Crazy wisdom

People aren’t random enough. They should say more funny things and do more funny stuff. A few nights ago my housemate said to me, ‘I want to go out’ so I said, ‘let’s go clubbing downtown this Friday.’ And then he shook his head and said, ‘I want to do something wild; something stupid. I want to do something I’ll regret later.’ So I laughed and asked why. He said ‘because I feel like I haven’t done enough crazy things as a young person.’

So I suggested we go and steal a roadworks sign. It was mostly a joke. But I think this is the result of people who don’t engage in crazy wisdom. They see so much potential for humour, parody, and satire in their daily lives but they don’t act on it; worse still, they don’t parody themselves, which is the conceptual starting point for crazy wisdom. It is the best way to entertain kids and also means you don’t need to watch your own back as often. I don’t censor myself because there’s a difference between verbal censorship and manners. As long you follow guidelines (in the Buddhist tradition, it must not be gossip, nor can it be directed in a way that is unbeneficial, and it is unacceptable to say something for its own sake), you will generally be able to treat others with the according decorum.

A lot of adults get caught up in ‘manners’ and end up with no humour. It’s a lousy attitude. We should risk more, to risk laughter. This is a separate endeavour from politeness. Politeness is often equated with ‘distance’. That’s only for people you don’t know. But crazy wisdom brings laughter no matter who experiences it.

I’m not a Catholic, but Pope Benedict XVI put it best: ‘Humour is… an essential element in the mirth of Creation.’ So damn true. In particular, it is the light-hearted occasions that really allow writers, philosophers, poets and artists to get back on track when they need to do serious work. Crazy wisdom also acts as a ‘gauge’ for you to tell how grounded you are in the problems of everyday life, and best of all, you can’t be accused of insulting others, because this humour is as random as greeting someone with ‘Yahoo!’

Buddhism as a religion of ‘true power’

To most people, a powerful leader who guides and teaches with a benevolent hand is much more deserving of reverence than a tyrant who oppresses with an iron fist. I believe Buddhism is a spirituality/religion that puts one in a position of great power. This power, understood in the context of Buddhism, empowers one with the ability to liberate all sentient beings from suffering. Therefore this is power not in the conventional sense, but understood in the context of Buddhist religious anthropology.

Why did Buddhism open up a path to ‘true power’? We should examine the history of early Buddhism for answers. Before his journey from the palace, Siddartha himself was originally a prince, and princes of the day would have been trained in politics, military strategy, martial combat, and administration. The competition to win Yasodhara as his wife was through a contest of wrestling, riding, and archery against other nobles - those who were Aryans; who had fallen upon weaker classes and subjugated them in the name of ‘our king; our noble blood, our caste’. This understanding of power was of course incomplete, and was only fully refined when Siddartha renounced the very lifestyle which supported this powerful elite. ‘Power’ came into true ontological realization when he gained a cosmic victory against Mara under the Bodhi Tree. Even in Buddhist communities today, people talk of the Buddha’s Enlightenment as a ‘triumph’ over Mara, a ‘victory’, a ‘conquest’, the ‘vanquishing’ of evil. The early model of Buddhist practice, the arhat, means ‘Conqueror’ or ‘Victorious One’ in Pali. Hardly a meek representation of spiritual fortitude, if you ask me.

Seen this way, Buddhism realistically began as a religion amongst aristocratic, royal, military and intellectual elite trained in swordplay, archery, and horseriding; men who were attended to by adoring courtesans and humble servants. They were ‘warriors’ in every sense of the word, who originally looked down on ‘lower’ peoples as scaffolding on which their higher existence had to be built. That is, until one of their own, Prince Gautama, began his own journey to vanquish suffering - a ‘declaration of war’ in itself, by a powerful warrior against an equally, ontologically formidable foe.

Although by the time of his Enlightenment he had relinquished this power, the might of nobles and aristocrats is not simply residual. Many of the original lay and monastic disciples of the Buddha came from rich, noble, or warrior class families. Sakyamuni himself taught often at places equivalent to the Roman villas, and preached the Dharma to queens and kings in their palaces.

From this origin within the noble caste of India, Buddhism derived its spiritual glory and influence, having nurtured in its aristocratic converts a lofty and ambitious spiritual gentleness and love, values that came into a tense co-existence with their own understanding of themselves as ‘privileged’. It is this genealogical existential tension that made Buddhism throughout the ages such an inclusive and ethically universalist religion.

Most religions such as Christianity began as a spiritual rebellion against the oppressive worldly powers; i.e. weak vs. mighty, oppressed vs. oppressor, Jew vs. Roman. Pope Benedict XVI once wrote about God: ‘exterior power is not a sign of his presence.’ Throughout the history of the Jewish people and through to the era of Jesus, God is always siding with the weak and humble in the face of the mighty Egyptians, Babylonians, or Romans. Let me make clear that this is a worthy endeavour and I’m not arguing against it. All religions fundamentally work towards social justice. I’m just stating what I believe is an orthodox interpretation of Judaism and Christianity. But Buddhism, in contrast, was instated by a man born powerful, who most would consider an oppressor by nature: a prince of noble blood. We must not forget that he himself became profoundly aware of suffering even as a young boy, when his father the King took him to a festival, where the weary slaves, farmers and cows who toiled away at the soil distressed him to no end.

Therefore, Buddhism - Gautama’s final answer to this suffering - was born of the noble caste. But in defiance of the religious norms of the day, it accepted disciples of ALL social strata. You can see the ‘benevolent power’ of Buddhism working today in the form of the Bodhisattva. In Mahayana Buddhism, the Bodhisattva has ten ‘levels’ or bhumi to aspire towards over countless lifetimes in her quest to liberate all beings. In religious iconography, 9th bhumi Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara and Manjusri are decked in items symbolic of great ‘worldly’ power, such as jewels and lavish robes. Yet this is fundamentally what distinguishes a Bodhisattva! The religious symbolism is not unintentional!

That is why I do not believe George W. Bush understood what ‘true power’ is when he invaded Iraq and claimed ‘God is on our side’. There is a big difference between a minority of oppressed Christians in Rome singing for God to destroy their enemies and a neo-conservative American president who does the same 2000 years later, except this time with nukes. This is not power, but megalomania.

Because the religion of Buddhism originated with the noble caste, those who were once in a position of worldly power understood how it operated and subsequently, with the exception of some strains of sectarian Buddhism, ‘power’ has been understood correctly as ‘that boon which the powerful can give freely to those weaker and meeker than they’. How could the nobles do this? Because they, having an understanding of Dharma and an understanding of power to begin with, became the most revered leaders. Chief among them are Sakyamuni Buddha, King Asoka, and many untold leaders who have set the path for ‘true power’.

Even now, at this very moment, the noble Buddha is working towards guiding many of the young generation to an understanding of this vision.

In conclusion, power, for me, is to be a Disciple of the Buddha. Through this I can serve the cosmic and sublime Mahayana, the vehicle of emancipation for all sentient beings in all time and space.

The Seriousness of the Crisis

Months ago the so-called ‘Saffron Revolution’ brought renewed attention to the brutality and injustice of the Burmese military junta.

However, the cyclone disaster of recent days is no less urgent proof that the Burmese government MUST be defeated and brought to justice. Whether you play a small or large part in the current humanitarian effort in Burma, I urge you to increase internet exposure of this letter as much as possible.

An Open letter to ASEAN

The Irrawaddy, EDITORIAL, May 8, 2008

Rangoon, Burma – As a major humanitarian crisis in Burma unfolds and the death tool reaches 100,000, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Burmese military government is not doing enough to save lives.

This is a regime with a solid a reputation for deception and suppression of the truth. However, the reality of the cyclone’s devastation and the junta’s fatal intransigence and stubbornness cannot be swept under the carpet.

The world, again, feels sympathy and is ready to offer aid packages to Burma. The military regime’s slow response to the disaster and the reluctance to allow relief to disaster zones has been a disgrace.

The junta’s troops and members of the servile Union Solidarity and Development Association—who were all visibly active in attacking Buddhist monks and activists during the September uprising—are now conspicuously absent in the battered flooded streets of Rangoon.

Meanwhile, state-run media runs repeated footage of well-groomed generals and officers handing boxes of food and water to humble recipients.

This is a crisis. However, it is also a great opportunity for the regime to embrace the international community and cooperate with the rest of the world to help the cyclone victims, rebuild their communities and, ultimately, save lives.

So far, the signs are not encouraging. Though the Burmese leaders have officially asked for assistance, aid agencies have made it clear that supplies are being prevented from getting through. Six days after the cyclone, the World Food Programme could only confirm nine tonnes of food delivered to the needy; another 124 tonnes of rice, beans and high-energy biscuits remain sitting at Rangoon Airport or in transit.

UN officials, ambassadors and foreign diplomats have been denied or are still waiting for visas to enter Burma.

Until yesterday, a UN “disaster assessment” team and a group of experts were still waiting in Bangkok for clearance to travel to Burma, according to Rashid Khalikov, director of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

US President George W Bush and his wife, both staunch supporter of Burma’s democracy movement, offered their country’s help.

What a perfect opportunity for the Burmese regime to start working with its critics.

On Tuesday, Bush again reached out to the urged the military junta. “Let the United States come to help you, help the people,” he said. “Our hearts go out to the people of Burma. We want to help them deal with this terrible disaster.

“We’re prepared to move US Navy assets to help find those who’ve lost their lives,” he said, but added that in order to do so, “the military junta must allow our disaster assessment teams into the country.”

The US also announced it has increased its financial contribution to $3.25 million and eased some of the economic sanctions on Burma in order to facilitate aid to the cyclone victims.

A Pentagon spokesperson confirmed the US Navy has three ships in the Gulf of Thailand, including the USS Essex, which is carrying 1,800 marines, 23 helicopters and five amphibious landing craft.

“The military has vast resources and experience in dealing with this type of situation,” Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters.

“And we stand ready to provide that expertise and those resources to the Burmese people, hopefully, when their government sees fit to ask us to provide them.”

It is the high time the regime in Burma accepted such offers to help save lives and rebuild communities hit by the cyclone.

On Wednesday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the United Nations should invoke its “responsibility to protect” civilians as the basis for a resolution to force the delivery of aid to Burma, even if has to do it over the objections of the military government.

Some senior UN officials and humanitarian officers including John Holmes, head of the humanitarian section at the UN, feared that this would lead to confrontation. He said that negotiations are still going on with Burmese officials and making some progress.

Unfortunately, the victims of the cyclone cannot wait while diplomats sit around tables and chit-chat. People are dying.

The military leaders cannot pretend they are capable of dealing with the disaster themselves. To do so, in fact, constitutes a crime of negligence against the victims of the cyclone.

To date, the Burmese military government has failed miserably. It is incapable of mounting a relief effort of this scale.

This has nothing to do with sovereignty and national pride. When the deadly tsunami struck in December 2004, international aid and US naval assistance were warmly welcomed by Indonesia.

We, the people of Burma, request the Burmese government to accept the offers from the US and the UN.

This is a win-win situation for the junta. It can use the disaster as a springboard to rebuild its relationship with the West.

However, if the regime continues refusing to cooperate and hampering the international aid effort, then forceful humanitarian intervention must be considered—not only to save the victims of Cyclone Nargis, but to help alleviate the suffering the people of Burma have endured under this repressive regime for too long.

The Life of an Artist

Everyone thinks that artists go through a lot of tough times. I have proof, right here. They will suffer embarrassment and pain. They will go through bad drawing days, misunderstandings, and even having to answer questions like ‘What’s yaoi?’

And then there’s those doujin artists who are forced to let their local imagination run wild so that they get extra writing material… to the puzzlement of their friends.

This is from a cartoon about senior high schoolers. I think it captures very well the quirks of a novice comic writer. If you don’t like satire or ‘poking fun’, you might not like this show. I for one think it’s hilarious. By the way, yaoi means something akin to ’sex between men’.

Categorizations and Limitations

I read a recent post about categorization, or more specifically, how it limits you, or confines you within spheres of thinking. The idea was that martial artists can fall into the trap of ‘categorizing’ themselves. I can relate, I currently am in that trap too.

For example, let’s take boxing as an example. A mediocre boxer will say he only boxes and he never intends to learn throws, grappling and groundwork. Within the boxing art itself, he will say he’s an infighter, with an arsenal of offensive fistwork. Is this not restricting in itself? Nevermind outboxing. Who cares about counters. Just rough-punch! This is limiting one’s boxing skills. Well, so the argument goes. One always needs a focus in practicality, but still, concepts can do a lot of damage if clung to desperately.

Often spheres of thinking overlap. The sphere of metaphysics, for example, often overlaps with logic and language. But I’m sure most philosophy professors will always stake their careers on their ’specialty’. For example, they might focus only on causality, or time travel, or some other metaphysical field, as what defines their careers. Yet no philosopher is ignorant of logic, and no philosopher is poorly-versed in language. Here, they also limit themselves to their pedagogical practice, and dare not venture beyond their sphere of influence.

Practically, there are good reasons for doing this. But to relate in this way interpersonally and intrapersonally is, in my opinion, not beneficial. Your can probably think of some reasons yourself, but if every single thing was the same about you, for all your life, are you not a dead bore? Don’t people get interested when you tell them you’ve tried a new hobby, or quit your old job, or visited another country?

That is why even though many things in life give us our identity, you should not be attached to them. At least, not as attached as so many people are to things that really don’t matter too much.

For me, I take this to heart. I have many objectives and goals, most of which I still haven’t realized, but in the end I have only one ultimate calling. No matter where I go, what I do, or how I end up, there is only one true quality to me - and that is as a Mahayana Buddhist disciple: Raymond Lam!

Religion in Modernity

Many people say the Buddha is like the God of classical theism, and many others say the Buddha is merely a human teacher who died 2500 years ago. Both views are not correct on their own. The historical Buddha is the ‘body’ of the Nirmanakaya, which in turn is a representation of the Dharmakaya which is not Creation nor Creator, but the Uncreated, Unborn, Uncaused, Essential ground of Enlightenment from which Buddhas and bodhisattvas all represent. The Dharmakaya means ‘Truth Body’, and this is the true, sunyata nature of all Buddhas and bodhisattvas, meaning that the Buddha indeed possesses transcendent qualities, although these qualities are envisaged differently compared to Christianity. To be free from samsaric suffering is one basic defining point for a Buddha, whereas in many theologies, God is not a truly a ‘worship-able’ God if he does not suffer along with his people!

It is interesting that the theology of professors and theologians is usually not those of your average Sunday church attendee. I think the lack of ‘expedient means’, i.e. teaching on different levels, is the cause for a lack of interest in the philosophy of religion on the greater part of young university students.

Perhaps people do not wish for this kind of life - constantly wandering the world, treading a fine line between being a critical scholar and a believer, trying to find something invisible - something often harder than any career. Some would prefer certainty in their beliefs, i.e. a more ‘basic’, fundamentalist stream of belief. I believe that a healthy religious person is always only 80% certain, or 90% at most. They are definitely never 100% certain, because anyone who is 100% either foolish, unreflective, or closed to every other perspective in the entire world! Why can I say this with a degree of certainty? Because if one is certain of one’s POV without any exceptions, how can one take any other opinion truly seriously? I don’t think there is really any opportunity or condition to.

In the end, although it is far too complex for just one post, but the philosophy of religion is in fact a good starting point if one wishes to ’search’ for what could be True.

Are you searching?

I am also looking for that sublime reality. My personal search for the face of the Buddha.

Infused Passion

Outsiders often mistake the serenity of Buddhist practice for an apathetic indifference to the world. Even the most reclusive monk would be the first to tell you that this is not the authentic intention. The question one should ask is, as a modern layperson with secular commitments and leisures, how does one distribute the appropriate time to each activity one engages in?

It’s a common theory that people in relationships become unhappy because the other party does not pay enough attention to them, or does not express their affection or desire often enough. Likewise, the bodhisattvas who watch over this particular world-system, while freed from what we experience as ‘unhappiness’, also hope that those who start on the Noble Path will stay on it. I always joked that higher beings are hesitant to reveal themselves directly to most people because if they showed up and told us exactly what to do, we’d be walking their path, not our own. Only in certain pivotal moments in history have the divinities seen it crucial to intervene in human affairs when humans were in ontological danger. For example, did you know that after the Buddha attained Enlightenment, he was thinking of leaving the world without teaching anyone? He was worried that due to the difficulty of the teachings, no one would understand him.

But in the words of the God who convinced him to remain in the world, ‘in the muddy lake, a lotus will rise above the dark waters and blossom!’ No matter how few, there will be people who will understand and follow, and is this not reason enough?

Is this not encouraging to you? It is possible to ‘realize’ and ‘develop’ passion, or the other way round. The possibilities are not limited at all; because everyone has different priorities on their different vocations. You only need to ask sincerely, and you shall receive an honest answer.

We shall rise above the dark waters together, and bring our lights unto the world.

The Noble Path

Study philosophy, not the media. Do not buy into the modern world’s perceptions of how life is and how one should live, because the modern world is full of people stagnating in mediocrity, boredom, impotence and general un-sexiness. You don’t need to go out in a blaze of glory like a supernova to attain a degree of fulfillment the mediocre can only dream about. One has many ways of going about this. One person’s attempts at setting goals and realizing them won’t be the same as another’s attempts to renew her career in a vital, vibrant way.

Neither should it be so. The noble path is a path of uniqueness. There is no set rule in the Noble Path except that of righteousness (Dharma) vs. heresy. To follow the herd mindlessly is paradoxically heretical because of the spiritually stunting process that one is subjected to via the media such as television and lower forms of culture (present in every society). To believe in one’s uniqueness, to live that uniqueness, is righteousness. Conversely arrogance is heresy because of its narrow view of the world - one that shuts of possibilities of being one could never have imagined. One might wish to be a teacher today, who knows? Many have encountered life-changing situations and risen to the challenge; this is righteousness. Do not be mediocre, at least unto yourself (impressing people for its own sake is also heresy). Arrogance also shuts off religious value, because one has to be open and have faith in the teachings for any progress to be made.

Bodhisattvas use four ‘means of attraction’ (samgraha-vastu) to win people over to the Dharma: generosity, beneficial deeds, kind words, and sympathy. This is a worthy starting point, if you have no idea where to start. I would say the only thing missing there is wisdom, but active cultivation wisdom is often more difficult to do than steadying oneself and offering a kind word or a favour to someone (it often depends on one’s state of mind, whereas wisdom is always in the intellectual sphere). The noble path begins once one is blessed with power; power of one’s own ambition and talents to serve a certain calling.

To be unique, to be noble, that is what the true gods want you to be. And you will be grateful! Lead by example: shine forth, whether like the wise and comforting moon or the passionate and purpose-driven sun - or both. All are One. That realization is when one attains mastery over what she wishes to master. Is that not noble?

- Student of the Buddha

Give Goths a break. (part 2)

Hello :) Following on from last session’s post, I don’t think one should condemn certain groups or subculture just because one is not part of it. It’s one thing to condemn an individual for following harmful and unproductive ideologies, it’s another thing to (maliciously) insult a group because of aesthetics. People aren’t too different from each other and tend to be pretty similar on the emotional level across all the spectrum. There are exceptions, but grant exceptions only to exceptions.

I believe that Goths can be misunderstood, discriminated against, and even bullied because of their unique taste in certain aspects of Western society. To name a few: their penchant for intellectualism and deep thinking. I hate to say it, but Aussies do tend to mix intellectualism with snobbishness, a common mix, but sometimes an illegitimate one. There are idiot Goths and there are smart Goths. There are stupid jocks and there are intelligent jocks. Only when one sees an individual as an individual, will one transcend her prejudices and bias.

Personally, I know only one Goth but if I was forced to judge the subculture based on her alone I would judge it as a great subculture. But this is not my agenda, rather it is to demonstrate that wisdom comes from an open mind just as one can only embrace others via open arms.

Speaking of which, starting next post I’m going to write more about philosophy of religion. Hopefully this is an inspirational boost/renewal to my blog.

Give Goths a break. (Part 1)

I have been interested in Gothic subculture during my long stay in the West. In Hong Kong, we don’t get many Caucasians wandering around in dark funky designs, crucifixes and ankhs. To be honest, I could never see myself as a Goth. My Buddhist loyalties do not seem to fit with the aesthetics of Goths (most Goths tend to be tolerant and benign, it;s just that their sense of aesthetics pretty much defines what Gothness is).

I like Goths because I like a band called HIM, whose aesthetics are Victorian-esque and reminiscent of romanticism and neo-romanticism. Their lyrics are also dark, morbid, and at times eroticized. Similarly, this is the common impression of Goths to many people and does hold some truth. But from my little exposure to them (I have no idea where to meet more), they are not all BDSM freaks, nor are they in favour of child sacrifice or Satanism. No. Goths, for me, have an interesting culture and ideology. That’s all.

Many people do not realize that Goths choose to identify themselves so primarily because of aesthetics, as opposed to ethics or politics. Goths, admittedly, don’t really seem to know what they exactly stand for, since there’s no hard, universal definition of Goth, but that’s okay, the majority of young people haven’t figured that out anyway, Goth or no. It seems many do possess some mild cynicism because of their recognition, identification, and grief over societal and personal evils that the mainstream culture wishes to ignore or forget (from Wiki).

Furthermore, according to Wiki, the subculture is marked by its emphasis on individualism, tolerance for diversity, a strong emphasis on creativity, tendency toward intellectualism, and a dislike of social conservatism. From this description, and from their taste in clothes, art, literature and music, I find it interesting why this subculture is so misunderstood and at times discrimination and rejection.

In my next post I will explain, from my own experience and my own reading on the subject, why I think Goths are misunderstood and deserve better as an alternative subculture. I’m not, I assure you, talking out my ass. Aside from the usual Buddhist compassion for all sentient beings, there is another agenda I have here.