The interesting things from 8-10 May
The first incident happened on Friday afternoon. I was on a work call, when I noticed that my phone was vibrating. This was quite odd, as my phone is always on Do Not Disturb. I glanced, and saw that there had been FIVE missed calls from a “No Caller ID” number. So I muted myself on the work call, and picked up the “No Caller ID”.
Hello, I am living at Blk ___ at unit XX-YY. Is this number 9XXXXXXX? It sounded like an old man with a relatively higher pitched voice.
Me: er, yes?
Was it you who pasted a sticker on my door?
Me: oh yes!
I heard you are providing some type of service. What type of service do you provide?
Me: -completely confused- Oh! Er, I don’t provide a service… I was just posting a sticker to ask if you needed help, since you’re an elderly neighbour, and…
OH! So you’re a neighbour? Where do you stay?
Me: I’m at YY-XX
Oh I see! You’re just upstairs! What’s your name?
Me: I go by PJ.
TJ? What’s your real name? Why you don’t want to tell me your name? What are you hiding?
Me: Huh? no la, everyone calls me that, uncle.
Oh I see! So you go by TJ…. Wah, are you a Christian?
Me: no, I’m not….
Aiyoh, TJ, I tell you, you have a good heart! I tell you, you put all the Christians to shame. All these ….and he went into a very long story that involved the condominium chairperson who is supposed to be Christian but isn’t, other Christians who he was very disappointed with, an anecdote about his sibling’s “horrible” Indonesian maid, etc.
And all this time, my colleagues were on the other call. I broke out into a sweat.
——-
Exactly one week ago, my wife and I had been talking about this elderly neighbour. His apartment was visible whenever we walked past, and he also has a dog that tended to bark and growl at all of us: I’d tried making friends from a distance but the dog is too defensive. We noticed that he seemed to live alone. And with the Covid situation, I noticed that this neighbour’s apartment seemed to be quite dark and also that he seemed to be alone most of the time. I was a bit concerned, and we discussed that I should extend an offer to help however we can. As the Chinese saying goes, 远亲不如近邻 (“a near neighbour is preferable to distant relatives”).
So I went downstairs, and stuck a Post It with a message (see pic), listing my mobile number. As I wasn’t sure if the uncle spoke in English or Chinese, I wrote a short message in both languages offering help.
And I promptly forgot about it. Until the call on Friday.
——
Back to Friday, I was stuck in a dilemma: should I cut him off? Or should I continue the call? I quickly dropped a message to my colleague fronting the call, and dropped out of my work call, thinking I’ll very quickly get Uncle DC’s number and call him back.
It took a lot longer than expected, as Uncle DC gave very little chance to interject when he was talking (quite like a number of elderly men I’ve met through elderly dementia screening work). Uncle DC kept saying that God sent me to him, that he wanted to thank my parents for bringing me up well, and that I was a very good person. At one point, he even said something about needing my help to be his estate executor (!!) which is a bit too much I think…
But eventually, I managed to note down his phone number, confirm the number with him, and promised to call him back at some point. The incident also gave me a glow and spiritual uplift. After the call and my work call, I actually called my mum to tell her about what happened. She had a good laugh, but I think she was also proud of me as her son.
—-
Uncle DC has since been calling me daily, and it’s been a pleasure to chat with him. 🙂
It started with a mutual friend posting on Facebook, and the bhante (i.e. the Buddhist venerable) posting a comment. I replied to that comment, and we had an amicable exchange about sutta references, about how the Buddha looked like: I was referencing MN 128, MN 140, and DN 2, while he was talking about DN14 and AN4.36.
It escalated suddenly when I shared a link by Ajahn Sujato, which re-posted a paper written by ex-monk Piya Tan. The bhante replied with something along the lines of “thanks for sharing, but I do not wish to go through an interpretation by an ex-monk who selectively chooses scriptures based on his world view… I read the sutta as it is and keep an open mind about possibilities beyond mainstream historical or scientific explanations.”
To that, I replied with the following (which is verbatim with typos):
Bhante, thank you for sharing, and you are entitled to your view.
But if I may point out that the document I shared was also shared by a current monk (Ajahn Sujato) who has kept the Vinaya for a long time. Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Brahmali are also current monastics who also pointed to some of the same exact passages in the write up about the Buddha being mistaken for other ascetics and looking like other monks (which could be with hair up to two finger breadths long). So this paper might not be as meritless as your impression of the author might be.
“to read the suttas alone” without historical context is also a choice of personal interpretation based on a world view.
It is a pity that you are choosing this, at a time when there is new scholarship by people like Ven Analayo (another monk who ke),
who are comparing the Pali Canon with Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese parallels. This is probably the first time that this is happening historically.What would be the downside of understanding this research, especially since you are dedicating your life to the Path? Isn’t it important to understand the existing evidence whether your understanding of the Path is accurate?
The last two questions were genuine questions, because I think they are pertinent to all modern Buddhist practitioners. Afterall, it’s not like the Buddha Gotama is alive and a tweet away right now. So many purported-Buddha quotes are really fake news, and some of it seems to also have found its way into the Pali Canon.
Well, this bhante took offence: “I can see the trend of Piya Tan followers insulting monastics…”
I was very taken aback. If you were to read my Gmail exchanges with teachers like Ajahn Brahm and Brahmali, I think you would come across much more blunt and direct questions than the above… but if I came across as insulting, even if I didn’t intend to, I needed to apologize for that. So I clarified and also apologised.
I am sorry if you took offence at what I said. It was not an insult, and I am surprised that you are taking it as one: I have asked much more blunt questions on Dhamma to other monastics, and this is the first time i’ve been accused of insulting monastics. Nonetheless I am truly sorry since I clearly caused offence, which was not my intention at all. And i’m not a follower of Piya Tan at all. My teacher is the Buddha Gotama, through Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Brahmali, Ajahn Sujato and Ven Analayo.
In response, bhante replied “so you are using your teachers opinion to impose on other monastics of a different sect?… it is an insult to all the mahatheras who passed down the Digha Nikaya 14.”
Park aside the fact that the SAME mahatheras ALSO passed down the other suttas that he didn’t refer to (MN140, 128, DN2, etc.), I was a bit annoyed: selective cherry picking of evidence has always been a bugbear for me, because it is just bad reasoning.
But a part of me also was reminded by a teaching of Ajahn Brahm’s, which is that the monastics do have a higher status in the Dhamma & Vinaya because they give up more. And that no monastic is fully free of the defilements of sensual desire or ill will, until they’ve reached fairly advanced stages of enlightenment (basically the last two stages of non-returning and full liberation).
I was also reminded of the Buddha himself. Even when he spoke of the lowliest scoundrel, he always referred to them as “these worthy beings”. And if scoundrels are worthy of respect, let alone a monastic who (from whatever else I’ve heard) has been keeping the Vinaya well (this bhante does not handle money, for example, which is much better than 99% of the monks I’ve seen in Thailand and Sri Lankan cities). So I reflected that, while I disagree with his view and while I found his opinions and comments to be rude and disagreeable even for layperson standards (let alone for a renunciant!), I’ll just give a final reply, apologise and not respond after that, as I don’t want to cause more mental defilements in one who is dedicating his life to renunciation, kindness and non-harm.
So my final reply was this:
Bhante, it seems like you are taking offence and getting offended. I am sorry. It seems that it isn’t enough to follow MN139 and avoid conflict by just talking Dhamma… in that case, this is the last post I will put in reply to you, as I don’t want to cause more mental defilements in one who is dedicating his life to nekkhama, avayapada and avihimsa. 🙏🏻
I was asking a real question. There is new research on Dhamma that is only possible in this day and age when these cross studies are finally possible. I was asking the question not so much to cause offence, nor impose an opinion from my teachers, but a question from the position of someone in this day and age, and not in the Buddha’s time. To take whatever has been passed down as the sole truth without investigation is problematic, because there is so much masquerading as the Buddha’s original word. The Buddha’s words then needs to be tested by living the Eightfold Path.
It is a question I am myself answering by constantly investigating the Dhamma and Vinaya, and also practicing the Eightfold Path. That is also what the Buddha mentioned in the Kalama Sutta, which i will end here:
“Come, Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’ But when, Kālāmas, you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unwholesome; these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; these things, if accepted and undertaken, lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should abandon them.”
https://suttacentral.net/an3.65/en/bodhiHis reply to that was “I’m sorry you have to feel victimised even though you started the ad hominem tactics when you run out of solid scripture proof.”
I literally LOLed (and am still doing so) when I read that! I made the mistake of responding with a laughing emoji: in retrospect, that was probably not smart as it might have come across as though I was mocking him…. but I was (and am) literally just laughing because it is funny to me, especially when I definitely don’t see myself as being a victim in any way whatsoever (but he probably does).
—-
One of the striking things that my practice has taught me, is that we tend to see what we do not like in ourselves. And we are often blind to our blindspots.
So the first thing I did after the whole exchange was over, was to reflect on my behaviour and my mind state. Did I have ill-will? Was I trying to exert my ego? What did I take for my Self? How did I feel?
I think I was a bit annoyed with the cherry picking of evidence, and the reverse accusation by him that i was insulting him and the mahatheras, and “ad hominem tactics” when I never ever attacked him at all. Bhante’s comments also reminded me of the exchange between Citta the Householder and Ven Sudhamma in the Buddha’s time. Citta had responded to Ven Sudhamma’s comment, by talking about a hen that crowed and cawed, alluding to Ven Sudhamma’s comments being inappropriate whether by lay or monastic standards. I think Bhante’s comments were also inappropriate and rude, even by lay person standards.
But overall, my conscience is clear that I was really trying not to antagonize, and was trying to focus on improving our mutual understanding of the Dhamma. It is quite unfortunate that it turned out this way, even though I was trying to stick to the guidance of MN139 (the Aranavibhanga sutta, about avoiding conflict): I was focused on points of Dhamma, and not on the person. Perhaps I could have done it in an even more skillful way. Maybe this part was too personal “It is a pity that you are choosing this, at a time when there is new scholarship by people like Ven Analayo (another monk who ke),who are comparing the Pali Canon with Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese parallels. This is probably the first time that this is happening historically.”, even if I really didn’t mean this as an attack but was more talking about this new opportunity that has historically never happened before!
If anything, I don’t feel victimized at all. But I don’t feel happy either, because I actually feel quite saddened that an otherwise good monastic might very well be wasting his time, seemingly building a sense of Self around his Buddhist lineage and selective understanding… for if one is insulted, it’s a sign that there’s a self in there (you’re taking something as “me” and/or “mine”). It is a trap that I’ve seen a lot of people in Buddhist circles fall into, and is the result of the perversions/corruptions(vipallasa) of one’s views, perceptions and thoughts: one’s views shapes the perceptions, which then influence the thoughts that reinforce the views.
Bhante G (a famous Sri Lankan monk) once said, that the ego is very tricky as it tends to insert itself into things, even in Dhamma practice. I truly hope that the bhante I had the exchange with is able to break past this in his practice, and to achieve full liberation in this lifetime. I forgive him and bear him no ill will, and wish him well.
Feedback or comments?
*Updated date 10 May 20*