Our Grief is Our Own

 

Question: I am deeply sorrowed and devastated by the Death of my Mother. I chanted "Namo Amitabha Buddha" hundreds of times repeatedly twice a day for almost 49 days since my beloved Mother died on Jan. 1, 2008 and I "asked" the Amitabha Buddha to witness/certify that I was transferring merits to my Mother and that with His Great Compassion He would help deliver my Mother to His Pure Land. I tried to connect my thought with my Mother and talked with her as though she was still alive to remind her of her good deeds and her "connection/involvement" with Buddhism when she was alive. I asked my Mother to think of Amitabha Buddha and chant His name and ask to be delivered to the Pure Land.

My burning question is to know where Mother is now. I need confirmation. Please, please help. Will she contact me...? How can I get in touch with her? I am like a lost bleeding soul wandering about life now that my Mother is gone. I missed Her so, so, so, so much. I want my Mother back. I deeply regret that I didn't do enough to help around when she was alive. Where is my Mother now? Please, please reply.

Thank you so much for your time.

Response: I am so very sorry to hear of your loss. So often when people write to me, I reply as best I can but explain that I am unable to truly feel what they are experiencing. But in responding to you, I can honestly say that I do understand how you feel. And that I am truly sorry for your loss and your suffering.

My mother died October 8, 2006. I too chanted for forty-nine days and tried to form a connection with her, to talk with her as if she was still with me and to encourage her to go to the Pure Land.

Like you, my burning thought was “Where is she now?” The thought that she might be suffering, the not knowing where she was caused me much pain. I too missed my mother, and still miss her, so very much. I too regretted that I didn’t do all that I could. I also regretted that I was not as patient as I should have been and that I was not a better daughter. So Peter, I do know your suffering.

That said, I do not have the ability to know where my mother—or your mother—is. I do not know whether your mother will contact you. But I do know we need to let our mother’s move on to their next life, whether it is in the Pure Land or again within samsara. Our grief is our own, we do not want it to pull our mothers back to us for that would cause them further suffering. Knowing we did not do as much as we could when they were alive, we need to try to do as much as we can now.

Please know that it may not be ours to know where our mothers now are. Also know that the suffering from your loss will ease. That sounds trite but it is true. I speak from experience. When my mother died, I wrote some entries here in the blog in the hope they would help others just a little bit. A few of them are here, here, and here. The rest are under the categories death and grief.
 

Killing to Save

Question: Please help me with this dilemma. Malaria has caused immense suffering and poverty in the developing world. Two million, four hundred and thirty thousand infants, pending mothers and their untallied unborn die every year due to mosquito bites. Is it permitted to use DDT 1. Repel 2. Irritate 3. If those fail to kill the mosquito to save these lives?

Response: In everything we do, we need to consider not just the immediate results but the long-range consequences as well. Something that appears to do good today, but causes harm in the future is not good.

DDT has been banned in many countries because it is so toxic. It kills not only mosquitoes but other insects, animals, and even humans. It poisons groundwater and the soil. There is still DDT in soil where the use of DDT was banned thirty year ago. Along with many other man-made toxins, DDT collects in the fat cells of humans and other animals. These toxins are believed to be a cause of our increasing rates of cancers and other illnesses.

So before we take any action we need to understand exactly what we are doing and see if there are better alternatives. For example, my knowledge of malaria is limited but I have heard that mosquito nets have helped reduce the number of cases of malaria in children.

Because everything is inter-related our actions do not exist in isolation. By modifying one thing, we start a chain of events that ripple out. We now know that especially in nature; even one minor action will have widespread affects. Our failure to consider this has created many of the environmental problems we are facing today. These environmental problems cause many people to suffer, many people to die.

So before we act, we need to very carefully consider the possible outcomes.

Do the Right Thing

From Sharon Astyk's blog "Casaubon's Book": 

My friend Pat Meadows, a very, very smart woman, has a wonderful idea she calls “The Theory of Anyway.” What it entails is this - she argues that 95% of what is needed to resolve the coming crisis in energy depletion, or climate change, or whatever is what we should do anyway, and when in doubt about how to change, we should change our lives to reflect what we should be doing “Anyway.” Living more simply, more frugally, using less, leaving reserves for others, reconnecting with our food and our community, these are things we should be doing because they are the right thing to do on many levels. That they also have the potential to save our lives is merely a side benefit (a big one, though).

This is, I think, a deeply powerful way of thinking because it is a deeply moral way of thinking - we would like to think of ourselves as moral people, but we tend to think of moral questions as the obvious ones “should I steal or pay?” “Should I hit or talk?” But the real and most essential moral questions of our lives are the questions we rarely ask of the things we do every day, “Should I eat this?” “Where should I live and how?” “What should I wear?” “How should I keep warm/cool?” We think of these questions as foregone conclusions - I should keep warm X way because that’s the kind of furnace I have, or I should eat this because that’s what’s in the grocery store. Pat’s Theory of Anyway turns this around, and points out that what we do, the way we live, must pass ethical muster first - we must always ask the question “Is this contributing to the repair of the world, or its destruction.”

So if you told me that tomorrow, peak oil had been resolved, I’d still keep gardening, hanging my laundry, cutting back and trying to find a way to make do with less. Because even if we found enough oil to power our society for a thousand years, there would still be climate change, and it would be *wrong* of me to choose my own convenience over the security and safety of my children and other people’s children. And if you told me tomorrow that we’d fixed climate change, that we could power our lives forever with renewables, I would still keep gardening and living frugally. Because our agriculture is premised on depleted soil and aquifers, and we’re facing a future in which many people don’t have enough food and water if we keep eating this way, and to allow that to happen would be a betrayal of what I believe is right. And if you told me that we’d fixed that problem too, that we were no longer depleting our aquifers and expanding the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, I’d still keep gardening and telling others to do the same, because our reliance on food from other nations, and our economy impoverishes and starves millions, even billions of poor people and creates massive economic inequities that do tremendous harm. And if you told me that globalization was over, and that we were going to create a just economic system, and we’d fixed all the other problems, and that I didn’t have to worry anymore, would I then stop gardening?

No. Because the nurture of my piece of land would still be the right thing to do. Doing things with no more waste than is absolutely necessary would still be the right thing to do. The creation of a fertile, sustainable, lasting place of beauty would still be my right work in the world. I would still be a Jew, obligated by G-d to Tikkun Olam, to “the repair of the world.” I would still be obligated to live in way that prevented wildlife from being run to extinction and poisons contaminating the earth. I would still be obligated to make the most of what I have and reduce my needs so they represent a fair share of what the earth has to offer. I would still be obligated to treat poor people as my siblings, and you do not live comfortably when your siblings suffer or have less. I am obligated to live rightly, in part because of what living rightly gives me - integrity, honor, joy, a better relationship with my diety of choice, peace.

There are people out there who are prepared to step forward and give up their cars, start growing their own food, stop consuming so much and stop burning fossil fuels…just as soon as peak oil, or climate change, or government rationing, or some external force makes them. But that, I believe is the wrong way to think about this. We can’t wait for others to tell us, or the disaster to befall us. We have to do now, do today, do with all our hearts, the things we should have been doing “Anyway” all along.

Sounds a Lot like Christianity

Questions: I hope you can clarify my question on the Pure Land practice - an eternal realm of bliss and peace after passing on, a godhead like figure full of compassion and wisdom, a practice based on faith, devotion and "other power", I don't know but it sure sounds a lot like the Christian faith to me. Am I wrong? If it's not and different, can I know in what ways is it different besides the naming of the place and the head figure?

Response: Thank you for the opportunity to try to clarify further the difference between Christianity and Pure Land Buddhism.

Buddhas were ordinary beings—just like us—who have awakened and no longer have attachments, wandering thoughts, or discriminations. Since any being can awaken, and innumerable beings have, there are innumerable Buddhas. In Christianity, there is one God who is omniscient and all powerful. Buddhas (for whom the boundaries of past, present, and future no longer exist) know “everything” but have no power to change what we have destined for ourselves through our past karmas (thoughts, speech, and actions). So Buddhas, although they are filled with compassion and wisdom, are not “godhead-like figures” since they do not have the power to save us.

So Buddhas are not gods. Buddhas are teachers.

Our “faith” is not of a religious nature but more of a sense of unwavering belief. Master Ouyi wrote in his commentary on the Amitabha Sutra that we were to have belief in:

Self, believing that our self-nature is the same as the Buddhas
The Buddhas and that their teachings are true and abide by them
Cause and effect and that in mindfulness of Buddha, we will be born in the Western Pure Land and become Buddhas
The existence of the Western Pure Land, that it is true and not a tale
The principle that everything arises from the true mind

 

So our faith is not of a religious nature. Faith for us is unwavering belief.

Since there are innumerable Buddhas, Amitabha is one of those Buddhas. His Pure Land is not a place for the enjoyment of bliss but rather an ideal learning environment—the perfect university with the best teachers (Amitabha Buddha and all the bodhisattvas who are there) with perfect learning conditions (no tuition, no need to prepare meals, no feeling tired, no illness, etc.) for us to learn all we need to in order to fulfill our vows to help all sentient beings.

So we go to the Pure Land not for our own benefit but for the sake of all beings.

Merriam-Webster’s Third Edition Unabridged dictionary defines devotion as “earnestness and zeal in the performance of religious duties and observations: religious fervor.” But since the Buddha himself asserted that he was not a god but an awakened being, Buddhism is not a religion. What the Buddha taught was the Way, which was the principles, methods, and states of awakening.

So there is no “devotion.” There is utmost respect and gratitude.

Yes, there is “other power” but not in a godlike way. Pure Land practice is the coupling of both “other power” and “self power.” Think of the Buddha as a facilitator, not as a savior. His other power is to teach and to have created the Pure Land that is sustained by his virtues and the virtues of all the beings who dwell there. But without our “Self power” he cannot help us to the Pure Land. We have to form the connection with him through our chanting. To form this connection we must have been the “good men and good women” spoken of in the Amitabha Sutra.

So there is not “other power” in the sense of a savior. There is both other power and self power.

We must reach out to Amitabha Buddha before he can reach back to us.

His Father's Last Words

 

After a disagreement among some of the monks, the Buddha once told the monks about a series of events that took place long ago.

King Brahmadata ruled a large kingdom and commanded a strong army. King Dighiti, who ruled a smaller kingdom, heard that Brahmadata was about to invade his kingdom. Knowing he could never defeat Brahmadata’s army and that many of his soldiers would lose their lives in a futile battle, King Dighiti felt it would be best if he and his queen fled. So they went into hiding in another city. A short time later, the queen gave birth to Prince Dighavu. When the prince was older, King Dighiti began to fear what would happen if King Brahmadata found all three of them. As a result, arrangements were made for the prince to live elsewhere.

One day, the king and queen were recognized, cap­tured, and taken to be executed. By chance, Prince Dighavu was on his way to see his parents, whom he had not seen in a long time. He was about to rush to them when his father cried out, “Do not, my dear Dighavu, be far-sighted. Do not be near-sighted. For vengeance is not settled through vengeance. Vengeance is settled through non-vengeance.” The King repeated his warning two more times, adding that he was not deranged, and said that those with heart would under­stand what he meant.

None of the villagers knew who Dighavu was or what the king was talking about. Heeding his father’s warning, Dighavu managed to restrain himself. He watched his parents being executed and dismembered. That night he bought wine and gave it to the guards, who soon became drunk. He then made a pyre, gathered his parent’s remains, placed them on the pyre, and set fire to it. After paying his final respects to his parents, he went into the forest to mourn their death.

A while later, after coming out of hiding, Dighavu managed to obtain a job as an apprentice at an elephant stable next to the palace. One day, when King Brahmadata heard Dighavu singing and playing the lute, he was moved by the sound and arranged for Dighavu to work in his palace. Serving the king and always acting to please him, Dighavu gradually won the king’s trust.

One day, while King Brahmadata was out hunting, Dighavu, who was driving the king’s chariot, deliberately drove the chariot away from the rest of the hunting party. Not long after, the king said he wished to take a nap and soon went to sleep, using Dighavu’s lap for a pillow. Dighavu’s moment of revenge had come. He took out his sword, but suddenly his father’s words came back to him and he put the sword away. A second time, he drew and then sheathed his sword.

After Dighavu drew his sword for the third time, his father’s words—simple and gentle—hit home. They touched Dighavu’s heart that was full of hatred and consumed by a desire for vengeance. His heart knew the truth of his father’s words and understood their import. Heeding his father's words, Dighavu awakened at last to the compassion and wisdom extant in that selfsame heart. He was able to put not only his sword down but his hatred and his desire for vengeance as well.

Suddenly, the king awoke in great alarm. He told Dighavu that he dreamed that Prince Dighavu was about to kill him! Instinctively, Dighavu drew his sword yet again and announced that he was Prince Dighavu. The king immediately begged Dighavu not to kill him. With his compassion and wisdom overcoming his hatred and desire for vengeance, Dighavu was able to put away his sword. Then, in turn, he begged for the king’s for­giveness . The king and the prince spared each other’s lives, and each vowed never to harm the other. They then returned to the castle.

Back at the palace, the king asked his ministers what they would do if they could find Prince Dighavu. After hearing their brutal descriptions of what they would do, the king told them what had just transpired. He then turned to Dighavu and asked the meaning of his father’s last words.

Dighavu explained that do not be far-sighted meant one should not hold on to a wish for retaliation. Do not be near-sighted meant one should not readily break one’s friendship with another. Additionally, vengeance is not settled through vengeance. Vengeance is set­tled through non-vengeance enabled Dighavu to realize that if he sought revenge for the deaths of his parents by killing the king, the king’s supporters would retaliate by killing him. Then Dighavu’s supporters would in turn kill the king’s supporters. This is why vengeance never ends through vengeance. In sparing each other’s lives, both the king and the prince ended vengeance by letting go of it.