Harmony Within and Without

The Study Report says: “Harmony at the level of inner truth (noumenon) means to attain One Mind Undisturbed and the Supreme, Perfect Enlightenment.” This is the goal of Pure Land practitioners. We Pure Land practitioners share the same goal and work towards the same direction—to attain One Mind Undisturbed. This is the goal of Pure Land practitioners. When one attains One Mind Undisturbed, one is truly qualified for attaining rebirth in the Western Pure Land. When one attains rebirth in the Western Pure Land, one will attain Supreme, Perfect Enlightenment. This is harmony at the level of inner truth (noumenon); this is our common goal.

Harmony at the level of phenomena means that we have to coexist. The Buddha taught the Six Harmonies for the Sangha to follow in daily life. The first is harmony in having the same viewpoints. How does one achieve this? By following the teachings in the sutras. The second is harmony in observing the same precepts. These precepts are the norms in daily life that we have to follow. The third is harmony in living together. We have to get along with everybody in a group. The fourth is harmony in speaking without conflict. There is no argument; whatever personal opinion we have, we replace it with the thought of Amituofo. The fifth is harmony in experiencing the Dharma bliss. We should be sincere, pure-minded, impartial, and compassionate. The last is harmony in sharing benefits. Everybody has the same living standard, and all offerings received are shared fairly.

~ Based on Ven. Master Chin Kung's 2003 lecture series on the Amitabha Sutra

And it Made Me Cry

 

It's instinctive. And it made me cry. Not a lot. Only for a few seconds, but enough to think again how difficult it is to eliminate attachments.

Sitting here at my desk, I just saw some baby goslings. They were born within the past twenty-four hours because their parents, two Canada geese, were alone yesterday.

The goslings are so small. Little, yellow balls of fluff waddling along on short, but obviously sturdy, legs. Five trusting cotton balls walking in line behind their mother and followed by their father. Instinctively I wanted to call out to my mother to come see them as I have in the past. But time passes, and my mother is no longer alive, no longer able to marvel with me at how quickly the babies can walk and swim. And I miss her and am sad.

And I cry.

And then I smile. 

And I am again aware that it is difficult to give up what can no longer be. Difficult to break long-held attachments. Difficult to move on.

Difficult, but necessary. 

Because on the other side of difficult is joy in having been fortunate, contentment with what is, and growth through understanding the suffering of others. And each time, we take a peak at the other side of difficult, it is easier. And quicker.

And each time the smile returns sooner.

Impermanence

The practice and understanding of impermanence is not just another description of reality. It is a tool that helps us in our transformation, healing and emancipation.

Impermanence means that everything changes and that nothing remains the same in any consecutive moments. And although things change every moment, they still cannot be accurately described as the same or as different from what they were a moment ago.

When we bathe in the river today that we bathed in yesterday, is it the same river? Heraclitus said that we couldn’t step into the same river twice. He was right. The water in the river today is completely different from the water we bathed in yesterday. Yet it is the same river. …

The insight of impermanence helps us to go beyond all concepts. It helps us to go beyond same and different and coming and going. It helps us to see that the river is not the same river but is also not different either. It shows us that the flame we lit on our bedside candle before we went to bed is not the same flame that is burning the next morning. The flame on the table is not two flames, but it is not one flame either.

~ Thich Nhat Hanh, no death, no fear

Kindergarten Ethics

A little over half of those who read this blog live in the US and Australia, the two countries with the largest average carbon footprint per citizen. A reasonable number of the remainder of readers live in countries that are not that far behind these two "leaders." So I believe most of us are in a position to understand what Sharon Astyk wrote on her Casaubon's Book a few days ago.

With kindergarten ethics there’s enough food for every person in the world to eat to fullness, enough water to have everyone drink their fill and still a bit more to grow good things.  There are fish enough in the ocean for each of us to celebrate and enjoy a lobster or fish dinner once in a while.  There’s enough oil in the wells for us to visit beloved family and friends on occasion, and hold a huge family reunion feast.  There are enough trees for each of us to sit in the shade - all 6.6 billion.  There’s enough wealth for all of us to have clothes enough and shoes and a little house.  There’s enough space for all of us to have public parks and most of us to have a little garden somewhere.  There’s enough.  Not as much as you or I might want, having gotten accustomed to more, but enough to make people in Nigeria cry out with delight.  Enough to impress your own great-grandparents. 

In our "kindergarten ethics" worldview, there is enough.

But really, is there "enough"? 

We have yet to break out of our self-focused world and to, instead, look at the world as others see it. It is comforting to think that others can live as we who are fortunate live, comforting to tell ourselves that there is enough for everyone. I count myself in this group, for I still also get hooked by established ways of perceiving the current world situation and thus fail to do all I can, and should.

We live in a world of technology with access to vast amounts of information: a world in which it is our responsibility as intelligent people living in democratic societies to learn the truth even when that truth is frightening or depressing. We live in a world where the Buddha taught to do no harm: a world in which it is our responsibility as ethical people who upon learning what harm is to refrain from doing it.

Frankly, kindergarten ethics is fine for children. But you and I are no longer children.

We are grownups and have the responsibility to act wisely and compassionately. Our practice as Buddhists is not to withdraw from the world and to look after just ourselves. Our practice is to take the strength we derive from our meditation and learning and, with that strength, to turn to face the world. Our practice is making the hard decisions; it is finding the courage to accept the reality that we share this world with almost seven billion people and an uncountable numbers of other beings. Practice is recognizing the suffering of others as acutely as we feel our own.

Practice is realizing that there is NOT enough for everybody—and acting accordingly.  

Why did the Buddha Hesitate?

When Queen Maha Pajapati asked the Buddha to allow her to join the Order, why did he hesitate but give permission later on?

For those who are interested in the ordination of women, this is one of the most puzzling questions, which needs a great deal of contextual understanding.

When King Suddhodana, the Buddha’s royal father passed away, the duty of a wife to her husband was completed. It was the right time for Maha Pajapati to consider following the teaching and the practice of the Buddha seriously. But when she approached and asked for permission the Buddha simply said, “Please do not ask so.” The Tripitaka, which is the most important primary source, did not provide any reason for not allowing women to join the Order.

Many interpretations were given in later commentaries trying to explain the situation. This led also to common belief that the Buddha did not want to allow women to lead a religious life. This is not without basis. According to Indian social mores, to lead a religious life is not the path for women. Manudharma Sastra was very clear to spell out that salvation for a woman is possible only through bhakti (devotion) to her husband.

But Maha Pajapati was unshaken in her decision. After the Buddha had gone, she, along with 500 Sakiyanis (Sakyan women) from the royal court shaved their heads and donned the yellow robes. They followed him on foot until they arrived at Vesali where the Buddha resided. Upon arriving at the arama (residence) they did not ask to have an audience with the Buddha for fear of being rejected again. Ananda, the Buddha’s cousin and personal attendant, found them at the entrance covered with dust, with torn robes and bleeding feet. Many of them were miserable and in tears of desperation. He learned from them of their request and on their behalf approached the Buddha. Again, the Buddha forbade Ananda in the same manner, “Ananda, please do not ask so.”

There are various reasons to be taken in consideration in attempting to understand the possible difficulties or obstacles which presented themselves in the mind of the Buddha.

First of all Maha Pajapati was a queen who, along with 500 ladies of the court, knew only the life of comfort. To lead a reclusive life allowing them only to sleep under the tree, or in the cave, would be too hard for them. Out of compassion the Buddha wanted them to think it over.

Furthermore, accepting a large group of women to be ordained all at once would immediately involve teachers to provide them both instruction and training. The Buddha also could not make himself constantly accessible for them. The Sangha was not ready with competent teachers to handle a large crowd of women. This proved to be a reality later on when women were already accepted to the Sangha. Monks who could teach the nuns must be not only learned but also require an appropriate attitude to help uplift women spiritually.

The Buddha already received criticism from outsiders for breaking up families by ordaining either the husbands or wives. When Maha Pajapati approached him with 500 Sakiyanis, definitely this would be a major cause of criticism. Particularly Sakyas did not marry people from other clans. By allowing 500 Sakiyanis to be ordained would definitely affect the social status quo. But it was revealed that these women’s husbands had already joined the Order. Thus, the criticism that accepting these women would break up their families became groundless.

The fact that these women followed him on foot to Vesali is a proof of their genuine commitment to lead religious lives and removed the doubt that their request might be out of momentary impulse.

These could have been some of the reasons behind the Buddha’s hesitation. The Buddha needed the time to examine both the pros and cons to their request.

Ananda also tried to understand the Buddha’s refusal. Is it because women are not capable of achieving spiritual enlightenment? If that is so, then ordination, a spiritual path is open only to men. To this, the Buddha made it clear that both men and women have equal potentiality to achieve spiritual enlightenment.

We have to mark this statement, as this is the first time in the history of religion that a religious leader declared openly that men and women are equal on spiritual grounds. Previously in the Hindu context, the Vedas, the most sacred religious texts, were available only to men. Buddhism has declared that the highest spiritual achievement transcends obstacles or discrimination of gender. With this important reason, the Buddha allowed women to join his Order.

~ Chatsumarn Kabilsingh, Ph.D.