Two people go to the market to sell their wares. One conceals his goods and calls out to people, very loudly, to come and buy them, saying that if they miss this opportunity they will regret it for the rest of their lives. He requires people to believe what he says without giving them any evidence to support his claims. The other man spreads his goods out for all to see and examine, but neither threatens nor promises; if people want to buy, they buy, otherwise not. This person is like the Buddha, who never called anyone to believe or follow Him, saying that if they did, they would be saved and go to heaven when they died, but if not, they would go to hell.

What is Wisdom? Wisdom is the ability to distinguish between the True and the False, the Right and the Wrong, the ability to see things as they are, and not as we would like them to be. And it is the capacity to live according to that seeing and understanding. It leads us to Enlightenment, which is something that might make even a blind person say: “Oh yes, I see! I understand!” Stevie Wonder, the blind singer, once said: “I want to help people to see the beauty that is all around us!” See? Without eyesight? Yes, that’s right! Wisdom is seeing. Many people have good eyesight but not much wisdom, so they see and understand very little.

 

INTRODUCTION

            IN 1984, I wrote my first book, KEYS FOR REFUGEES, mainly for the refugees of SE Asia, to encourage them to hold onto and understand their religion in the face of the concerted efforts of missionaries to convert them. Years later, I rewrote it under the new title of DOWN TO EARTH, updating and enlarging it. Now, almost ten years later still, it incarnates for the third time, with new name and form. And since I have also changed, I’ve taken on a new name, too, a name that I feel suits me more than previous names, for this is what I am and have been as far back as I remember: a Beachcomber. I have always enjoyed— and still do— strolling along the beach looking at what the tides have cast up: sea-shells, pebbles, driftwood, and so on. It is just an extension of this to look at life, open to the unexpected, trying to extract lessons therefrom, wondering how to use what others may find useless.

            Collectively speaking, we are the most fortunate people in history, at a stage of evolution that has never been reached before. It is as if we are on a mountainside, with people below us for as far as we can see, until they look like tiny ants or grains of sand on the plain. We do not and cannot know who those people were, but we can understand that if they had not been where they were then, so long ago, we would not be where we are now. We are here now only because they were there then; if the chain of continuity had broken, we simply would not exist.

            By ourselves, we accomplish nothing; whatever we are able to accomplish we do so only because of the support of countless others, living and dead; even our languages, which make our lives so very rich and meaningful, are not ours, but have come from others. There is nothing we can claim as our own; we exist only in context, as part of something infinitely bigger than our individual selves.

            Humbled by the view below us and the realization that we owe so much to so many, turn, and look up: the mountain-top is so far above us, hidden in the mist and clouds, and cannot be perceived; we— you and I— will never reach the top. Like those before us, we are privileged to take just a few steps upwards before making way for others to come after us. We will die, of course, but if we live purposefully, we will die with the satisfaction of knowing that our living and striving will help others to climb higher than we did. For what are our lives otherwise? It is crucial to see and feel ourselves in perspective, in context, for if we think of ourselves in isolation, separate from the rest of existence, there is no meaning.

            What we are doing when we embark upon a spiritual path is to deliberately turn our back on the ways of the world, and go against the stream, hence the title of this book. It is a choice we consciously make, and shouldn’t be half-hearted about it. But it doesn’t mean that we walk out on it altogether and retire to a cave as a hermit; it means we have decided to try to keep the Dharma at the center of our lives— around which all our activities revolve— instead of at the circumference; it is not something part-time.

            Some articles herein are little-changed from DOWN TO EARTH, while others have been modified and upgraded, some of them considerably. Others are completely new. I am writing in small print, not just to economize on paper— though that is one reason, I admit— but to make it a bit harder for people to read. And why should I do that, instead of making it easier? Well, why should we treat people as little children, always to be spoon-fed? I know some people will complain about it being ‘too small’, so I’ll forestall them by asking how they manage to read newspapers?

            If you are sufficiently interested to want to read it, you will do so, even if you must use a magnifying-glass. And I guarantee that if you have the necessary interest, you will get something from it. It depends upon you; my aim, as always, is to turn you back to yourself.

 

BELIEVING IS NOT SEEING

            BELIEF IS CENTRAL AND ESSENTIAL to Theistic or God-based religions; without Belief they would not exist. This is one of the main points in which Buddhism (as well as Confucianism and the Tao of Lao Tsu) differs from other religions: being non-theistic, it doesn’t require belief!

            And why? Because we can see, for ourselves— if we wish— what it teaches. When we merely believe something our minds are already made up about it. How to discover what is true if our minds are already made up? We must be open-minded and eager to learn, not closed-minded and dogmatic.

            Believe it or not, Belief is an obstacle to finding out what is true. We believe when we do not know; when we know, we do not believe! Seeing is knowing; believing is not-knowing. Belief changes; Knowledge does not. We know, for example, that fire is hot and water is wet; this is so now, it was so before, and it will always be so; it’s not a matter of belief.

            Belief and Disbelief are the opposite sides of the same coin; they go together, inseparably, like black and white, day and night; one implies the other. Only if we can put aside both belief and disbelief, will we be able to see, and not before.

            Belief binds our minds more firmly than chains may bind our bodies. Most of us are prisoners of belief, in one form or another, and even disbelievers are prisoners of it— the very fact that they proclaim their disbelief so loudly proves this, for Disbelief is just the reverse side of Belief. We cannot disbelieve unless we first believe.

            Hundreds of years ago, Europeans believed the Earth to be the center of the Universe, with the Sun and all the other stars and planets turning about it, as that is what the Church taught, and woe betide anyone who thought otherwise. But, after observing the skies through the newly-invented telescope, an Italian scientist named GALILEO (1564-1642), discovered that this was not so, and that our planet revolves around the Sun. When he made known his findings, however, there was an uproar, and the authorities — the Church of Rome, that is, which had tremendous power in all areas of life at that time— not ready to accept facts, persecuted him. Under threat of being burnt at the stake, Galileo was made to sign a confession stating that he was misguided and wrong; not content with this, the Church sentenced him to house-arrest for the remainder of his life. Perhaps he should have expected this and been more discreet (as should Salmon Rushdie in recent times). But then, the truth might have had to wait a little longer before finding its way to the surface.

            In 1980— 1980, not 1580!— a special Church commission met in Rome to reconsider the question of the Earth’s position in the Solar System, and after discussing the issue at great length, agreed that Science had conclusively proved that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that therefore Galileo had been right. Then, in May 1983, Pope John-Paul II presided over a meeting of a large gathering of Church dignitaries, historians and scientists, to openly admit the Church’s mistake and absolve Galileo. What a loss of face for the Church that has so long regarded itself as infallible to admit this! At last, poor Galileo was vindicated — 350 years after his death!— and the guilty conscience of the Church somewhat assuaged. So, Truth does eventually triumph— sometimes, at least— but too late to do Galileo any good.

            We adapt amazingly quickly to technological change and take it in our stride; we are sophisticated and competent that way. Spiritually, however, most of us are rather backward, and thus there is a great imbalance in our lives. The happiness we desire so much eludes us; we do not understand that it is a spiritual quality instead of something material.

            There is an urgent need to balance the inner and the outer life; many of our problems exist because we have failed to achieve a balance. Externally— technologically and materially— we have made tremendous progress in the past few centuries, and especially towards the end of the twentieth century. But mentally, we’ve not kept up; indeed, many of us live in mental caves, even while our bodies repose in fine houses. This causes trouble, of course.

            Unless we are to be hopelessly impractical and discard the comforts and luxuries of modern life, we must update our minds, through understanding— and through living according to such understanding— how we inter-exist and depend upon others. If we cannot— or will not— do this, we shall always be torn between two worlds: the old and the new, the primitive and the modern.

            Some people, trying to live by old standards that seem to them to have worked in the past, reject modernity and its products, but what we need is a way— a practical way— that will allow us to live by time-tested codes and standards in the present, without feeling dislocated. Is there such a Way? In order to find out, we must examine the history and structure of religions and philosophies, not merely believe; if we do so, perhaps we will find that some of them are just facades, like film-sets, or fit only for books on mythology and fairy-tales. You can give a dog fleshless bones, and for a time it will be happy with them, but not forever!

            Religions, over the ages, have offered palliatives for people’s sorrows and hope concerning life-after-death. But many of them are ‘fleshless bones’— things impossible to verify, things dependent on mere belief. Is your religion— the religion you have inherited from others, the religion you have accepted without question, or the religion you have, in some cases, chosen for yourself, for whatever reason— a collection of fleshless bones, an old skeleton in the closet, or is it alive and dynamic? Ask yourself this: honestly and fearlessly: "What does my religion offer? " Does it offer only worn-out explanations and unreasonable dogmas? Does it provide you with a world-view consistent with present and ever-changing conditions? Does it help you maintain your sanity in this insane world that is rushing headlong to destruction? Does it help you see unity in diversity? Does it help you to feel part of things, even if only a small part among others? Does it describe your place among, and relationship to all other things, living and non-living? Does it inform you of your importance, or does it grind you down into servility and insignificance?

            When all they can throw at us are promises of salvation and life-in-heaven on the other side of death if we believe them, and threats of Hell for disbelieving, but nothing to live on now, it is a sign that they are spiritually bankrupt. How long are we going to be tricked by these cheaters posing as teachers?

            The crux of the matter is FEAR; we are afraid to die, and even afraid to live; we are quite unadventurous and unwilling to think for ourselves. If we found meaning in our lives, if our lives were not so shallow and empty, then fear of living and dying, and of what happens after death, would diminish. We would need no motive for living well in the Here-and-Now, but would do what has to be done without thinking too much about results.

            If we are honest with life, life will be honest with us; it’s not a game without rules, and the sooner we learn the rules, the sooner we’ll be able to play without continually losing.

            If we examine our beliefs objectively, we may see if they are valid or not. It is not enough to accept the word of others, or believe what’s written in books; we must strive to know for ourselves. We live in an enlightened age (‘enlightened’ in some ways, at least, though in other ways it seems to be ‘ennightened’!) Why be content to call ourselves ‘Buddhists’, ‘Christians’, this or that, just because our parents and grandparents do/did? We have our own lives to live, and should be able to choose, for ourselves, which way we want to go. When we go shopping, we choose what we want to buy from a variety of goods, instead of buying the first thing we come to. It is possible now for most of us to study almost anything; there is no secret knowledge reserved for the elite few any more; the wonderful ability to read unlocks the door of the House of Knowledge. Surely, if such things as Happiness and Truth are important to us, we will search in many places, and not restrict ourselves to the ideas of those around us.

            Sadly, it is much easier to cheat people than it is to enlighten them! Only lazy people believe what others tell them, and are easily deceived by the many crafty and unscrupulous people in the world, whether they are door-to-door salesmen, politicians, missionaries, or just plain liars and thieves!

            The beliefs of many religions do not stand up to close scrutiny and investigation, as they are not based upon facts. We can, of course— and do— interpret things to suit ourselves, and find meaning where there are no meanings; we like to play hide-and-seek, and we play it so long that we forget it is a game and take it for real, and so get lost. Or we go to sleep, and sleep for a long time, until something— often something painful and unpleasant— comes along to disturb our dreams, and sets us on the Way once more.

            Seldom do we see with our own eyes and minds, but usually through those of others: our family, friends, leaders, writers, public figures— sometimes even with the eyes of our enemies! We accept the standards of others, so what they call ‘beautiful’, ‘ugly’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’, we also do; thus, we are easily manipulated and controlled. If we used our own eyes and minds, we could learn to see things much clearer and deeper; we would become aware of much more wonder and beauty around us, even in things that are dismissed by others as ‘commonplace’ and ‘ordinary’. Look for yourself, and see!

            I’m not saying here, however, that we should not try to see things from other people’s points-of-view, because it is extremely important to do so, and the more angles we can look at a thing from, the clearer the picture we shall get of it. No, what I mean is that we should not allow ourselves to be unduly influenced by others into accepting their viewpoints and beliefs without critical examination. We have the capacity to think, do we not? This is the major factor that distinguishes us from the lower animals, which live by instinct and have little choice over the way they live. We can think, we can choose and decide, we can change our lives— if we want to.

            Can we live without belief about life-after-death, heaven, hell, etc.? Can we listen to others— teachers, preachers, parents, leaders, and so on— without belief, so that we may discover whether what they say is true and useful or not? I would say, "Yes, it is." Do not believe me, either. Try it, for yourself, and see.

Why be content with old bones?
Demand reality, now!

 

IF IT'S WRONG, DISCARD IT

            YEARS AGO, there was a program on British TV called Catweazle, about a wizard from the time of the mythical King Arthur, who— because one of his spells had gone awry— found himself transposed into the 1960’s. Imagine his surprise at the amazing things he saw all around him— things that we take so much for granted! An electric light-bulb fascinated him, and seemed like ‘the sun in a bottle’! And when he learned that the device by which we communicate with each other over long distances is called a telephone, he remembered that word as ‘telling-bone’, as it had some resemblance to a bone! There were other funny things that I’ve now forgotten.

            Now, suppose it were possible to take a TV set 500 years back into the past and demonstrate it to the people of that time: how do you think they would react? Undoubtedly, some would declare it sorcery— an instrument of ‘the Devil’— and try to destroy it. Some would say it is a miracle, and make of it a new religion, with attendant priests to operate and use it to keep people in subjection. Others would denounce it as impossible, a fraud, an illusion. Still others would try to discover how so many people and things could get inside such a small box. Reactions would be varied. But would anyone understand it?

            Nowadays, television is part of our lives, and almost no-one questions it; it’s just there, and has been for as long as most of us can remember. But even so, few of us understand how it works. Some still deem it an instrument of ‘the Devil’ (just before I rewrote this, there was a report that the Muslim fundamentalist party that now controls most of Afghanistan— the Taleban— had ordered people there to dispose of their TV sets and VCRs within 15 days, claiming them responsible for immorality). Others still consider it a miracle (and in a way, it is); and some do, indeed, make of it a religion. Most people just turn it on and watch it.

            My point here is that, as knowledge increases, ignorance decreases. Honest people— those who sincerely wish to find out what is true, and are not content to follow others or accept theories that have been handed down from the past— are not afraid to discard ideas that are wrong, useless and harmful when they know them to be so; they are not ashamed to admit that they don’t know when they don’t know, for it is from recognizing ignorance that knowledge arises; indeed, as Confucius is reported to have said: "To admit that you do not know what you do not know— that is knowledge", or, as the Buddha said: "The fool who knows he is a fool is wise to that extent, but the fool who thinks he is wise is indeed a fool!"

            Why have Religion and Science been so long apart? Must Religion always be dressed up in superstition, ritual and silly beliefs? Can there be a religion that does not conflict with Science— a Scientific Religion, or a Religious Science? Can we, perhaps, look at things objectively and scientifically? Scientists are willing to change their theories when they see they no longer apply; it is because of this that Science has advanced so far and continues to advance. If we had advanced religiously at the same rate we have advanced scientifically, the world would not be in the confused state it is in; but most people seem to be ‘living in caves’ as far as religion is concerned, and afraid, unwilling or unable to bring themselves up-to-date in that area. Because of this, the world is still subject to so-called ‘religious’ conflicts and wars, and this will probably cause the almost-inevitable Third World War.

            There are two kinds of knowledge: Direct Knowledge and Indirect Knowledge. Most of our knowledge is not our own but second-hand— that is, it comes to us from other sources: people, books, TV, etc; we know comparatively little by ourselves. On the way of self-discovery, however, there is no substitute for Direct Knowing; knowledge from others, from books, from hearsay— indispensable though it is in many areas— is not enough. We must experience Truth or Reality for ourselves, just like we experience the heat from fire: we know it burns, not merely believe it!

            Knowledge about mechanics, computers, carpentry, printing, etc., etc., is very important, as it enables us not only to earn a living, but also to improve the world we live in. Life is much more than just earning a living and surviving, however; that kind of knowledge concerns the ‘outer’ life. But what of the ‘inner’ life? We must consider that, too, so that there is a balance, a harmony between the two, instead of conflict. The West has concentrated largely on external things and has advanced tremendously in this area; it has produced many things of great benefit for the whole world, but it has also created things of horror and detriment, like chemical and bacteriological weapons, etc. It neglected the inner life in favor of the outer life, so that now, there is great imbalance and conflict everywhere. That is often the way it is; we swing from one extreme to the other, like the pendulum of a clock, until, learning that extremes are states of disharmony and suffering, we gradually find a balance, and the pendulum stops swinging.

            The world is full of wrong and foolish ideas— in fact, the World itself— not the Planet Earth, but the World as a political structure; let us recognize the difference— is an idea! There is no separate reality or entity called ‘the World’; we have made it; it’s an idea, and ideas are subject to change, sometimes very quickly! If we understand this, it becomes possible to change wrong and foolish ideas into better ideas; there is no reason why we should not, and every reason why we should.

            The Buddha said: "There are two things without limits: Space, and Human Stupidity". How can suffering diminish when its cause prevails? It is the foolish ideas— ignorance— that cause most of the suffering and all of the evil in the world; it is not because we are bad and sinful that we do bad things, but because we are blind and stupid— either part-time or full-time. But must we remain so? Only if we want to.

As far as Understanding is concerned, there are four kinds of people in the world:

                        (1) Those who understand quickly;

                        (2) Those who understand slowly;

                        (3) Those who do not understand;

                        (4) Those who misunderstand.

            AND IT IS BETTER TO KNOW NOTHING AT ALL IF WHAT YOU KNOW IS WRONG. Wrong ideas will only cause you pain.

            Have you noticed how we always consider ourselves right and others wrong? Obviously, we think Right and Wrong are people: Mr. Right and Mrs. Wrong. Indeed, we do not need to look very deeply to find this extremely-myopic way of viewing things at the root of many of the world’s problems. Should we not try to understand this? Right and wrong are not people, not I, not you, and if we would only stop to consider what is right and wrong in the context of a particular situation, instead of who is right and wrong, many of our problems would disappear instantly. Test it, for yourself, and see!

 

LEARNING

            T0 LEARN IS SOMETHING quite different than to study. Learning is basic and involves our own experience, and for this there is no substitute. Study, on the other hand, is academic, and usually of things already known, shown by others, cut-and-dried, like hay.

            A little baby does not sit down and study how to walk from a book, but learns from its own experience, and after much failure, frustration, pain and tears. Even babies born blind learn how to walk; it is not merely a matter of imitating others. And so it is upon the Way.

            If you wish to learn, pay no attention to the personality or appearance of the teacher; such things should not concern you. Listen to what he says, and think about it clearly, to see if it is true and useful or not. If you like or dislike the teacher, your vision will be clouded thereby.

            Is there a difference between 'chicken' and 'kitchen'? Is there a difference between 'teacher' and 'cheater'? I have heard people, just learning English, confuse 'chicken' with 'kitchen'; just so, many people confuse cheaters with teachers. There are many cheaters posing as teachers, so we must beware; neither believe or disbelieve what the teacher says, but check it carefully. The teacher is important only insofar as what he says is true and pertinent. He should not cause you to depend upon him, as upon a drug, but should help you to learn and understand that everyone and everything is a teacher. This is his duty as a teacher.

            Once, a king went out to visit a certain part of his kingdom, accompanied by his courtiers and servants. On the way, they came to a mango-grove, and the king noticed that, while one tree had a good crop of ripe mangoes, the other trees had none. Being fond of mangoes, like most of us, he thought: "On the way back, after I've concluded my business, we'll stop and gather some of these mangoes"; he then went on ahead. His followers, however, had different ideas. They were also fond of mangoes, but were not willing to wait until later; instead, unbeknown to the king, they took sticks and stones and knocked down every mango on the tree, and broke many branches in doing so.

            When they returned later on that day, the king was looking forward to eating mangoes, but all he found was a battered tree stripped of fruit. Being a wise man, however, he didn't become angry or sad, but thought: "This is interesting. The tree that had much fruit is badly damaged, but the other trees, which had none, are untouched. There is a lesson for me here: Have much, and suffer much; have little, and suffer little." With this in mind, he returned to the palace, where he called his eldest son to him and placed the crown on his head, saying: "From now on, you are the king. Rule wisely". Then he changed his royal robes for the simple garb of a mendicant, left the palace, and went off to live in a forest, far away. And if anyone happened to come across him there and asked him: 'Who is your teacher'?"— a common question that seekers ask each other— he replied: "My teacher is a mango tree".

            We should not always depend upon a teacher to teach us everything, but should cultivate a burning interest and unquenchable spirit of inquiry. It is infinitely better to learn than to be taught. All the teaching in the world is useless if we are not ready to learn.

            The answers to all our problems cannot be found in any book or books. If we depend upon books to solve all our problems we shall be forever running to the library to see what the books have to say about them. This is not to deny the importance of books, because there are countless things we can learn from them, and it would be silly to discard them as useless. Understanding something of Dharma — which we might get from books— however, takes us further than books can, and helps and encourages us to develop the intelligence necessary to find our own answers.

            To follow the Way, we must be learners, not students (it's not an academic pursuit), and this means being humble and ready to admit we don't know when we don't know. Pretending to know when we don't know, and taking academic knowledge as our own experience, is a great obstacle. There are people whose pride won't allow them to admit to not knowing; before they will do that, they will lie to conceal their ignorance, and so make a double error. Pride is an impediment, not a virtue. It has been written: "Be humble if you would attain Wisdom. Be humbler still when you have attained it."

            It saddens me somewhat when I hear people say of my talks: "What can I learn from him?" I am sad not for myself, but for them, and say: "Yes, they may be right. But it's not because there is nothing to be learned; it's because their minds are already so made up, so full of ideas and beliefs, that nothing more will go in. If you know how to learn, you can learn something from anyone and anything, without exception; and when learning becomes sufficiently important to you, you will not mind who you learn from".

To illustrate this here, I want to tell a true little story that came to me from a doctor somewhere in Malaysia.

            While serving in the Anaesthetic Department of a certain hospital, Dr Tan was often faced with the breakdown of the ageing anaesthetic machine. Whenever this happened, a hospital attendant by the name of Muniandy was sent for, as he was the only one who knew how to repair and get it running again. The doctor not only respected Muniandy for his quiet competence, but felt rather embarrassed that he, and no-one else, should know how to fix the troublesome machine; he decided that he had to learn to do it himself.

            When he requested Muniandy to teach him, however, he was met with a look of astonishment. Muniandy was not highly educated; it was inconceivable to him that anyone as educated and qualified as a doctor should ask him for instruction. He humbly refused. The doctor insisted, however, saying that if he knew how to fix the machine himself, and it should break down when Muniandy was off-duty, his new ability could save someone's life. Muniandy saw the logic of this and therefore explained and demonstrated how the machine worked and how to repair it. Because Muniandy’s knowledge was that of experience instead of mere theory, the doctor was easily able to absorb his lesson.

            When he was transferred to another hospital, Dr Tan was confronted with an anaesthetic machine newly-imported from Germany, with the instructions all in German, which no-one there understood. What he had learned from the old machine, however, enabled Dr Tan to master the intricacies of it, without recourse to the instruction-manual; Muniandy was always in his mind whenever he approached the machine.

            Years later, when Dr Tan started his own practice, Muniandy, who had by then retired, came by to visit him. They reminisced about old times together, and when the subject of the old machine arose, tears came to Muniandy's eyes. He said: "In all my 35 years of service as a hospital attendant, you were the only doctor to ask me to teach him anything. That is one of my happiest memories!"

            Who knows everything? There is no reason to be so proud that we cannot or will not say, °I don't know". Only when and if we can say it, in all sincerity and humility, will we be able to make progress on a spiritual path.

            Every situation, whether we like it or not, is an opportunity to learn. Painful and unpleasant things, especially, have good lessons to impart. A mosquito is a good example of this; it can help us to overcome our fear of pain, can help us to strengthen our minds, to develop patience and that highest of virtues: Compassion. How can a 'mozzie'— a thing so ordinary and despised— help us in so many ways?

            Well, no-one likes being bitten by mosquitoes, of course, but our fear of the pain from their bites magnifies the pain out of all proportions, and is enough to keep some people awake at night, when these tiny but so-annoying insects come looking for dinner. You may test it for yourself, as an interesting experiment: Allow a mosquito to settle on you and bite. Without slapping it or brushing it off, observe it; it will take about ten minutes to drink its fill. Calmly watch the process and your own reaction, without fear or anger. You'll notice that the pain is minimal, whereas when you are afraid of it, it seems much more intense. Then, when it is full, allow it to fly away, without killing it; with a full stomach it will hardly be able to fly, and lumber away to digest its meal. It is said that only female mosquitoes bite and suck blood, which they need to fertilize their eggs; that is their nature; they have no choice about it.

            Humans, however, can choose; we don't have to follow brutish instincts. We don't have to suck blood (though many humans— like arms-manufacturers and other war-mongers — do, living on the blood and suffering of others); we can choose to live lives of violence and destruction, or lives of peace and creation. No-one makes us behave like savage beasts.

            After the mosquito has flown away, maintain mindfulness and observe the urge to scratch the itch the anti-coagulant it has injected into you has caused, and resist it. Under observation, when you are in control of your mind, you will find that the desire to scratch will not be half as great as when you do not observe it. It's a case of 'mind over matter’, and it works.

            Within a few minutes, the itchiness will wear off, whereas if you scratch it, it will last much longer; I have seen people with scars all over their arms and legs from the mosquito-bites they had scratched until they bled when they were children.

            All living things wish to be happy and avoid pain, just like us. We do not like others to come along and disturb, hurt or kill us, and it's the same with all forms of life; as humans, we can and should reflect on this. Even the single-celled amoeba will react and withdraw if a drop of weak acid is put into a dish with it; the dislike of pain is so universal.

            The one who saves life is stronger than the one who kills. Anyone can kill; it doesn't require much intelligence. But to heal and save life is not so easy, and needs compassion, thought, and effort. If we cannot help, we should not harm.

            Buddhists look upon the lesser animals, and other living things, as their younger siblings. They are not there for our sport, pleasure or food, no matter which person or book says so. They are there to live their own lives, to fulfill their own destiny, to evolve and grow, to climb, slowly and painfully, the Mountain of Perfection, where Birth and Death are no more. In this, they are not different from us. If we do not like them— as in the case of mozzies— we can admit our preferences, as they are of our personality, and will always be so. But, looking deeper, beyond the personality, with its myopia and narrow limits, we find LOVE, and this doesn't choose, but embraces all equally; it has nothing to do with 'you' and 'I', with like and dislike, for it is not of self. Self is the center of most of our activities, but LOVE has no center, and therefore no circumference, no limits, and we can know LOVE even if we are not yet enlightened, by understanding the limits of self, and going beyond them. And is that not Enlightenment already?

 

GREAT EXPECTATIONS, GREAT DISAPPOINTMENTS

            IF YOU GO TO INDIA, away from the cities and towns into the countryside, you will find life going on much the same as it did hundreds, or even thousands of years ago. Many villages still have no electricity, TV, telephones, paved roads, or even running water; people till their fields using primitive ploughs pulled by cows or buffaloes, draw water from wells, cook over cow-dung fires, etc.

            In such conditions, it is easy to visualize the Buddha walking, barefoot, from place-to-place, with just an alms-bowl; His robes would probably be dusty and travel-stained and not often washed. Nor would He be clean-shaven every day, as we now are. He wouldn’t always have a specific direction in mind, and would not be in a hurry, but would spend time with people who wished to learn something, or whom He thought He might lead onwards. With His great wisdom, He could discern the capacity of people to understand, and teach them accordingly. Can you see Him, this Great Teacher?— Teacher, Human-being, not God, or Savior, for Buddhism rejects the idea that anyone can save another from the effects of his own deeds.

            In Richard Bach’s book, Illusions, or the Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, there is a delightful little anecdote about a colony of creatures that lived on a streambed. They spent their entire lives clinging to rocks and weeds, with the water flowing over them. Once, one of these creatures, tired of clinging to the same stone, announced that he would die of boredom if he lived so any more, and had decided to let go and see where the current would carry him. "Fool!", said the other creatures nearby, "No-one has ever done that before! You’ll be dashed against the rocks by the current and will then die a lot quicker than by boredom!" But he, disregarding their warnings, let go, and was immediately carried away by the current.

            At first, he was dashed against the rocks as the others had predicted, but wasn’t killed. Instead of resisting the rushing water, he allowed it to carry him, and was soon lifted above the streambed, clear of the rocks and weeds. Other creatures below, seeing him pass by overhead, exclaimed in surprise: "Look— a being just like ourselves, yet he flies! He must be a Savior, come to save us! A Savior! A Savior!" "No!" he cried, "I am no Savior, but one just like you. I let go, and the current carried me. If you let go, you too will be carried along!" But they didn’t hear him, or chose to ignore his words, and cried all the more: "A Savior! A Savior!" And he was swept along, out of sight, and the other creatures remained clinging firmly to the places where they had been born, making legends of a Savior.

            Although the Buddha stated clearly that no-one can save another, but that all must work out their own salvation, many Buddhists look for saviors to save them, praying to various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to forgive their sins, erase their ‘bad karma’, etc. Indeed, it sometimes seems that they even expect monks to be saviors and supermen, too, not wanting them to be human at all. They pay so much respect to monks, and put them so high, that they almost need telescopes to see them in the sky! Then, if their heroes do something wrong or that they don’t like, they are disappointed and the monks fall in their esteem. But why are they disappointed? Because the monks did something wrong, or because they put them so high to begin with? Great expectations breed great disappointments. And if monks let themselves be so elevated, how can they possibly live up to such expectations? To try is to court disaster, because although we might like to be enlightened, what we would like to be, and what we are, are two different things. We would like to be enlightened, of course, but we don’t become enlightened merely by wishing to be enlightened; enlightenment comes to us when we have earned it and are ready for it, and not before.

            Now, while elevating monks very high, at the same time many people put themselves very low, thinking, perhaps, that they are thereby exempt from the Law; they use the monks as an excuse for doing things that they know they shouldn’t do. Once, a man came to tell me that he’d seen a monk smoking, and said he thought it was very bad for monks to smoke. I agreed with him, but said: "How can you talk about others when you are smoking even as you are telling me?" He rationalized this by saying that, as he was not a monk, it was alright for him to smoke. Was this sound reasoning, do you think? Let us examine the mechanics of such thinking a little here.

            As a monk myself, I’ve seen things from both sides of the fence and so am qualified to say that the Buddha’s Way, contrary to what many Buddhists obviously think, is not only for monks, nuns, and others who live in temples and monasteries. It is open for anyone and everyone who sincerely wishes to follow it. Not understanding this, many Buddhists, in their ignorance and indolence, want and expect others to do everything for them. To remedy such misconceptions, it should be clearly stated that there are not two Laws of Life, one for monks and another for the laity, but only one. And this Law of Cause-and-Effect makes no distinctions as to whether a person shaves his head or not, whether he wears a robe or ordinary clothes, whether he stays in a monastery or at home with his family. It is impartial, and has no preferences. If a monk takes hold of a burning coal he will be burnt by it, just as would a layman. A monk is subject to sickness, aging and death, just as are lay-people; he is not exempt from these things.

            According to the Buddha, intention is the strongest factor in the making of karma; He said: "Intention, O monks, I declare to be karma". You get the results of your karma, and I get the results of mine. If it were possible to transfer our karma to others, our enemies would transfer all their ‘bad’ karma to us and be rid of it, leaving us to suffer the effects of their bad actions— and would not that be convenient for them? However, how could it be? And, in the same way, how could it be possible to transfer our ‘good’ karma to others? The reason why, as Buddhists, we are advised to practice transferring our merit to others— if we dare even suppose that we have any merit to begin with— is because it opens the mind and heart of the person doing it, which is a meritorious action in itself, is it not?

            It is imperative to see the Buddha as He was when He was alive on this Earth: Enlightened, but a human being, a very warm and caring human being. To deify the Buddha, as many people have done, and pray to Him for assistance and salvation, is a great mistake, for He never told anyone to believe in Him or pray to Him, but to find the Truth for themselves and thereby become Enlightened and Liberated from Ignorance. The Enlightenment of the Buddha is just that: The Enlightenment of the Buddha; it is not our Enlightenment. So, too, with merit; we must acquire our own, not pray or beg for it, and find our own enlightenment; we shall remain within Samsara until we do, and no amount of praying to be saved will release us therefrom.

            Saints— Arahants and Bodhisattvas— are rare today, and not to be found in every temple or church, and if we expect to find them there, we will surely be disappointed. And would we be justified in blaming anyone for that? Could we reasonably blame monks or priests for not living up to our expectations and not being saints? Who could we blame but ourselves, for expecting so much? The walking of the Way is the most important thing, and there is no substitute for this, no-one can do it for us, just like no-one can eat for us. If no seed is sown, there will be no harvest; if there are no causes, there will be no effects, and it will be absolutely useless to complain that the Buddhas or Bodhisattvas or the monks didn’t save us. View the monks as teachers of the Way, whether they themselves follow the Way or not; the most important thing is that we learn, and Learn, and LEARN. And when learning is sufficiently important to us, we will not mind who we learn from.

            In school, when we study geography or history, do we care if the people who teach these subjects have ever been to the places they talk about or witnessed the historical events they describe? And do you suppose that when monks speak about Buddhas, Arahants, Bodhisattvas, Nirvana, Heaven, Hell, etc., that they are speaking from their own personal experience, or from what they have heard or read elsewhere? Maybe they are speaking from their own experience, but probably not. If they are, that still does not make it true for anyone else; we must experience for ourselves, and only then will we know. This is why the Buddha exhorted people not to believe what He said, but to "Test my teachings, as a goldsmith would test gold".

            Someone once told me of a certain famous monk (the founder of the particular sect of Vietnamese Buddhism that he followed): "He was an Arahant— 100% sure!" I asked him how he could be so sure when he had not even met the monk, and was not an Arahant himself? To recognize an Arahant as such, a person would have to be an Arahant himself, would he not? Arahants— genuine Arahants and Bodhisattvas, not the usual fake ones of today, of which there are not a few— would hardly go around making a show and declaring themselves so. We might say— as I say about people like Thich Quang Duc or Mother Theresa— that we think such a person is an Arahant or Bodhisattva. But that would be just our personal opinion, and have very little to do with whether a person were actually so or not; our opinion would not make them so.

            Years ago, I addressed a group of Catholic nuns in a Buddhist temple in Manila; they were about to go for missionary work in various countries with large Buddhist populations, and wanted to know something of Buddhism. During my talk to them, I quoted from the Christian Bible so as to emphasize certain points and make comparisons. When I had finished and it was time for questions, one nun said: "We heard you quoting from Holy Scripture", (meaning the Christian scriptures, as if they are the only scriptures in the world regarded as ‘holy’); "Are you allowed to do that?" I replied: "A diamond is a diamond no matter where it is found". We do not expect to find Truth only in books, and certainly not only in Buddhist books. Truth is not limited like that, and if we understand what the Buddha taught, we will be able to see the Dharma not only in the scriptures of other religions, but in everything, everywhere. Dharma is beyond Name and Form, and without limits.

            Although Mother Theresa was a Catholic nun herself, she did not care that most of the sick, destitute and dying people she helped on the streets of Calcutta were probably Hindus or Muslims; she didn’t use her compassionate help as a means to convert them to Catholicism. The idea of doing so would probably never have entered her head! You see, the word ‘Catholic’ has two forms, one a noun, and the other an adjective. When used in its noun-form, we might say: "Such-and-such a person is a Catholic", meaning a follower of the Catholic branch of Christianity. But in its adjective-form, such as when we might say that a person "has a catholic point-of-view", it means ‘universal’, ‘liberal’, ‘broad’, ‘wide-open’. I thought of Mother Theresa as being Catholic in its adjective-form rather than its noun-form. If people call her a saint (as many do)— or even a devil!— would that have changed what she was in any way? Her compassion and selflessness constituted her sainthood, and it was hers; to canonize her will be as superfluous as painting a rose!

            Is it not strange that, while Buddhism teaches that there is no Self— that a separate, personal ‘self’ or soul is an illusion— personality matters so much to many Buddhists? We are usually more concerned with the personality of the teacher than with his teachings, and this becomes a great obstacle. Often, we hear people criticizing monks, and saying that they like this monk, but not that one, while usually disregarding the Dharma altogether. This side of Enlightenment, we have ego, and because we are limited thereby, are subject to making mistakes. However, even though we are still unenlightened, there is no need for us to be bound up within the limits of ego and to act in egoistic ways. We can, if we want, go beyond, by reminding ourselves that the Dharma should occupy central place in our dealings with others, and not self.

 

SEEKING HAPPINESS, AVOIDING PAIN

            WE WOULD THINK IT funny if we saw someone climbing an apple-tree searching for bananas, would we not? But this is not as strange as it sounds. Looking for happiness in places where happiness cannot be found is stranger and less rational than searching for bananas up an apple-tree.

            Some years ago, I was requested to speak to the Asian Buddhist students of a certain high school in Sydney. I observed that they straggled into class late, were not interested or attentive, and had lost— or discarded— their traditional Asian manners and respect.

            In order to get their attention, I asked them what they thought people all over the world wanted or were looking for. Well, because most of them were refugees from Vietnam or Cambodia, several of them said "Freedom", but I countered this by saying that many people have that already and so are not looking for it; indeed, some people have too much freedom and don’t know what to do with, so abuse and destroy it instead of taking care of it like the treasure it is. This means, of course, that they are not ready for it; freedom is wasted on people who do not or will not understand, appreciate or take care of it; it must be earned, not given to us, for if we do not strive for it, we will not value it, and thus, it will easily be wasted and lost.

            Some others said "Money", but, again, although many people— maybe we could even say most— are looking for it, and though money is, without a doubt, the ‘religion’ with the most devotees in the world, not everyone is looking for it. There are some rare folks who have money and who are not looking for more (Bill Gates is not one of them, obviously). Someone said "Love". Well, you know, even though the word has been so over-used that it is almost worn-out, Love— the quality— is still something we all need, in one form or another. The answer I wanted from them was "Happiness". I asked them: "If you had been happy in your own country before, would you have fled as refugees?" "No", "Probably not", came the answers. "So, you fled your country because you were not happy there, because life there was too difficult".

            I have been to about 40 countries and have seen that, although there are differences between people, the basics are the same: Everyone wants to be happy; no-one wants to be sad or to suffer. "Therefore", I continued, "happiness must be something very important, no?" "Yes", they agreed. "Well, since happiness is very important, do they teach you about it here in school?" There was a unanimous cry of "No, never!"

            How strange, that something so very important as happiness is completely neglected in our schools! Why should this be? Is it because happiness cannot be taught, but must be earned or found by the individual himself? Can or should nothing be said about it? Or has it been shunted aside as ‘too emotional’, thrown into the trash-can in favor of the over-emphasis on ‘success’?

            Personally, I regard the education-system, as it stands today, as Public Enemy Number One, for it inculcates in people many qualities that the world needs much less of instead of more, and which lead directly to conflict: competitiveness, ruthlessness, selfishness, pride, greed, envy, acquisitiveness, thoughtlessness about others, etc.

            Some people will argue that without competition, we would not progress, but I would disagree, for we would probably make better progress, and with much less conflict, if we learned how to cooperate with each other for the common good. And I believe that we can be taught and shown, from a very early age, how to cooperate. World War Two— to name the most outstanding of senseless conflicts— caused the death of 50 million people, and untold irreparable damage and destruction. But we still haven’t learned; the Twentieth Century was the bloodiest of all. And, right now, there are numerous conflicts of various sizes going on in the world, and it looks as if we’ll be very lucky to avoid a Third World War!

            With the present education-system— which, in reality, is the ‘American system’ that everyone else seems to take as their model— are we happy? Far from it! We have turned the world into a jungle full of wild and savage animals, where it is not safe to go out on the streets at night— or even in the daytime!— in some places! It’s amazing— is it not?¾ how we can put men on the moon and send them to the bottom of the ocean, but we cannot teach our children — for this is where it must begin— how to live together with others in understanding and peace.

            The ways in which we seek happiness are countless; seeking happiness and trying to avoid unhappiness, are pursuits that take up a great proportion of our lives. We may safely generalize and say that everyone wants to be happy and avoid pain; we all have this in common. But how many of us are happy? We are happy sometimes, and some people are happier than others, but do you know anyone who is happy all the time? I don’t.

            Some people seek happiness in ways that are harmless to others, while others willingly hurt others in their efforts to find it; they will kill, steal, lie, cheat, etc., if they think it will yield the happiness they seek in their frustration. But are they happy? A little, perhaps, and briefly, but when their actions ripen, where is their happiness?

            There are many formulas for happiness that people hold, the most common being Money = Happiness. "Oh, if only I were rich, I would be happy", they think. Of course, it would be very difficult to be happy if one’s family was hungry or homeless, but riches, in themselves, do not solve all problems or bring happiness. Many rich people are very unhappy.

            Other formulas go like this: "If I had a beautiful girlfriend (or handsome boyfriend), I would be happy". "If I were young again / healthy / powerful / famous / popular / had many friends, etc., I would be happy". But can happiness be formulated? Perhaps it would be better to pause awhile and ponder on man’s frantic and eternal search for happiness.

            Happiness cannot be sought and found, for it— and unhappiness, too— are results of the way we live our lives and how we see things. In fact, the search for happiness is the greatest obstacle to finding it, though we usually do not see this until after we have sought for it to the point of exhaustion.

            It has been said that: "Happiness is a perfume that you cannot sprinkle on others without getting a few drops on yourself". This is the key: Forget self and help others, do what is right according to the situation, and happiness may find us, though really, this should not be our motive for helping others. We should do so simply because we have the opportunity and capacity to do it, and not for what we think we might get in return, for that is the same as seeking, and usually results in disappointment.

            Why do we look for happiness? If we were happy already, if there were no pain and suffering, there would be no need to look for it! It is because we are not happy, because we are subject to pain and suffering, that we search for it.

            What is pain? It is a response to certain causes or conditions; it is the effect of causes, like everything else, and if we can discover and understand the causes, we might be able to avoid the effects we don’t like.

            There are two kinds of pain: physical and mental. We have a body, so naturally, we experience various bodily pains; though many of these pains could be avoided if we took better care, some pains are unavoidable, as it is natural and inevitable for the body to break down and decay— like any machine— and one day, it will die. This is why Lao Tsu said: "Accept misfortune as the bodily condition, for without a body, how could there by misfortune?" Or, as someone else said recently: "Exercise regularly; eat moderately; die anyway".

            Mental pain, on the other hand, is not inevitable, as it is possible for us to be in much greater control of our minds than we are. We cannot prevent the body from growing older and dying, but the mind is ours to control, if we will. We need not suffer from worry, grief, despair or anger; we need not give way to jealousy, revenge, malice and pride; our minds need not be filled with greed, hatred and stupidity. But they often are, aren’t they? And we suffer so much because of the presence of these negative and harmful emotions; they cause us pain even on the physical level, through the mind acting on the body. What a lot of trouble comes from the mind!

            Now, nobody— at least, no reasonably-sane person— likes to suffer. Most people try to avoid pain, most hate and fear it, but few try to understand it, to listen to it, to hear what it is saying— and it does have something to say. Pain is Nature’s way of telling us that something is wrong— out of balance— and needs attention. It is not really the enemy we think it is, for if we listen to it and learn from it, it becomes useful, and may be considered a friend in disguise — a teacher— even if its face is ugly. From our own pain, we begin to understand the pain in others. This gives rise to Compassion, the greatest virtue, and Compassion is what compelled the Buddha to go out to show the Way to those who were ready to see. If we have never suffered ourselves, it is difficult to sympathize with others.

            Our world is a sad place, though it often wears a mask to conceal its pain, because to face the pain constantly would quickly drive us mad. Sometimes, when we are sensitive, we can feel the infinite sadness of the world, and if we have no knowledge of the Law of Cause-and-Effect, we might easily feel overwhelmed by it. But, knowing that there are no accidents in the Universe, and that everything arises from causes, imbues us with a feeling that we are not impotent, and that there is something we can do about it.

            Again, there are two kinds of suffering: natural suffering and man-made suffering. As our knowledge increased over the ages, we have been able to lessen the suffering caused by Nature. We are able to predict earthquakes, storms, volcanic eruptions, etc., and are able to take precautions against them; we can mitigate the effects of drought and floods; we have eliminated or controlled many killer-diseases, and undoubtedly will do so with many more. Most of the suffering, and all of the evil in the world, however— such as war, crime and drug-abuse— is not natural, but man-made, and it is in this field that we can— using intelligence and compassion— have the greatest success. And this is perhaps the most important thing I have to say in this book: Each and everyone of us has the capacity to increase of decrease the suffering in the world. And the same can be said about happiness. We might not have much of an impact, but we can do our share, and every little bit helps. It’s our world. Won’t you join us?

 

FORGIVE YOURSELF

            WE LABOR AND STAGGER ALONG under the burdens of our sins and mistakes, not knowing how to put them down. We’ve all made mistakes, done things we shouldn’t have done, and not done things we should have done. Because of this, regret and remorse follow us like shadows, from the past, to, and through, the present. Although we should feel remorse for our mistakes, life must go on, we must continue on our way, for we cannot live in the past, and attempts to do so only tear us apart. How can we put down the burdens of the past and go forward with lighter hearts?

            Many people believe that sin must be forgiven by a ‘God-who-made-everything’; others believe we must be saved by some ‘superman’, otherwise we will go to Hell forever. Others see these things, these beliefs, as psychological techniques, from which we may gain the strength to bear our responsibilities, accept the consequences of our deeds, and go on living. They are valid as long as they remain techniques, for without them, many would find life too hard to bear, and there would be a much-higher suicide-rate than there is. But when a technique isn’t understood as such, and becomes an article of belief, an indispensable dogma, it is a fetter, instead of a means of support. This is why new techniques must constantly be devised, before the old ones become rigid and lifeless.

            It seems quite clear that the practice of Confession in Catholicism was adopted, in the early Christian era, from Buddhism, along with other things; however, it became a dogma in Catholicism, and very few people understand the real meaning. Most Catholics believe that when they confess their sins before the priest, who admonishes them and perhaps allots some penance to perform, that that is the end of it, and they may start again with a clean slate. Protestants— who also do not understand clearly about Confession— ridicule Catholics for this; in fact, one of the things that caused Martin Luther— one of the main founders of the Protestant branch of Christianity— to break with the Church of Rome, was the priestly practice of selling certificates-of-forgiveness, known as ‘Indulgences’. Perhaps he was not against the certificates as such, but against the lucrative business they constituted; the rich could afford to have their sins ‘absolved’ in this way, while the poor could not. The priests claimed that, as the ‘representatives of God’, they had the power and right to forgive sins— for a price, of course.

            How can we buy off the effects of our sins? No amount of money can do this. But to confess our sins and mistakes to another person is the first step of coming to grips with them, so that eventually, by doing as little evil, and as much good as possible, we may overcome them.

            Buddhism teaches that we are punished by our sins, not for them, as do other religions; if we sow the seeds, and if they germinate and grow, we get the results, not someone else. Buddhists don’t believe there is a ‘God’ or anyone or anything else to reward or punish us; when we are free of such beliefs we can do something about our own lives, and be more in control of the way we live.

            Therefore, to whom, or to what, do Buddhists pray? Certainly, we pray to no ‘God’, and neither should we pray to the Buddha, as He never asked people to do that, and in fact, warned against it, telling people to follow the Dharma instead, and thereby find their own enlightenment. The Buddha never claimed to be a savior of any kind; it is the Dharma, the Truth, which saves and liberates us, not the Buddha, or anyone else. When we understand this, we immediately avoid the trap of personalizing things, which is a trap that catches many of us.

            But many people do pray to the Buddha, do they not? Yes, it appears they do. But, though this might not be correct, and might impede progress on the Way, it is not necessarily bad. You see, many people have no-one in whom they can confide and tell their troubles to. Very few people have what is known, in Buddhist terminology, as a ‘good friend’ (kalyana mitta, in Pali language), someone who will listen sympathetically without condemning, who will help and give constructive advice or criticism when necessary. Without such friends, they keep their feelings and problems bottled up inside, afraid, unable, or unwilling to express them to anyone. Like this, their problems go around and around inside them, causing so much tension and misery, and often growing bigger and stronger, until, somehow, they find ways of ‘getting out’.

            Often, if we cannot release or express our problems ourselves, they accumulate and increase in strength until, suddenly and uncontrollably, they burst out like a volcano exploding, and can be very destructive. We need to find ways to release our problems so that their potential for causing damage is minimized. Therefore, although it is not really correct to pray to the Buddha in a symbol, such as a picture or an image, it can act as a way of releasing the tensions of accumulated worries and problems. In this way, as a technique, it can be good. We should not worry about others criticizing us or accusing us of ‘worshipping idols’, because most of them are guilty of doing that which they accuse us of; Christians pray to ‘God’, which is just their own mental creation or projection, for although they claim that "God created Man in his own image", it is actually the other way around: Man created God in his own image, due to his hopes, fears, and wishful thinking!

            In some cases, however, we must admit that this accusation is justified: some Buddhists do worship the images and talk to them as superior beings, and pray to and beseech them for help and favors, etc. But if people understood what the Buddha taught, they would not worship the images; the images and icons are merely symbols on which to focus our attention, to help raise our consciousness to higher levels.

            No-one knows what the Buddha looked like. The books say that His body had a number of special marks on it, but I suspect that these marks were visible only to people who had developed certain psychic powers such as clairvoyance— that is, the ability to see things that people without such powers are unable to see, like ghosts. In the scriptures, there are cases of people meeting the Buddha and not recognizing Him. Surely, if His special marks— such as the protuberance on the crown of his head, His long ears, and the halo around His head— had been visible to everyone, He would have been widely known by reputation of these things, and anyone meeting Him would have recognized Him immediately!

            In 326 BCE— more than 200 years after the Buddha passed away— Alexander the Great led his armies down through the mountain-passes of what is now Afghanistan to the plains of India. Undefeated until then, he was halted at the River Beas by the forces of Emperor Chandragupta— Ashoka’s grandfather— and could go no further. Alexander died in Persia on his way back to Greece, but some of his troops remained and settled in N.W. India, and established kingdoms there. Being philosophically and artistically inclined, the Greeks were very impressed with the teachings of the Buddha that they encountered in India, and embracing them, were the first to carve images of Him, in the likeness of their Sun-god, Apollo, who represented Light and Reason. Many of these graceful early images remain till now, housed in various museums.

            There are many styles of Buddha-images: Indian images, Chinese images, Tibetan images, etc.; we can even see painted Buddha-images with blue eyes and brown hair now, looking like Anglo-Saxons! But i