Buddhist Spectrum

Anger is hell and love is heaven

From a Zen story:

Daniel Stambler

Once there was a general of the imperial Japanese army, a brave samurai, who wanted to learn the essence of Zen. He sought out the advice of the renowned master Baso who lived alone in a mountain hut. He approached the master as he was meditating on a rock, and asked him, "What is the meaning of heaven and hell, honourable master?"

Baso stood up and spat in the general's face. The general was astonished and overcome with rage. He unsheathed his long sword and raised it above the master's head, readying to strike a mortal blow.

Baso lifted his finger and said, "You are now at the gates of hell." The general's face relaxed and he lowered the sword. Baso continued, "You are now at the gates of heaven." The general became a disciple of master Baso and soon achieved true awakening.

What is the source of anger? This Zen story teaches us how the problem of anger exists on several different levels.

The general was a warrior who had lived his whole life training to channel his anger into acts of violence to subdue others. That is what war is all about - violence is resorted to as a means of gaining victory over people.

Such is the soldier's way, and whole societies come to understand violence, and its source, self-righteous anger, as a justified norm. On the most basic level, master Baso spits in the face of that norm. He rejects the general and all he represents, the expression of anger and the killing which comes out of it.

Anger is essentially impatient, wanting to force a change now and not wait for any process to fulfill itself. The general wants an immediate answer to his question, he wants to understand Zen and the path of life in an instant, to force his way through the door of heaven, so to speak.

He is used to getting his way, and if his will is opposed, he beats his opponent down. Doesn't he sound very familiar? When we look around, and inside ourselves, we can find many examples of this form of anger. The general didn't ask the master for a spiritual practice, or a teaching that will guide him, he just wanted to strike gold in one shot.

He wanted the meaning of life without any effort, a kind of fast-food enlightenment. Just bring it all on. He made his trek up the mountain, wasn't that enough? We take a course in meditation, sit for a few weeks, and then wonder, what's wrong? Why aren't I enlightened yet? That impatience is another form of anger lurking under the surface, aroused when life and other people don't serve us what we ordered and expected.

The deeper teaching master Baso succeeds in transmitting to the general is of what anger does to the person who feels it. Most bluntly, it makes a hell for him or her. Even though it can create a rush of energy which is usually thrust into destructive action, anger always burns whoever experiences it.

It makes an enemy of the world, with other people as threats. It completely warps our judgment, just like the general who was about to kill the master just because he felt insulted. If his mind wasn't deluded by anger, would he have resorted to the sword, or would it have been more effective for him to just laugh at the situation? He missed the humour of a small, defenceless monk spitting at a huge, armed warrior.

Anger alienates us from the world and from our own ability to look at life and ourselves with less defensiveness. It burns up our sense of perspective. Anger hurts. What would we be like without anger? Well, master Baso points this out to the samurai: life would be paradise. Not the paradise of an oasis with beautiful music, people, and perfect conditions, but the paradise of being able to live with an open, receptive heart and mind.

A mind unobstructed by the flames of anger is a beautiful thing. Of course, the master tells the general when he drops his anger that he is at the gates of paradise. That doesn't mean he has entered paradise. Letting go of anger places us at the entrance of other qualities we want to cultivate, like loving, kindness and compassion.

Ending anger is the initial step which readies us for other spiritual practices and insights. That is why the samurai became a disciple of Baso after he let go of his anger, for he was able to more clearly perceive just how much he could receive from this teacher, and how much he had to learn.

In his anger he was still attached to his own sense of being right (meaning someone else had to be wrong,) and when he released his anger he no longer had to be in the position of right or wrong. He became a simple student of life.

You don't have to want to kill someone to know the effects of anger in your life. It arises any time we're sure we are right, and someone else is wrong. And more than that, we want to show them we're right and change them. We want to win, and for them to lose. But beyond winning and losing, being right and wrong, there is a unity we can only begin to perceive after we have let go of our anger. That places us at the gates of paradise.

To get to that point we first have to explore our experience of anger and become acquainted with all the ways it arises. How do you feel when things don't go according your expectations? What is your response when someone says something difficult or upsetting, or just plain rude, to you? What does anger do to your body and mind?

How does anger affect your ability to decide and act? And, more importantly, how do you feel when you let the anger evaporate? What does it feel like the moment anger vanishes? How do others appear to you when anger is totally absent?

If there is one thing master Baso teaches, it is that heaven and hell aren't out there somewhere, but they are conditions of the mind itself. Anger is hell, love is paradise.

Ambassador for Peace Award for Bhante Wimala

Manjarie PEIRIS

It was a peaceful and sunny morning in the capital of Kenya. Ambassador Ram Sharada and Hon. Njeru Kathangu, a former Member of Parliament of Kenya welcome Venerable

Bhante Wimala at the St. Johns basilica in the downtown Nairobi. They accompanied him to the Peace Centre located just a few blocks away from the church. In a simple and intimate ceremony, they awarded venerable Bhante Y. Wimala with a certificate of Peace Ambassador, offered by the Universal Peace Federation, International and Inter-religious Federation for World Peace.

The recipients of Peace Award are carefully chosen in recognition of their services as leaders representing the religious, racial and ethnic diversity of the human family, as well as all disciplines of human endeavor. They stand on the common ground of shared principles and are committed to the path of promoting reconciliation, overcoming barriers, and building peace.

"I was pleasantly surprised to see the excitement and enthusiasm of everybody who gathered there. I felt that their words and gestures came from their inner hearts with genuine enthusiasm. It was a great moment to witness such appreciation of the work that I do with so much dedication and enthusiasm." Said Bhante Wimala.

Ven. Mwalagho Kililo, the Secretary General of the Universal Peace Federation - African Region, Hon. Njeru Kathangu, Former Member of Kenya Parliament, Ambassador Ram Sharada, Rose Kegwiria of the Youth Federation for World Peace and Rangala Fredrick, the Deputy Director of Peace Festival, Kenya, were among the participants at this ceremony.

The Ambassadors for Peace should exemplify the ideal of living for the sake of others while promoting universal moral values along with strong family lives. They should help to strengthen inter-religious cooperation, international harmony, and renewal of the United Nations, creation of responsible mass media and establishment of global culture of peace.

They should surpass racial, national and religious barriers and contribute to the fulfillment of the hope of all ages - a unified world of peace wherein the spiritual and material dimensions of life are harmonised.

The Ambassadors for Peace serve as members on national, regional and global peace councils promoting and safeguarding world peace.

They contribute for development of a broad strategic alliance of partnerships among individuals, educational institutions, organisations, religions, corporations, the media and governments.

Bhante Wimala is the author of 'Lessons of the Lotus - Practical Spiritual Teachings of a Traveling Buddhist Monk' and 'Poems of Awakening'. The webpage of Bhante Wimala is www.bhantewimala.com

Bhante Wimala was also awarded with Global Peace Award in the US last year by the Peace Centre in the US. and the Council of Christian Churches. Bhante Wimala has been a Buddhist monk for 36 years and is known throughout the world as a spiritual teacher and humanitarian. He is the Chief Monk and Spiritual Director of Theravada Buddhist Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

He is also the founder and spiritual teacher of the e-Samadhi Buddhist Meditation Centre in Tupadly (Prague) Czech Republic, Founder of the Lotus Buddhist Center. Since 1986, Bhante Wimala has been the Chairperson and Spiritual Director of Triple Gem Society, the Centre for Conscious Evaluation, in Princeton, New Jersey, USA. He is also the Founding Director and Spiritual Advisor of Prison Ministries which serve many state prisons in the USA.

Bhante Wimala has been the Chief Sanghanayake of USA and Canada since 1994. In 1994, he was appointed as the Sanghanayake by the Council of Monks of the Samastha Amerapura Sangha Sabha of Sri Lanka.

Vegetarianism

Fad or fraud that hurts the economy:

Dr. Nath Amarakone

Cultural percentage of family per month

Grouping population income

Buddhists 69% Rs. 5,000

Hindus 15% Rs. 6,000

Islamists 7% Rs. 12,000

Christians 8% Rs. 13,000

A lot of publicity is given to vegetarianism as a food habit in this country partly by spiritualists and part by dieticians. The first group are sentimentalists who are caught in a dilemma about the interpretation of the Theravada doctrine of non killing observed as a part of the five precepts. These can be dismissed as a mistake, as the Buddha himself was not a vegetarian and did not advise the monks to follow this practice as explained clearly in an article by Shamika Soysa published in the Daily News of January 7.

The Buddha even disagreed with the group of monks who advocated total vegetarianism as a follow up of the doctrine of ahimsa. The second group is caught up in different aspects of nutrition needed by different body constitutions apart from the moral aspects in eating meat.

In any cases both these groups do not consider the economic aspect of vegetarianism on the farmer and fishermen who have to produce the animal products for the nation. Those who take to animal husbandry and fishing could increase their income levels by about twice as compared to those who refrain from such vocations. This explains why the non Buddhist farmers in this country derive a higher income compared to Buddhist farmers. Thus the economic plight of the Theravada Buddhists farmers of this country who follow the principles of vegetarianism on a spiritual level is most unsatisfactory and they continue to be recipients of state subsidy in the form of Samurdhi or poverty alleviation dole.

A significant part of the national budget is spent on the promotion of animal husbandry and the farmers who do not benefit from the support schemes are at a great disadvantage.

Who is a vegetarian and who is not is a matter of great controversy. Those who do not consume any form of animal product, meat or fish or egg are said to be total vegetarians. This group may hail from the Theravada Buddhist community being indoctrinated on ahimsa as a religious principle. Those who do not eat meat but eat fish and eggs are called semi vegetarians and more colloquially as, fishtarians or eggtarians. Most of them may belong to Hindus who avoid meat on Tuesdays and Fridays when they go to temple. Most vegetarians develop their liking for meat from their young days partly influenced by parental attitudes, religious dogma or due to abject poverty.

The vegetarian group in this country could well be less than one percent. But the damage that the dialogue on vegetarianism does to the production of meat is and animal products is very large as the entire Theravada Buddhist community comprising 70 per cent of the population are prone to avoid animal; raising as a vocation.

Those who avoid eating meat for health reasons and due to indoctrination is a microscopic minority, probably less than one percent of the population in this country. But there is a sizeable vocal minority who pursue propagation of vegetarianism as a spiritual even though this is against the preaching of trikotika mansa of the Theravada monks.

At a time when the Government is spending a vast amount of national resources in the promotion of animal husbandry, local production of milk and in vocational education, this is a matter that must concern the whole nation as it affects the costs of living of the 99 per cent of the population that need meat as a part of their food.

It is estimated that over 80 per cent of the Buddhist monks who preach ahimsa are consumers of meat under the trikotika mansa or sanctified meat escape route. In this regard they justify for their consuming meat as they have not seen the animals killed or not ordered the killing by themselves or participated in the killing of the animals. The trikotika mansa is considered as sanctified meat fit for consumption by monks.

This leaves the lay followers who have to supply such trikotika mansa for the alms to the monks in great dilemma. They have to depend on butchers from other communities or supermarkets to supply the sanctified meat. They simply have to pay a heavy price to provide trikotika mansa or the sanctified meat for the monks.

Most writers who propagate vegetarianism are totally unaware of the impact of vegetarianism on the economy. Farming to be efficient must be combined with animal husbandry. Making of compost fertiliser requires animal refuse. The principle of non killing leads to the killing of the economy of the farmers and the country as well. In fact the income that farmers derive from raising animals in a farm can be over 50 per cent of the total potential income.

The fad of vegetarianism propagated on a large scale is most damaging as the country as a whole needs the animal products. The non participation of Buddhists in animal husbandry had led to astronomical increase of cost of meat products. The monks may not be aware of this aspect as they do not pay for the alms supplied to them as alms. But laymen must take note of the reality.

The economic impact of propagating vegetarianism among the farmers in this country has left the Buddhist majority who are villagers and farmers in abject poverty. A survey conducted in 2005 shows the following monthly family income statistics (see chart).

This has resulted in the nation paying a high price for poverty alleviation on account of promotion of vegetarianism.

It is a pity that the Theravada Buddhists of this country do not realise that their mistake in emphasis on trikotika mansa has led them down the path of acute poverty.

No vegetarianism in Buddhism

E. M. G. Edirisinghe

Buddhism is neither a religion nor a philosophy in its original sense; it could be both. However, the right definition is that Buddhism is a doctrine which means the truth and nothing else.

One who partakes of food inclusive of vegetables only is a vegetarian. So one who could be a vegetarian on principle when he does not partake of flesh, animal or otherwise. On the other hand, one could be a vegetarian on medical grounds or on one's religious demands. A Buddhist however, in the light of above classification, is neither a vegetarian nor a non-vegetarian. Therefore, one can be a devout Buddhist without being a vegetarian. However, it requires a study of Buddhist principles involved in the application of the principle of vegetarianism as practised by many today.

One may slaughter animals for flesh, sport, pleasure or for one's own protection. This applies to murder of humans substituting conquest for sport, as well. What Buddhism concentrates is not on partaking of animal flesh but taking life of living beings. Flesh one eats after slaughter is similar to eating it reduced to the nature of a potato or cabbage. So the main issue that one should therefore think of is the slaughter of animals. Eating their flesh becomes a secondary matter. The first precept one undertakes to observe is to refrain from taking life. The Buddha said that a all beings whether animal or human love to live. They are terrified by cruelty and do anything to save their life from termination. Thinking of how one loves life thus, one should not kill or cause to kill. There lies the fundamental principle relating to taking life in Buddhism.

A Buddhist who is not directly involved in taking life of animals for flesh could indirectly promote slaughter if he relishes a dish of cooked meal. There lies his act of sin. His contribution towards slaughter in this instance may be insignificant or negligible, but is satisfied that he is not a party in anyway to contribute to taking life of an animal, and he does not want to fatten his body depriving life to another innocent being who too loves its life as we humans do. If the animal is created for human consumption its pattern of behaviour should be entirely different from that of man.

Since eating flesh is directly or indirectly linked to taking life of animals, it is pertinet to concentrate on what taking life (pranaghata) means in Buddhism. There are five ingredients that makes taking life to constitute a sin. They are, (1) the animal targeted for slaughter should be alive. (2) the one who takes its life should have the intention to kill. (3) Then he should devise a way to kill it (4) He should use that device to take its life and (5) the animal should dies as a result of that device. Then he has committed the sin of taking life. If the animal does not die of the device he used, but if for example, dies by falling into a pit while running away from him he commits no sin of taking life, but is only guilty of cruelty to animals. One may eat its flesh if he likes, of course not if he had the intention of trapping it in the pit so that he could enjoy its flesh.

Thus the sin is not in the eating of the flesh, but in causing cruelty to animals or taking their life. In a sermon to monks, the Buddha had said that they can eat flesh clear of three contaminations. They are (1) they should not have seen the animal being killed, (2) they should not have heard that it had been killed and (3) they should not have had any suspicion that it was killed for their consumption. If the meat offered to them is free of all these defilements, they commit no offence or sin by taking that meat which is 'cleared' and 'clean'. All these when answered in the affirmative, leads to indirect participation in the slaughter of an animal.

If someone with the intention of chasing away an animal which had strayed into one's garden, makes a noise and while the animal running away falls into a pit and dies, there is no taking of life of an animal. If someone eats its flesh, he commits no sin. He may be guilty of causing fear or panic in the animal.