The Dharma

Lyrical Moments

Local radio DJ making imbecile comments about vegetarian food being nothing but a table full of mock meat made of tofu, and nothing else but tofu. He did make an apology for making such a stereotyped remark - but only after a few complaints from the public. Being a Buddhist vegetarian is not so much about what we eat, it's about saving and having compassion towards innocent lives. If I can save a handful of animals by eating the tofu for every meal, so be it. The ignorance of the DJ (which reflects the public?) really shows when he thinks being vegetarian is about eating mock meat, when there is a wide variety of vegetables and fruits to eat. Mock meat is just an extra choice, mainly to convince meat-eaters that the kinder alternative can tastes as good as the real thing, without the bloodiness.

Love is just a word.
Karma is just a word.
Enlightenment is also just a word.

Do you know by agreeing to the above statements, you are still trapped between words? The idea is to understand what each word represents and not get attached to them. In doing so, one goes beyond words!

Her Royal Highness thinks her royal paper bags are too precious to place on the bus floor. Or maybe she thinks her royal stuff would weigh too heavy on her royal laps. So she has to occupy one extra seat in a very packed public bus during a peak hour. Perhaps Her Highness did buy bus-fare for her royal stuff, which is why she is depriving us from sitting beside Her Highness in a public bus. Oh, aren't we all at Her Royal Highness' mercy?

"If a grudge arises towards any person, then one should cultivate loving kindness towards him, or cultivate compassion towards him, or cultivate equanimity.

Or one should pay no attention to him and give no thought to him.

Or one may apply to that person the fact of ownership of karma: "This worthy person is the owner of his actions, the heir of his actions; his actions are the womb, his relations and his protection. Whatever he does, good or bad, he will be heir to that."

These are ways to getting rid of a grudge."
- The Buddha, Angular Nikaya V:161

A friend told me a short story she read a while ago about being charitible. The story was about a bakery famous for their fresh stuff, disposed heaps of leftover breads at the end of each day. Once, the shop owner was interviewed by a reporter about the food wastage, wondering why he didn't think of donating the leftovers to needy homes. The owner replied that he does not feel right doing hypocritical philanthropy; if he was to donate to any home, he would ensure that only the freshest breads from the oven are delivered. But the truth was that he never donated any fresh bread, and kept throwing away leftovers. Is this not hypocritical non-philantropy? I think many misunderstand the act of charity. In the case of the owner, he argues that if he wants to do charity, he would give his best and not half-hearted efforts. But he did not realise that he was constantly depriving himself opportunities of doing good while being utterly wasteful. Yes, it is always best to give the best one can afford. Even though what the owner could afford were leftovers, they are the best sent to those who need them, instead of trash bins. Never look down on the things you can give away if your intention is noble.

On one occasion, when the Buddha and Ananda came to a villiage for their alms round, a little boy, upon seeing the Buddha, gave rise to the thought of generosity but found nothing that he could give. Kneeling down to grab a handful of earth and with a sincere mind, he made dana (offering) to the Buddha. After accepting his dana, the Buddha instructed Ananda to use the earth for plastering the wall of His room, telling Ananda that because of the boy's sincere dana, he will become the great King Asoka in one of his future lives. Thus, never belittle little acts of charity! Like they say, it's the thought that counts; not the gift.

An elephant is chained to a tree near circus tents. One wonders why a strong and fully grown elephant would let itself be chained to a tree, when it could easily unroot the entire tree and run free. Well, it was chained to a tree since young... and because it was small and helpless then, it did not have the strength to break free. After many attempts and getting itsef hurt, it's mind became transfixed that it can never ever break free.

Are we not like the baby elephant, stuck in self-limiting mindsets and surroundings which condition us to function "appropriately" in society since our birth? Are we not already "adult elephants", who forgot our true potential (Buddha-Nature)?

Like the Buddha's disciple, Ksudrapanthaka, we might be "slow in learning" and realising our full potential. But Ksudrapanthaka was able to gain enlightenment by sweeping and reciting "sweep clean" simply bcause he realised his mind to be full with delusions, not unlike the constantly dirty and dusty ground. As long as we are unenlightened, there is never a moment when purification of the mind is unnecessary. Let us constantly "sweep clean" our prefixed deluded mind to allow our true potential, the true Buddha-mind, to manifest!

To have a fulfilling relationship, be it kinship, spiritual friendship or love, you need two to build two halves of a bridge towards each other, across the chasm which both need to cross. A relationship does not begin with you alone, you need someone else. Yes, it takes two hands to clap. Without each party contibuting, co-linking, one cannot complete the bridge fast enough for the relationship to be meaningful. It is not impossible for a one-way bridge builder to connect after tremendous efforts, but a healthy relationship is an equal partnership and process of coming together. It is the meeting of each other "halfway" (across the bridge) without meeting each other "halfway" - it is mutual acceptance without feelings of compromise. The mutual bridging is symbolic of the union of minds - the basic foundation of any relationship. It is the bridging of deep communication and trust. The building of this metaphorical bridge is never-ending - as people change all the time. Bridging needs to be a constant and conscientious process.

If you are building a one-way bridge, beware - as it could be a symptom of obsession or "fatal" attraction, which might lead to exhaustion and disappointment. There is a limit of how far one can bridge if the other party refuses to "mirror-bridge" in return. S/he might even refuse to accept your bridging into his/her world. If your significant other is slow at bridging you might need to revise your bridging and its "architecture" (ie. quality of your understanding and giving) to troubleshoot the problems. If s/he has yet to begin any bridging despite much of your efforts, you should perhaps consider letting go... at least for the time being? Yes, it takes two to tango.

On spiritual bridging, the below is mentioned in the Shurangama Sutra - "The Thus Come Ones (Buddhas) in all the ten directions are mindful of living beings, out of compassion for them, in the same way that a mother is mindful of her child. If the child runs away, of what use is the mother's concern? But if the child remembers the mother in the same way that the mother remembers the child, then in life after life the mother and child will not be far apart. If living beings remember the Buddha, then certainly they will see the Buddha, either now or in the future. They will never be far from the Buddha, and their minds will awaken by themselves, without external assistance."

Here, we are reminded that all Buddhas have already built their halves of their spiritual bridges to all beings. In fact, they have even gave us the blueprints (the Dharma) on how to bridge in return. This is very touching... for it reminds us of that the Buddhas hold each of us dear, and are always mindful of us. Out of great compassion, they beseech us to be mindful of the Buddhas - so as to bridge the gap between our deluded selves and our Buddha-Nature (innate perfect Buddha-potential)!

~ Back to The Dharma ~