What Can One Person Do?

"In the face of war, social injustice, religious conflict, corporate greed, what difference can one person make? Why should one person even try to make a difference? The odds are so overwhelming. It's pointless."

Frankly, that doesn't matter. We do what is right simply because that is what it is—right.

I don't refrain from striking another person because I expect that action will lead to the end of violence, but because not hitting another person is the right thing to do. I don't refrain from lying to my spouse because I think my actions will convince everyone to be honest, but because being truthful in any relationship is the right way to behave. I don't refrain from cheating a customer because I know he'll never find out and I don't like the color of his skin, but because treating all people equally and with respect is the right way to interact with others.

I refrain from wrongdoing because even if no one would have known of the wrong I did and even if my right actions have absolutely no effect on others, doing what I might have done would have simply been wrong.

Everything is Perfect?

 

Before I left Indiana for this trip to Australia, I was asked about a phrase the person had read in Buddhist books, "Everything is perfect." Considering the state of the world, she was wondering how it could be possibly called "perfect."

The explanation was as she thought it might be.

Everything is perfect doesn't mean that everything is wonderful and could not be improved upon. It means that everything is exactly the way it is supposed to be. The rain is perfect because it is supposed to be raining. The sunshine is perfect because it is supposed to be cloudless day. So when it rains, I can relax and enjoy the rain; be it a soothing, gentle rain or a welcome downpour that will fill our water tanks. On sunny days, I can revel in the glorious, clear sunlight that almost glitters on the leaves of the tree outside my window.

Those two examples are fairly straightforward. But what about war? What about global warming? What about people who are starving? How can anyone possibly say these are "perfect"?

Again, perfect does not mean something is good, it means it was destined to be that way due to former thoughts, speech, and actions. As horrible as war, global warming, and starvation are, they are the appropriate consequence for the cause.

But saying the consequence fits the cause in no way means we can simply shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well, it's their own fault." The first vow of bodhisattvas is to help all beings. Remember, the "perfect" consequence is not good, it is "appropriate." The phrase everything is perfect is said to help us understand why things have happened. As compassionate human beings, we need to try to help others. We need to find the way to end our anger, to help remove the cause of future wars. We need to live as modestly as possible to have a minimum impact on our environment. We who have more than enough need to share what we have with those who have little to help alleviate their hunger.

"Everything is perfect" can also serve to remind us that our consequences will likewise be "perfect." So if we want these consequences to be good, we need to choose our thoughts, speech, and actions wisely.  

The Paradox of Our Age

We have bigger houses, but smaller families;
More conveniences, but less time;
We have more degrees, but less sense;
More knowledge, but less judgment;
More experts, but more problems;
More medicines, but less healthiness;
We've been all the way to the moon and back,

but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor.
We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever,

but have less communication.
We have become long on quantity, but short on quality.
These are times of fast foods but slow digestion;
Tall men but short character;
Steep profits but shallow relationships.
It's a time when there is much in the window, but nothing in the room.

 

 ~ Dalai Lama

 

Not Yet Ready to Save the World

Question: I was wondering, I don’t have any 'altruistic' desires, to help the world. But I do want to stop my own suffering and improve my own happiness.

By ridding myself of the negative deeds, mental and physical, if I say to myself that it's enough for me to simply be happy and do these things, without having a desire to 'save the world', so to speak, does it mean that Buddhism is not for me because it seems from the thread above, to reach enlightenment is the ultimate aim we should strive for, which I don't. Doesn't this also mean that Buddhism is not the religion for me because foremost, I don't want to be a Buddha, and that being happy is just good enough for me, even if I continue to be in samsara, but in good rebirths?

Response: The mind to help all beings takes time to develop. Initially, we do not have this mind, only the wish to end our own suffering. We start from where we are, so you can still learn from and practice Buddhism. In the US, many of the people I teach are Christians. They feel Buddhism enhances their own beliefs and that there is no conflict as Buddhism is not a religion but a teaching of how to awaken. 

The basic teachings are to do no harm, to do what is good, and to purify the mind. You don't need to want to become a Buddha to practice these three precepts. The Buddhadharma teaches us to be moral and self-disciplined. Living a moral life is necessary for us to enjoy good rebirths. The Buddhadharma also teaches us to conserve our good fortune and how to keep creating more. We need good fortune as well if we are to enjoy good rebirths.

So the Buddha's teachings show us how to have good rebirths and how to have a happy life now.  

Near a Forest, a River, or a Brook

 

Among the followers of the Buddha, including lay practitioners, there were Buddhas of the past and great bodhisattvas. They manifested as ordinary people but were actually saints. The Essentials says: “The sound-hearers were listed first because they assumed the appearance of one who has renounced the world, because they always followed the Buddha, and because the spreading of the Dharma depends on the Sangha.” The sound-hearers always appeared as monastics who had renounced the world, but the bodhisattvas did not always appear as such. Most bodhisattvas had the appearance of lay people. The bodhisattvas did not always follow the Buddha but the sound-hearers did because they had not completed their study. The sound-hearers were bhiksus, and bhiksus were students of the Buddha who had not completed their study and thus needed to constantly follow the teacher. The bodhisattvas had completed their study and could thus leave the teacher’s side.

There was no set place for the Buddha to teach. Where did he teach? In a forest, by a river, or near a brook. There were no buildings or any facilities. They slept under the trees and ate one meal a day before noon. They lived in the wilderness. When the kings and ministers heard about the Buddha, they were full of admiration and sincerely wanted the Buddha to live in their countries to teach. The Buddha accorded with the conditions and went wherever people invited him. He was able to spread his teachings to a large area and to truly benefit all beings. The bodhisattvas also went everywhere to teach. Because there were many places where the Buddha was invited to teach and because he could not go to all of them, sometimes the sound-hearers were sent out to teach on his behalf. After teaching for a period, the students would come back, and other students would be sent.

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