Call a Plumber!

(excerpts from Aahn Brahm's interview with the Bangkok Post)

Making that distinction between the containers and the contents is the key to avoiding inter-religious strife, he says. So much conflict is instigated when others attack one's own containers - the symbols, texts, icons of one's religion. But one need not get upset if one can remember that they are just symbols, and focus on maintaining the contents, the teachings.

"When the Taliban destroyed the Bamyan Buddha statues, Buddhists did not allow themselves to seek revenge, because that would, in fact, mean the Taliban had succeeded not only in destroying the containers, but also the contents."

Similarly, he says, "A Muslim might say, 'I don't like those cartoons [referring to the controversy over offensive caricatures drawn of the Prophet Muhammad], but it's more important that we're friends. Forgiven.' Wouldn't it be wonderful if that happened?"

Following an incident where US soldiers allegedly flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet, Ajahn Brahm was asked what he would do if someone flushed a Buddhist holy book down a toilet.

"Call a plumber" was his reply.

Read the full article: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=9,3353,0,0,1,0*

Whither forgiveness...

... my contribution for the day on Malaysia Today

Big Storm in Little Teacup...

... not all Singaporeans regard everything Mr. Lee Kuan Yew says or does these days as superior logic - and the furore he has raised in Malaysia is one of these split issues. Some people feel his reference to marginalised ethnic Chinese in Malaysia was unnecessarily provocative. I am one of those who believe that some of Mr. Lee's ideas have become outdated for today's Singapore, but on the current controversy, I am fully behind him.

What sparked off the controversy was Mr. Lee's comment that the attitude of Malaysia and Indonesia towards the Republic was shaped by the way they treated their own ethnic Chinese minorities. By Seah Chiang Nee, 27th September 2006

Some choose to believe that MM Lee's remark was irresponsible, amongst a barrage of other things. Then, there is one who has spent a lifetime trying to best the bitter rival in MM Lee and loves nothing better than another chance to have go at him, regardless. Others think the good Minister has a hidden agenda. Young(er) Singaporeans like Chiang Nee thinks his views are archaic. But of all descriptions thrown his way, no one on either side of the Causeway has yet accused MM Lee of being a liar.

My view on this provocative issue is that MM Lee was merely stating the obvious. I am totally unaffected by the statement and I'm truly confounded by the intensity of ill-response generated towards it. I reason that it is because it has always been a truth, but rarely acknowledged. It has always been one of those things that people know but never speak of. Thus, MM Lee's statement comes as no surprise.

Chiang Nee is Singaporean. I'm Malaysian. We're both Chinese. And while anyone might think that my nationality by default makes me a victim implied by MM Lee's sweeping statement about my ethnicity, I am contrarily quite unbothered by it. Tomorrow morning, I wake up and continue with life in Malaysia as I have always known it. It doesn't look set for changes anytime soon. C'est la vie.

Allah is kind...

...merciful and forgiving plus 96 other ‘characteristics’. If our Allah can be all these, then why can’t we too since we too are his creation? When we say Allah is kind, to whom is He kind? When we say merciful, to whom is He merciful? And the same goes for forgiving as well. Who do we forgive if not those who transgress? We do not forgive our friends or those who have done us no wrong. It is our enemies we forgive. - By Raja Petra Kamaruddin in Malaysia Today, 21st September 2006

Indeed.

RPK was commenting on the Pope's quotation which drew worldwide condemnation, especially from the Muslim world. I say that because I am from a group of many who are not from the Muslim World but are not too keen on what happened either. Although for diversely different reasons, as a Catholic who staunchly believes in moderation and tolerance, I am against whatever reasons The Holy Father might have had to touch on a sensitive subject. The Muslims on the other hand, are likely to be unsure of exactly why and what it is that they are still angry about in spite of an apology already made.

Perhaps along the same vein with RPK's statement, this unfortunate event serves only to underscore the importance of sensitivities and awareness especially for others. We should not be unduly over-sensitive of our selves that we forget that there are others that we should empathize with.

Finally, what I feel should become everyone's golden rule; when in doubt, shut up and think first.

The Theory of Moral Sentiments...

... "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it" - Adam Smith

Adam Smith; most renowned as the father of modern economics. His lesser-known talent is for philosophy, or so it would seem.

How soever, I do think that the start of this line is a bit of an anomaly. He implies that no matter how selfish a person is, there are exceptional times when he does something for the sheer pleasure of seeing someone else happy. But since the pleasure derived from seeing someone else happy is his alone, isn't that selfishly motivated to begin with?

Not to be mistaken, I am in agreement with Mr Smith on this view. I am merely of the inclination that no matter how altruistic, magnanimous or municifent one might be towards an end, there is always a motivating factor behind it. It may be something as simple as going out of the way to see someone else smile or something as complex as allowing one's welfare to be sacrificed in exchange for some one else's good. There is ALWAYS a motivation... and love is normally the biggest culprit.