[Buddha-l] Prapanca

[Piya Tan]

Weng Fai,

I often agree with those who disagree with me insofar as they are trying to
understand what I am trying to say. You have actually proven my point.

Talking about making a living out of Buddhism as "teaching/preaching",
didn't this
start with the Mahavihara in Sri Lanka, and the modern Sri Lankan foreign
missionaries who lie abroad for the benefit of their country (more
specifically their
kinsmen back home).

Seneviratne will tell of what living Sinhalese monks do while Schopen
specializes
is what dead Indian monks did. (A Sinhalese student in my class tells me
some
monks love to play cricket in the field behind her house in Sri Lanka! Why
can't
they be more discreet and have private gyms like Singaporean monks do.)

Aren't we all making a livelihood of Buddhism? We do this in various ways:
(1) The good monastics do it by giving us tons of merit in exchange for what
we give,
whether we need it or not,
(2) The professional monastics hang on to their PhDs, BMWs and the like, for
they
have nothing else to give, except Zen-like statements and empty busyness;
and
(3) The professional scholars are those who generally knock Buddhism down
for a
living, and don't like to be reminded that Buddhism is putting food on their
table.

Then there are those (like myself) who need Buddhism to keep my ego inflated
by reminding me how right I am.

Who has more merit: a foul-mouthed academic who teaches Buddhism with
clarity and
conviction, or a well-decorumed monastic performing expensive rituals (you
can't take it
with you, why not send it ahead) and teaching superstitions? (Zen answer:
Burn the bush.)

Piya Tan


On Feb 13, 2008 10:16 AM, Weng-Fai Wong <wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg> wrote:

> Piya wrote...
> > Your level of prapa~nca (Pali papa~nca) is inversely proportional to
> your
> > understanding of Buddhism (as Buddha Dharma).
>
> I am not sure if I agree with this statement. I just received a letter
> from
> an old friend in Japan. He lamented that in Japan, the "monks" are really
> making a livelihood out of teaching/preaching. Practice is not expected.
> Therefore, the emphasis is on the academic understanding of Buddhism while
> the practice of it is essentially superficial and "in-form" only. I have
> also met many fine professors of Buddhism who aren't practicing Buddhists
> (or even nominally Buddhist, or even want to be called "a Buddhist").
>
> I guess it is a case of "those who can't do, teach."
>
> W.F. Wong
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>



-- 
The Minding Centre
Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr)
Singapore 650644
Website: dharmafarer.googlepages.com