Venue: Hokkien Cemetery Pavilion
In ancient India, there existed a caste system which survives to a certain extent to this present age. Under that ancient system, people were classified from birth into four main social classes:
Brahmins, who performed the priestly functions, were regarded as the highest class of the society;
khattiyas, who were the nobles, warriors, and administrators, were regarded as the second;
vessas, who were the merchants and agriculturalists, were regarded as the third; and
suddas, who were the menials and serfs, were regarded as the forth.
Besides these four groups, there were also other groups which did not fit even to the suddas and were regarded as the lowest class or the untouchables. Once a person belongs to one category, it is impossible for him/her to move into another class.
In ancient China, those who had passed the very difficult imperial examinations were given important positions in the imperial government and were highly held by society, but those who work in the entertainment line, like actors or singers, were regarded as low class. In our modern society today, as I can see, those who are rich and wealthy are highly held by the general society and those who have no money are regarded as having no “high class”.
In our lord Buddha’s teachings, a person’s superiority is not determined by his wealth or his birthright. Anyone who conducts himself harmlessly towards another is a superior, “high class” person. He is an inferior, “low class” person if his conduct is otherwise. There are three ways that a person can conduct himself in a harmful manner – through bodily action, speech and mind. Through bodily action, a person can do harmful things such as destroying life, stealing or sexual misconduct; through speech, a person can lie, make good friends separate, make people hurt or angry with harsh words, or fill people’s minds with unbeneficial information which lead to more greed, hatred and delusion; through mind, a person can think covetously, ill-mindedly , or hold wrong views such as not accepting the karmic consequences of wholesome and unwholesome action.
Today, I will like to bring to your awareness a discourse where the Buddha gave a very clear description of the differences between an inferior and a superior person’s behaviour in revealing information. In accordance with the teachings of the Buddha who said in the presence of the monks (in Angutara Nikaya AN 4.73):
“Monks, one who has four qualities should be considered an inferior person. What are these four?
Even unasked, an inferior person reveals the faults of others, how much more so when he is asked. When asked, however, and led on by questions, he speaks of others’ faults without omitting anything, without holding back, fully and in detail. He should be considered an inferior person.
Further, even when asked, an inferior person does not reveal what is praiseworthy in others, and still less so when not asked. When asked, however, and obliged to reply to questions, he speaks what is praiseworthy in others with omissions and hesitatingly, incompletely and not in detail. He should be considered an inferior person.
Further, an inferior person does not reveal his own faults even when asked, still less so when not asked. When asked, however, and obliged to reply to questions, he speaks of his own faults with omissions and hesitatingly, incompletely and not in detail. He should be considered an inferior person.
Further, an inferior person reveals his own praiseworthy qualities even unasked, how much more so when asked. When asked, however, and led on by questions, he speaks of his own praiseworthy qualities without omissions and without hesitating, fully and in detail. He should be considered an inferior person.
One who has these four qualities should be considered an inferior person.
Monks, one who has four qualities should be considered a superior person. What are these four?
Even when asked, a superior person does not reveal the faults of others, and still less so when not asked. When asked, however, and led on by questions, he speaks of others’ faults with omissions and hesitatingly, incompletely and not in detail. He should be considered a superior person.
Further; even unasked, a superior person reveals what is praiseworthy in others, how much more so when he is asked. When asked, however, and obliged to reply to question, he speaks of what is praiseworthy in others without omitting anything, without holding back, fully and in detail. He should be considered a superior person.
Further; even unasked, a superior person reveals he own faults, how much more so when he is asked. When asked, however, and obliged to reply to questions, he speaks of his own faults without omitting anything, without holding back, fully and in detail. He should be considered a superior person.
Further; even when asked a superior person does not reveal his own praiseworthy qualities, still less so when not asked. When asked, however, and obliged to reply to questions, he speaks of his own praiseworthy qualities with omissions and hesitatingly, incompletely and not in detail. He should be considered a superior person.
One who has these four qualities should be considered a superior person.”