A Buddhist Monday

I feel sorry for Buddha. He'd probably be very unhappy were he still be alive and see what the world has come to in this eschatological age which some Buddhists call "the Final Age" (末世). But then, according to the belief of some of his followers, he should always be around, ready to offer help to those who would follow him. I keep an open mind on whether that is possible. What prompted such thinking related to something which happened last night.

I went to another session of "spiritual guidance" of the UUHK after work yesterday.  It was given by a monk from Taiwan. This was his second talk. He used to be a computer engineer and is now nearing 60 years old. He tries to be self-aware all the time and be sensitive to what is going on around him especially the reactions of people who are listening to him. It is obvious that he still had to struggle to do so. But you can see that he is trying to be honest, not only to us but also to himself. The Buddha counselled detachment. That is easier said than done, even for monks. He confessed that he was being partial to one of the girls and was particularly concerned for her future. That was because he saw huge potential in her serving the Buddhist cause. The girl, a rather sweet girl who also attended the last session, confessed to having a bit of a problem with her romance and wanted some guidance. The monk claimed to be able to divine other's problems very quickly. He tried to read signs from the body postures and little unconscious signs off people's face, the way their eyes move and the tones of voice in which they speak to get the relevant clues. Perhaps after having done meditation for prolonged periods, he may have acquired a kind of sensitivity about other people's psyche by "intuiting" into the same. He claimed to be able to see what kind of former life he himself had and also what kind of person others he saw formerly were. He said that Li Ka Shing was a ""finance minister" of some kind of Buddhist kingdom in his previous life and that he himself was also a "flower sprite"some 5 former life ago and that the girl was a "river goddess"" in her previous life. He said when we are silent, we can "see" very far back in time. In addition, he claimed that his own master could do "distant healing" merely by the exercise of his will. Of course, there is no way one can verify whether and how he was able to tell. Somehow it does not make sense to me to speak of "kingdom"  when the Buddha said that all are just illusions.""Kingdom" is an entirely "earthly" concept, modelled upon human political structure. I cannot imagine that there can be a sort of "spiritual kingdom" having any "real" existence. If there is, it must be another "metaphorical" kingdom!

The way the monk expressed it was that was that he could "see" it. I suppose if that were true, he would probably be "seeing" whatever it is that he sees with his mind's "eyes", a kind of direct "feeling" because we know that to "see" with our body, we need a pair of eyes. Since I cannot imagine that the mind or the "spirit" can have "eyes", the use of the word "see" must be a metaphorical way of speaking. If the mind or consciousness can "see", it is inconceivable that it is not "seeing" only in the sense of by having a particular vague sensation which is "felt" or "received" by his physical brain, the kind of experience normal people would describe by the word "intuition". Having studied the brain for a long time, I cannot help feeling that that kind of sensation can be very convincing to those who subsribe to the Buddhist theory of mind and consciousness. After all, Buddhists must express all subjective experience happening in the brain by their established "dogma", albeit it one founded upon the experience of numerous monks who have practised meditation for prolonged periods of time and to that extent empirically "true".  But being convinced that one really "saw" somehing in the theatre of one's mind does not necessarily mean that one actually "saw" a physical reality.  The monk objected to my use of the term "spirit" or "soul" (靈魂) on the ground that it is too definite. He said that the Buddhist '靈覺' is a more general concept, less specific than what the word "spirit/soul" would suggest because a "靈覺"  could change its form any time. I suppose that maybe, he was talking of a kind of "universal consciousness". I think so on the basis of the Buddha having been credited as saying that individual consciousness will merge into the universal consciousness the same way a drop of water will merge itself with the water of the ocean of universal consciousness. If so, then it is no longer possible to distinguish which part of the sea is the consciousness of "me" and which part the consciousness of all the other "consciousnesses" which is "not me". Again, the language must of necessity be metaphorical.

To the monk, the law of Karma (業 ) is very powerful. Whatever we do, or even think will alwasys have an effect on the world outside. We must also be very careful about what we say and be responsible for whatever we say. I took note because I write a lot. He gave an example. Two lovers once made a vow to be united forever. In their next life: one became a small fish and the other a big fish and the small got eaten by the big! Of course, he was telling us the story merely as an example.What he was trying to say is that once we make a choice, that choice will have an impact in one way or another on the external world. I can accept that. But it is certainly a bit exaggerated to claim that the effect of the karmic law will extend that fa and be that literal. But I suppose that he was just trying to bring home the lesson of how powerful the law of cause and effect on karma is. One of the attendees then raised a question: "What caused the initial chain of cause and effect?". I said that maybe, everything just endlessly repeat itself: the chain of causation may be interactively circular with a lot of feedback loops and cause and effect may even be multi-directional and not necessarily linear and one directional. If so, then his question may become meaningless because it was based on a wrong initial premise. As to why it should be circular instead of linear, I do not have any explanation. Maybe it is just the way things are. If so, we just live with it. What good does it do to know why it is circular instead of linear if in fact that is what we find?

The monk also talked about other aspects of Buddhism which I knew already. It is not easy being a monk. One has to tailor one's talk to the level of the audience because some of the attendees did not have a high level of education. He did try to emphasize one point which I found rather surprising. He said that we may rely upon the good karma of those who have achieved buddhahood (修成正果).. He called this relying on external assistance or force or energy or effort (他力). He said that with assistance of those who have attained "completion"(完滿), then we may save a great deal of time in achieving our own "completion". He said if we seek help from someone who is very powerful. we may achieve enlightenment in one life instead of three. Of course, he talked based on the acceptance of the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation and nirvana. This to me, seems a very Tibetan type of thinking. Hence their constant invocation of the names of various kinds of Buddha in chanting. But to me, that seems only a kind of self-hypnotism or self-fulfulling prophecy. Having what social psychologists call "confirmation bias", it is most likely that those who believe in the doctrine will see only "confirmation" of the good effects of the doctrine of external assistance . Like all other superstitions, when things do not happen the way the invoker expects, then another ready made superstition may kick in. They would explain the non-occurrence of the expected result by some such explanations like: that one was not  fervent or sincere enough, that some words or rites were not said or performed properly, that the Buddha thought that it might not be in someone's "true" interest that his wishes or petitions be granted etc. The Catholics too have a similar concept called the "Communion of the Saints" according to which which we may ask saints and specially powerful people who found favour with God to "intercede" for us e.g the Blessed Virgin Mary. It's only human to want to think that we can obtain assistance from someone else infinitely more powerful than we are. Whether or not there is any efficacy in such prayers is however highly debatable. Studies of the efficacy of prayers show very little correlations between prayers and the recovery rate of heart patients and but prayers have rather more effect on those patients who knew that they are being prayed for than on those who did not know. Perhaps the explanations lies in the relaxation of the immune system upon the firm belief of those who knew that they were being prayed for.They would recover because they think that supernatural help is being asked for on their behalf by virtuous people.  The true effect may well be the belief itself which help to ease the mind of the patients and therefore remove the restraints otherwise placed upon their immune system by their anxieties and fears, so that it will then be able to do its job more efficiently! Like all religions, the monk said that we must first sincerely and respectfully believe in the efficicacy of the source of such "external effort/energy/force" (他力) before it can have effect. Exactly what Jesus and the Christians taught! Perhaps they teach the same thing because human beings everywhere share the same kind of psyche!

The greatest surprise of the evening to me, was the claim by the girl sitting next to me that she had received some pills said to have curative effects on her skin rashes from a Tibetan Rinpoche. The Tibetans do go in for this kind of magic "charm." She appeared to be completely convinced that she got cured after two days because she used them.  She showed us some pills the size of "salted prunes bits" (話梅粒 ) and some even smaller pills, the size of 六神丸. They smelled really good. She also showed us a bottle containing "holy water" also said to have miraculous effects.  The Buddhists are just like Catholics! But I think it's probably another case of psycho-somatic healing. What is truly remarkable was her claim that after having been given to her, the pills would continue to "grow" and to "breed" even after they had been placed inside the two little plastic bags! If so, it would be another case of Jesus producing wine from water which never ran out and the story of "five loaves and two fishes" being forever self-replenished so that after feeding 5,000 people, the leftovers were sufficient to fill 12 baskets (why 12? Is it to match with the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 disciples of Jesus?  The "coincidence" is simply too remarkable to raise suspicion that it was just a concorted "miracle" !). However, just like doubting Thomas, I would not believe unless I actually see it. But I don't think that I would have the chance to count the pills carefully before and after the relevant dates when the the so-called "miracle" self-growing pills are claimed to have "bred" more children and grandchildren pills!

After the meeting, we adjourned to a nearbly 大排檔 in the Urban Council Market which one attendee said he frequented to continue our discussions. I was very surprised to hear the monk say that if I accepted the Buddhist faith, then I would probably become a very powerful "general" for the Buddhist cause. I did mention to him that my Buddhist mother once told me that in my "previous" life I was a junior monk! But it is true that I found it very easy to understand Buddhist ideas. But he did not either confirm or deny this claim. After the monk left, we continued our discussions. I told one of my friends who was always trying to get precise definitions of words that religious language is neither analytical philosophical words, nor scientific words, nor yet words to describe the material world but are metaphorical or poetic words in that they merely suggest what they could mean and the hearer must supply their own meaning through the use of their own imagination! That was why it was no good to treat religious terms as if they were philosophical or scientific terms. A misunderstanding of the nature of religious language will often lead to dead-ends if we persist in using the wrong kind of tools to probe the life of the spirit! Religion must be approached on its own terms. You either accept it or you reject it. I adopt the same attitude as William James. The test of the pudding is in the eating!