[Buddha-l] Prapanca

[Weng-Fai Wong]

Piya wrote...
> 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.)

All prapancas... and further reinforcing my refutation of your claim that
the more understanding of the Buddha-Dharma you have, the less prapanca you
have. In fact, if anything, the more detail of any knowledge one gets into,
the higher the likelihood of prapanca arising. Now that doesn't mean that
ignorance is the solution. I am just saying that knowledge alone (even to
the level that you can advise PhD students) is not it either.

W.F. Wong