Dear Yong Peng & Dharma friends,

Yong Peng wrote:

>...open learning. It is certainly a good concept. And, I
>certainly agree that we have to work hard to keep this an open forum.
>However, we have to note that there are three types of people. (1)
>People who respect this open forum, and cooperate to keep it open.
>(2) People who do not respect this open forum, and make deliberate
>and unmistakable attempts to spoil it. (3) People who do not respect
>this open forum, and attempt to do damages indirectly.

Despite the rudeness and dogmatic opinions we have encountered here (of
course, not here alone), I am really stimulated by the various challenges
we are facing. It shows that as Buddhists we have a lot more to learn from
one another. However, it also means that we are still not tolerant of
others' differing views despite claims of being tolerant and compassionate.
We scold others impatiently despite signing off "with metta." We often feel
like giving up this website because by allowing like and dislike to
reinforce our latent tendencies: our pride is hurt. And so on.

The only place I can remember where people appear nice to one another, and
seem to speak with one common voice, without dissent, and where all appear
to be all right and going the same direction (when really not) was in my
early days of involvement with a "Buddhist community" that turned out to be
a tragic Western cult, and which I have since happily forsaken.

If we study the early Suttas well, as a meeting of human minds seeking the
liberation truth, we will be struck by the diversity of the Buddha's
audience. As the Buddha sits teaching the Dharma, we see in his audience
(besides the devas, yakshas, mahoragas, nagas, kimnaras, etc, whom none of
us have met anyway), there are not only monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen,
but also kshatriyas, brahmins, vaisyas, shudras and pancamas who are not,
by current definitions, "Buddhists", but those who are curious to discover
the truth. It would not be wrong to say (in the spirit of the Udumbarika
Sutta) that many in the Buddha's audience listen to the Buddha are quite
contented to keep to their old faiths while adopting the Buddha's teachings
they see as valuable to them.

Even today in Singapore, we often have people like Ajahn Brahm who give
public Dharma talks numbering in the thousands. The organizers have
resorted to huge conference halls (like the Suntec City halls) to
accommodate such crowds. From the questions asked and open statements by
many who attend such gatherings, we know they are non-Buddhists. In fact,
this is further confirmed by the number of non-Buddhists and those without
religion who attend my courses and classes (esp meditation) in Singapore.

My point is that we have to remember that there are many turning to
Buddhism to find answers in their life's questions or simply for peace of
mind. But if we, who desire to study Pali, one of the root tools of
Buddhism, are unable to communicate civilly at least on this website, what
can we teach these seekers should they turn to us for spiritual help. (Yes,
there are those who have no concern with spiritual ministry, but are only
interested in learning Pali and nothing else, but I have a more general
view of things, as we have many silent watchers and seekers to perhaps wish
to learning something from this website.)

For some decades I have been in a crisis of sorts as I try to answer
satisfactorily (both for myself and the questioner) various questions
relating to Buddhism. My training and profession is early Buddhism but I
appreciate many aspects of later Buddhism. However, it is not easy to
unbiasedly answer questions about Zen, Vajrayana, Pure Land Buddhism and
other non-Nikaya Buddhist affiliations. There is a great difference between
giving an academic answer (useful perhaps when one seeks a paper
qualification) and a spiritually helpful reply. (Of course, some great
masters are able to give good answers that satisfy the questioner and the
crowd, although this is not the rule.)

As Daniel Capper (Univ of Southern Mississippi) mentions in his paper
"Devotions to Tibetan Lamas, Self Psychology and Healing in the United
States" (American Journal of Pastoral Counseling 7,3 2004:62-65) even
devout pupils of a lama, while idealizing him, sometimes or often gets
frustrated with him when they think he fails to answer questions to their
satisfaction or pays more attention to non-pupils or sometimes are given
unwelcome tasks by the lama.

My point here is that no teacher (monastic or lay) is a saint (unless one
is a saint oneself to be able to recognize another). So it is all right
that there are others who hold different opinions from oneself and one's
teachers. Sometimes one wonders whether it is really the teacher's teaching
or merely the pupil's personal opinion that one holds dear. The Suttas are
full of reports of monks who misrepresent the Buddha (for example, Saati in
the Mahaa Ta.nhasa.nkhaaya Sutta (M 38) and Ari.t.tha in the Alaggaduupama
Sutta (M 22).

Let me come to my main point: it is easier to keep an open mind when we
consider Buddhism, not as a monolithic "timeless" teaching or religion, but
as what it really has become today, that is, a family of Buddhist
religions, each with its own discrete philosophy and system. As such, we
may compare Zen with Theravada, or Pure Land with Ikedaism, but they are
really different operating systems. We may compare OS2 with Windows, for
example, but they cannot operate together, and rightly so. (Of course, they
may co-operate!)

As such, it is fine if you profess the teachings of teacher A while another
believes in teacher B, but it is meaningless and not helpful to simply say
no to the beliefs or opinions of another simply because they do not fit in
with your own beliefs. This is not faith, it is simply intolerance, and
lack of confidence in oneself. We might as well be evangelists who go about
forcefully converting others, when in reality we are suffering from the
defence mechanism of reaction formation. These evangelists are those to
whom we should say "no" to, since their minds are often but a concrete
block. (I am ashamed to say that when I was a young monk, I have written,
on repeated requests from friends and pupils harrassed by evangelists, a
booklet called "Say NO! to the evangelists.")

When you disagree with someone else, try asking yourself why do you do so.
Continue asking "why" to that answer, and "why" again to the subsequent
answer, and so on. You will surprise yourself. You need not tell anyone
this realization since one needs to see this for oneself. (One way to
prevent your children from being converted by the evangelists, says Ajahn
Brahm, is to teach them to constantly question "Why?")

Let me close by restating this helpful attitude: be curious about the way
people thing--or as Socrates says, the unexamined life is not worth living.
Why do people think or speak that way? Such questionings lead to amazing
and awakening answers, or put you in that direction.

That is why I can be intellectually and spiritually stimulated by dissent
and rudeness. It means there is something unsatisfactory amongst us. If
suffering is the beginning of philosophy, then dukkha should kickstart
mental investigation.

Another way of appreciating dissent is to know that the dissenter has
actually read your ideas and given it some thought. The alternative is not
to bother at all, and be narcissistic about things, merely looking down
scowling from one's Olympian ivory tower, hurling punitive thunderbolts at
lesser mortals below. (The current pope once remarked that Buddhism is a
form of "self-eroticism," and he could well be right if we resort to being
pleased only at our being right and rejecting displeasing opinions.)

My wife a couple of weeks ago tells me with tears in her eyes that our
primary school son declares "I want to die" because he finds great
difficulty learning Chinese in school. My immediate reaction is that of
relief: that, after all, he does care about trying to learn Chinese after
all. Then later, I went to see his class teacher to arrange for a school
counseller to talk with him. There are symptoms of problems, and there are
deeper signs we have to look for, and examine .

Reminder: "Buddhism" (today at least) is a family of Buddhist religions,
not a unified timeless truth: only the Dharma is timeless. And no one owns
the Dharma: it is not self.

Sukhi

Piya

My apologies for contributing outpourings rather than subtle points in Pali
grammar (which I appreciate anyway), but I feel that this website should
have a human side. What is Pali, if not a tool for learning more about our
true selves?