept food only. As days went by, he became quite well known among the people around. Later, some of our devotees asked him if he would like to go to markets where "bogus monks" were seen. To their delight, he agreed. So, on each Sunday, they would drive him to different markets in Taiping alternately, and this went on for the rest of the months he stayed here. One Sunday, instead of going to Taiping Insight Meditation Society for dana, I went to a wet market for pindapata. My bowl was simply far too small to contain the food that I received. So, I had to repeatedly transfer food into my bag. A lady at a stall requested that I waited while she prepared a few packets of tau-fu-fa. As she was about to give it to me, a man came over with some cash in hand, apparently wanting to hand it to me. The lady was quick to say (in Hokkien), "Ee boh siew looi eh; siew chiak eh nya." (He doesn't accept money; he accepts food only.)   Genuine monks only accept food and allowable requisites with their alms bowls. I was glad. People there seem to have been quite well educated about proper pindapata. It is simply amazing what persistence in what is right can do, isn't it? Imagine a robed exploiter trying to make a living in such a place. He would certainly get more food than money—if any. I asked a devotee sometime later whether he still heard of bogus monks. He thought hard about it and then said (in Hokkien), "Bar loo siang kah see boh har meek thnia tiok liao er... Ee'ang eh seng li hor Bhante Kusala phak phai khee liao lah!" (Hardly ever hear it now... Their business has been ruined by Ven Kusala!) Although we cannot be 100 percent certain of that, why else would all robed exploiters suddenly cease operations in Taiping after a monk started to go for his daily alms-round there? Just some weeks ago, for the purpose of the article, I asked another devotee the same question. Again, he said he had not heard of it anymore. I should add that it has been many months since Ven Kusala left here for Myanmar. Effective, isn't it? So that was the wonderful success story, and a proven method of getting rid of robed exploiters. In fact, it did not even start with that purpose in mind. All Ven Kusala did was practise an ancient dhutanga custom, which was praised by the Buddha. Praise the Lord! The circumstances surrounding the writing of this article have allowed me less time than I would have liked. On quite a few matters mentioned above, I was not able to carry out a more thorough fact-finding. So, there may be some lack of information and possibly some erroneous assumptions. If you spot any of them, I would be happy to hear from you. I also welcome any other useful comments on the matter. You may send them to rexploit@evinaya.cjb.net. Long live the good Dhamma! Labels: Kumara SBS
|
