When a temple fund-raising degenerates into something more like a hungry ghost month celebration...

I just came back from a fund raising dinner for a temple with quite a bit of distaste.

Before this, I had pretty good impressions of the temple though I am not too familiar with it. But the dinner left me with a pretty bad impression.

There was an auction to raise fund for the new temple building. Personally, I don't think auction is a very suitable method for a Buddhist organization. But that's just me.

The auction did not go well. There were very few bids. The items were very highly priced. Most were more than ten thousands with a few items in the thousands. Not that the price were not justified. Some of the items were collectors' art work. However, the crowd did not look like the very rich type.

The problem I had was when the auction was not going well, they resorted to pressure tactics. They started calling out names and ask the named person to bid for a higher price. The contractor for the new building was there and was specifically ask to bid, dropping comments like "or perhaps we need to reconsider the deal..." What was worse was it was the abbot monk who went up on stage and was doing some of that. I thought that was quite unbecoming of a Buddhist organization and a Dharma teacher.

At an interval between the auction breaks, a few people broken into impromptu Hokkien sing-song and I thought the whole thing degenerated into what appears to be a Hungry Ghost Festival getai. A few other people at the same table thought so too.

I do understand temple building requires quite a lot money. But the way the auction was conducted gave me a really bad impression. I am not sure I am that willing to support that temple any more.

Creating a culture of giving

Today, there is an interesting article on The Straits Times by Peter Singer: "Knock-on effect of philanthropy."

Peter Singer wrote:

From an ethical view, however, should we care so much about the purity of the motive with which the gift was made? Surely what matters is that something was given to a good cause.

Charity or dana has always been an important Buddhist cultivation. However, the Buddhist ethics always placed intentions above form. What was important is the intention rather than the act. Hence true generosity is giving without expectation of any returns. Giving with non too altruistic intentions are not considered good.

Thus the emphasis among the Buddhists has always been to do dana silently, lest it be seen as something that was motivated by pride or ego rather than altruism.

But as I thought about the issue brought up in this article, I would acknowledge this:

1. Regardless of the motivation of our giving, it does benefit the receiver. To the charity which receive the money we donated, it did not matter if the money was given out of genuine generosity or other less altruistic reasons, it was the money it needed.

2. We do become more generous when we see or hear about other people giving. It could be just herd mentality or peer pressure -- when other people are giving, we will tend to chip in too. But we could also get inspired because we learned about some admirable giving by other people. I know many of the cheques I've sent out was definitely inspired or motivated by some other people's generosity.

So I think in terms of "creating a culture of giving", it does make sense if we would be more forth coming with the good we do rather than to keep at it silently.

I think Peter Singer does have a point when he wrote:

We need to get over our reluctance to speak openly about the good we do. Silent giving will not change a culture that deems it sensible to spend all your money on yourself and your family, rather than help those in greater need -- even though helping others is likely to be more fulfilling in the long run.

A pair of jeans and the Middle Path

How much would you pay for a pair of jeans? And at which point does it deviate from the moderation into the extreme of over-indulgence?

Just a few days, I happened to be talking about clothes with a friend and the price of our jeans was a stark contrast. I was wearing a pair of Lea jeans which I bought last year on a business trip for US$16. He was wearing some branded jeans which cost more than US$100 -- and it was bought during a sale, the original price was more than US$300.

My friend thinks that clothing is a part of a person and advised that if I dressed better, perhaps I could have better luck getting a partner. I can't say I agree with that. As far as the saying "Clothes maketh the man" goes, I only think it's only a matter of presentation and does not define a person's character. Certainly, a good appearance makes a good impression. But I think dressing decent does not mean dressing expensively.

In fact, I rather like my pair of $16 Lea jeans. And Lea is a brand too! Actually most of my jeans are Levi's which I guess are branded jeans. But I got them all during business trips for US$25-$30 each, which is less than S$50.

Of course, if I were to stint, I could go for cheaper jeans (I happen to have 2 pairs of Hang Ten jeans which costs $5 each. Got them in a warehouse clearance sale) or even go for second hand jeans. But I am quite happy with these -- I don't have to feel compelled to stint further and I don't feel inadequate with these either. This is my Middle Path.

I recall the days when I was young. I grew up on clothes which other people did not want. They were not always nice and sometimes I really hate those clothes. Once in a while I get some nice clothes and I will keep to those till they are really worn out. I remember I had a pair of jeans which I wore until they were really faded. When a friend commented on it, I said I like faded jeans -- which was not exactly true when later I reflected upon it.

Because I had less before, I appreciate what I have now more. I thus try to moderate my materialistic cravings. My belief is that the more we get used to creature comforts in life, the more difficult it is to do without. So a little deprivation of material comforts is good.

Thus, as far as the material aspects of my daily life goes, The Middle Path is a conscious choice in material expenditure. That is something, that is easy to grasp and practice.

I realized that one can get philosophical and dogmatic and the Middle Path, debating on what exactly is the "middle", or expounding on the "emptiness" of the path, or be totally attached to it as a concept. But that's hardly useful in daily life.

To me, I think the Buddha's simple Parable of the Lute is easy to understand and apply in daily life as opposed to Nagarjuna's exposition on the Middle Way.

I do not know at what price a pair of jeans which has crossed for moderation into over-indulgence. But I know this much: I am quite happy with my pair of $16 Lea jeans, and that is my Middle Path.

The Middle Path

Yesterday at BDMS, Nick asked an interesting question about the Middle Path.

He asked if the "Middle Path" has shifted since the Buddha's times as it appears that the extremes have shifted.

I thought it was indeed a very interesting question.

The Buddha taught that the Middle Path was a path that avoided extreme self mortification and extreme indulgence.

But if the "extreme" has shifted does the "middle" point shifts as well?

The rich are definitely getting richer. We live in a society which encourages conspicuous consumption and an economy which works based on consumerism. As "standard of living" improves, what was previously a luxury is now a necessity.

And I can see how people's view of "moderation" can shift. I have seen my own standards shifts as well over the years.

But I think the Middle Path is not the "middle point" between extremes. Hence it should not be moved by the extremities.

Ven. Dhammika had a pretty good answer when he said the Middle Path is somewhere a little bit above the basic necessities (food, shelter, medicine, clothing), above what we would need to survive.

I think what we need to survive is a standard that is pretty consistent -- although the perception can be distorted.

As food and fuel prices goes up, driving up inflation and down disposable income, perhaps it's time to examine what's the Middle Path again.

About Karma

It was reported on The Straits Times on 27 May 2008, that Sharon Stone was slammed for saying that the May 12 Sichuan earthquake was karma for China's treatment of Tibet.

She was quoted to have said:

"I'm unhappy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else... And then all this earthquake and stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma? When you're not nice, the bad things happen to you."

Well, I definitely think that the comments were uncalled for and extremely inappropriate.

However, I believe that this is the concept of Karma many people have. Do good and you reap good. Do bad and bad things happen to you.

Until just a few weeks ago, that's was what I believed karma to be too.

But a few weeks ago in the Sunday Dharma class at Buddha Dharma Mandala Society, Venerable Dhammika provided an explanation of karma which shattered my idea of karma which I have held for a long time.

Ven Dhammika explained that Karma conditions the type of experience we have. The effects of Karma is really experiential, not physical.

That is, if we strike a lottery, it is not because of the good Karma. Striking lottery is just luck and is not intrinsicly good nor bad. A person striking lottery may experience happiness as he shared his fortune, or he may experience insecurity or negative emotions hording the money. Thus, karma is not winning the lottery itself. Karma is in the experience the person experiences. If a person has cultivated a generous heart, he will derive happiness from the lottery winnings. Conversely, a person with greed and jealousy is like to suffer negative emotions.

That is not to say that there is no causal relationship between things that happen to us. If I work hard and get rewarded for it, there is definitely a cause and effect here. But not every cause and effect is Karma! While there is a causal relationship between hard work and reward, it is not the Law of Karma that determines the reward!

I was a little disoriented initially. It took me a long time to digest this, for this basically undermined some of my long-held beliefs.

But this also explained a very important question I had for a long time: that is if Law of Karma determines the "good" things that happens to us, then does the agent has free will? For example, if I worked hard and I was rewarded by my boss, did my boss reward me out of his free will or was he compelled by the Law of Karma. If we say a person met a cruel death because he had been cruel in his life, then does it mean the murder was simply carrying out the karmic effects, and therefor did not commit any bad karma?

I had been perplexed by question for a long time, and now Ven Dhammika solved it.

If I worked hard for the right reasons, I will have positive experience, whether or not I get a reward. However, if I was greedy, even if I get rewarded, I may still have negative experience, such as feeling angry that the reward was too little. The reward itself is not the results of karma. Karma is in the experience I have.

So "do good and you reap good" still holds. But the "good" results is not the things that happened external to you, but the experience within you.

Well, at least that's how I understood it. I am still internalizing it.