What is Reality?

Interesting Wikipedia entry. Some excerpts:

1. "Some schools of buddhism hold that reality is something void of description, the formless which gives birth to all forms which are seen as mental illusions or maya. Buddhists hold that we can only point to things and discuss things which are not reality itself and that nothing can be said of reality which is true in any absolute sense ...... ."

2. "In psychiatry, reality, or rather the idea of being in touch with reality, is integral to the notion of schizophrenia, which has often been defined in part by reference to being "out of touch" with reality. The schizophrenic is said to have hallucinations and delusions which concern people and events that are not "real." However, there is controversy over what is considered "out of touch with reality," particularly due to the noticeable comparison of the process of forcibly institutionalising individuals for expressing their beliefs in society to reality enforcement."

3. "Certain ideas from physics, philosophy, sociology, literary criticism, and other fields shape various theories of reality. One such belief is that there simply and literally is no reality beyond the perceptions or beliefs we each have about reality. Such attitudes are summarized in the popular statement, "Perception is reality" or "Life is how you perceive reality" or "reality is what you can get away with" ...., and they indicate anti-realism, that is, the view that there is no objective reality, whether acknowledged explicitly or not."

4. "On a much broader and more subjective level, the private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and selectivity involved in the personal interpretation of an event shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological .... From a phenomenological perspective, reality is that which is phenomenally real and unreality is nonexistent. Individual perception can be based upon an individual's personality, focus and style of attribution, causing him or her to see only what he or she wants to see or believes to be true."

5. "Berkeleyan idealism is the view, propounded by the Irish empiricist George Berkeley, that the objects of perception are actually ideas in the mind. On this view, one might be tempted to say that reality is a "mental construct"; this is not quite accurate, however, since on Berkeley's view perceptual ideas are created and coordinated by God. By the 20th century, views similar to Berkeley's were called phenomenalism. Phenomenalism differs from Berkeleyan idealism primarily in that Berkeley believed that minds, or souls, are not merely ideas nor made up of ideas, whereas varieties of phenomenalism, such as that advocated by Russell, tended to go farther to say that the mind itself is merely a collection of perceptions, memories, etc., and that there is no mind or soul over and above such mental events."

6. "Quantum mechanics (QM) has kept physicists and philosophers in debate on the nature of reality since its invention .... Primarily, one cannot measure the location and velocity of sub-atomic elements such as an electron precisely because the more one looks for the former the less accuracy one can achieve for the latter. This imprecision introduces an uncertainty into the overall state of the system and the necessity of a choice on the part of the one making the measurement, namely which aspect will he find accurately at the cost of the other. This decision on the part of the measurer has created no small problem for objectivists who insist that at its core reality is objectively present whether anyone notices or not. Several experiments such as the double slit and Bell's have confirmed that the simple act of observing does impact the system's state in a noticeable way; since the detector itself has to be changed to detect anything at all, there is necessarily a change in the observed particle because of quantum entanglement. But also the state of correlating particles which have not been measured appears to be affected. Even the notion of cause and effect is brought into question in the quantum world where irreducible randomness cannot currently be avoided as a basic assumption. In theory large numbers of random quantum elements seen as a group from a very great distance can seem like cause and effect which is why our level of experience appears to function almost completely deterministically.

It has led some people to assume that there is no reality existing, independent of our own consciousness as observer."

I like the last part, heheh.

On a separate note, I've been investigating the unusual friendship between David Bohm (the world-famous quantum physicist who contributed to the invention of the world's atomic bomb) and the Indian spiritual guru J Krishnamurti, who was believed by many to be an incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha.

A seemingly unlikely pair, but Bohm and Krishnamurti maintained their friendship over 25 years. Bohm and Krishnamurti exchanged many ideas about the nature of reality. Specifically, the nature of space and time, and ... consciousness. Yeah, as one related package.

I'm still digesting, so I shall not comment too much. Still it is really not that unusual as you might think, for spiritual leaders to end up investigating quantum physics, and for quantum physicists to end up investigating religion. The Dalai Lama and Professor Fred Alan Wolf are two living examples.

Gadis Bispak Imut

• Lihat Foto
• Lihat Foto

Thoughts, Reality And the World of Finance

Here's an old joke about the efficient market hypothesis:

A finance professor and his student take a walk together. Suddenly they see a $50 note lying on the ground. As the student stoops to pick it up, the professor says: "Don't bother - if it were really a $50 note, it wouldn't be there."

Hahahahaa! Well, okay. If you don't know what the EM hypothesis is, you might not get this joke. Anyway, this Sunday, Mr Wang will take you on a whimsical "thoughts-affect-reality" tour of the world of finance.

Let's start with the basics. How do you make money out of the stock market? Very simple. You buy a share at a certain price, eg at $1.00, and later you sell it at a higher price, eg $1.50. There - you just made $0.50.

But in the first place, how do you know what to buy? There are three major schools of thought, known as fundamental analysis, technical analysis and the efficient market hypothesis. Let's take a look.

Intuitively, fundamental analysis makes the most sense to the layman. As the name suggests, you'll analyse the "fundamentals" of each stock. For example, you could start by analysing the general economy (eg the government's estimates for annual economic growth). Then you could analyse a particular industry within that general economy (for example, the financial services industry and the factors affecting it). Then you analyse a particular company within that industry (for example, DBS and its financial statements, its products and services, its business strategies etc).

You then form a view. You say, "Based on my analysis, the intrinsic value of this company's share ought to be $1.50." You then check the market. You find that the share is actually trading at $1.00. You quickly buy the share. In your opinion, the share is undervalued; people will realise it later; you're smarter than them, because you realised it first; and later you will be able to sell the share for $1.50. There, you made $0.50.

Mr Wang would say this: "Fundamental analysis assumes that there is an external objective reality. If we study this reality rationally, we can discover what that reality is. Using logical thinking, we will be able to identify the intrinsic value of the share. By using superior logical thinking, we can spot cheap shares faster than other investors, buy them up quickly, and sell them for a profit later."

Technical analysis is quite different. It does not care about the economy. It does not care about the growth prospects of any particular industry. It does not care whether the company's CEO has 20 years of management experience or had dropped out from primary school. All these factors are completely irrelevant in technical analysis.

Technical analysis says that the market value of a share is determined solely by the supply and demand for it. Supply and demand depends on the hopes, fears, opinions, views, conclusions and guesses of numerous potential buyers and sellers - whether rational or not. All these factors are ultimately reflected in charts tracking the price of a share, the volume of trading etc.

Furthermore, chart patterns tend to repeat themselves. Terms to describe such patterns include "head and shoulders", "double top", "consolidation rectangles", "runaway gaps" and so on. From these patterns, you can predict certain trends that will continue for some time (that is, the price will either go upwards for some time, or downwards for some time, or stay approximately constant for some time). By studying the charts (and absolutely nothing else), you can predict which way the price is going to go. And that's how you make money, using technical analysis.

Mr Wang would say this: "Technical analysis assumes that there is an external reality, but that the reality is subjective. This reality is continually responding to the thoughts of investors, as a whole. If enough investors think hard enough that a particular share will go up, then it will go up. If enough investors think hard enough that a share will go down, then it will go down.

Thus it is a waste of time studying "objective", "rational" data such as the latest release of economic data or the level of political stability in Singapore. Just study the charts, whch represent all the investors' collective thoughts, which in turn move in predictable patterms. Study the charts, and you will know how the external reality will change in the future."

Now we turn to the efficient market hypothesis (also known as the random walk theory). It says that financial markets are so efficient at pricing in all available information that absolutely no one in the world can consistently predict the direction of the stock market or which stock will be the next winner.

For example, let's say that today, there is a terrorist attack in New York, or DBS announces its new business strategies for the next five years, or Microsoft appoints a new CEO. As soon as this information is released, it is instantly priced into the market. Investors, as a collective group, instantly take note of this information and the share prices of DBS and Microsoft immediately adjust, according to the opinions and views of investors, as a collective whole.

According to the efficient market hypothesis, fundamental analysis is basically useless. That's because every piece of information that the fundamental analyst is studying has ALREADY been taken into account. There is no point in studying the economy, or the industry, or any company, in the hope of finding a cheap, undervalued share that you can sell for a higher price later. Every available piece of information you're looking at has ALREADY been priced into the entire market.

The implication is that there is no rational way to find a "good" share to buy. There is no rational way to identify a "bad" share. Shares are simply whatever the entire universe of investors think they are. World-renowned finance expert Burton Malkiel goes so far as to say this: "A blindfolded chimpanzee throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal could select a portfolio that would do as well as the experts."

Here's another way to look at it - at any given moment, as long as the stock exchange is open, the price of each share is a perfect reflection of (1) all available information in the universe about that share, and (2) the sum total of all opinions, guesses, hopes, fears, beliefs, conclusions and expectations that all investors have ever had about this information.

Mr Wang would say this: "The efficient market hypothesis says that the present reality of a share's price is created by all the thoughts, past and present, that all investors in the universe have EVER had about that share. Furthermore, any new thoughts that investors may have about the share INSTANTLY affect the share. Time is pretty much an illusion."

"Woah, that sounds like karma.
Even instant karma, haha.".

Gadis Bispak Imut

• Lihat Foto
• Lihat Foto

Quantum Soup - Buddhism & Physics

In the past few posts, I've been accused of so many different things, it's hilarious.

For example, some people say that I'm using science to advocate my religion, Buddhism. (Funny, but I'm not a Buddhist).

Then the Buddhists say that I'm talking about meditation, but applying it towards secular purposes, and thereby distracting my readers from enlightenment. (Funny, but the universe never told me I had a duty to guide my readers towards enlightenment).

Then others say that I'm mixing up science and Buddhism in a very bad way; you should never discuss "science" together with "God" or any similar concept like "consciousness", and if you do, well, you're just playing semantic games, engaging in philosophical debates that, in truth, have nothing to do with reality.

That's ....... interesting. Because science and religion do, in my reality, co-exist. Aren't there scientists AND religious believers in yours? Don't they live in the same cities, go to the same places, eat the same food, walk around in the same space-time reality?

Can't the Dalai Lama also do a double-slit experiment with a photomultiplier? Can't a quantum physicist also meditate on the effect of subjective thought processes on his lab experiment? What would happen, if the Dalai Lama and scientists were placed in the same space-time reality?

Well, in case you didn't know, this kind of thing does happen quite often. In the end, they're all quite interested in the same things, you see. Fortunately, some Buddhists and some scientists are more open-minded than, say, some of my blog readers.

Here's just one example of "Buddhism meets Science":

Talking physics with the Dalai Lama
7 August 1998

The University of Innsbruck in Austria is one of the world's leading centres for research into the mysteries and subtleties of quantum theory. The work of Anton Zeilinger and colleagues at Innsbruck - such as the experimental demonstration of quantum teleportation - regularly appears in the leading journals, and in magazines such as Physics World .

Recently a surprising figure was seen in the labs. Was that really the Dalai Lama - the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize - checking out a quantum optics experiment?

Zeilinger had invited the Dalai Lama to his laboratory following a meeting at Dharamsala in Northern India last October at which he and four other physicists had, over the course of five days, discussed physics and cosmology with the Buddhist leader. In Dharamsala, Zeilinger had demonstrated some basic quantum phenomena - such as wave-particle duality - using a laser-based double-slit experiment with a photomultiplier tube connected to a loud-speaker. The Dalai Lama's visit to Innsbruck allowed other quantum effects to be demonstrated for him.

Zeilinger says that the Dalai Lama did not have a problem with photons having both particle and wave-like properties, but was reluctant to accept that individual quantum events are random. For example, he refused to accept that we cannot know which path a photon takes in a two-path quantum interference experiment. Zeilinger notes that continuity of existence is very important to Buddhists because it leads to reincarnation.

However, observation plays a key part in what we can know in both quantum theory and Buddhism, and Zeilinger was surprised to learn that the Dalai Lama agreed that there are not only limits on what we can measure, but also limits on what we can know, even in principle.

So what is Tibetan Buddhism? And what possible connection can it have with physics?

According to Alan Wallace, an interpreter at the meeting, Buddhism is a spiritual tradition with strong empirical, philosophical and religious components, including a belief in the after-life and reincarnation and healthy doses of meditation. Buddhism, he explains, is based on the four noble truths: the reality of suffering and conflict; the inner origins of suffering and conflict; the possibility of the cessation of suffering and its sources; and that Buddhism presents a path to this cessation through spiritual practices. The bottom line is that the root of suffering and conflict is ignorance and delusion, and that the path to spiritual freedom is the path of knowledge and insight.

Wallace is well placed to discuss the links between science and Buddhism. After spending 14 years as a Buddhist monk in India, Switzerland and the US, he graduated in physics from Amherst College in the 1980s. It was at Amherst that he met Arthur Zajonc, the physicist who was the scientific co-ordinator for the Dharamsala meeting. Wallace is now professor of Tibetan studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

"It is natural for Buddhists to be interested in science, " he says, "because science is the most complete and successful theory of the physical universe we have. The Buddhist pursuit of truth includes not only the nature of consciousness, about which modern science knows very little, but also the entire world of which we are conscious."

Wallace agrees that quantum mechanics and Buddhism have many similarities: neither is fully objective (i.e. certain quantum properties only have meaning in the context of a measurement) nor fully subjective. Consciousness and various mind-body problems are also similar in this respect, he adds. According to Wallace, the Dalai Lama had not realized before that these sorts of philosophical questions could be so clearly demonstrated in the laboratory, while physicists were surprised that the introspective approach of Buddhism led to similar questions.

Zajonc says that he found many elements of Buddhism potentially quite helpful to the philosophical treatment of quantum mechanics. "It quickly became clear, " he adds, "that Tibetan Buddhism offers a vast and subtle set of philosophical approaches that we in the West would benefit by knowing, even in the sciences."

The conference in Dharamsala was the sixth in the "Mind and Life" series in which the Dalai Lama meets with scientists, but the first on the physical sciences. The previous five had been concerned with the brain, consciousness and related topics. According to Wallace, the meetings are a response to the Dalai Lama's own fascination with science and his belief that Tibetan Buddhism must not turn its back on modern knowledge. There are two main reasons for conferences: to provide a high-level tutorial for the Dalai Lama; and to encourage scientists to explore new ideas, inspired by Tibetan Buddhist philosophy, psychology and meditation.

George Greenstein, a theoretical astrophysicist at Amherst College, spoke about cosmology in Dharamsala. The other physicists present were Piet Hut of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton, David Finkelstein of the Georgia Institute of Technology, Zajonc and Zeilinger. "The dialogues, " says Greenstein, "included a good deal of factual information in which the Dalai Lama was extremely interested." Philosophical questions were also discussed. For example, is the big bang a moment of creation, as opposed to a transformation from one state to another? How can we understand creation? And did time and the laws of physics exist before the creation?

Greenstein says that philosophical questions are never answered, just discussed in new and interesting ways. His hope was that the Dalai Lama would ask the questions in new ways. "This happened in general, " he says, "but I cannot quote chapter and verse about specific topics. It was more amorphous and subterranean."

So why did Zeilinger agree to visit the Dalai Lama in the first place? "Science is an endeavour on which we have just started, " he says. "We are just fledglings and it is important to pull together all the intellectual traditions in the world."

Would Greenstein like to continue the discussions? "I would love to go back to Dharamsala, " he says. "Considering we were discussing all of physics and astronomy, we only scratched the surface. We flew over a new continent. I'd love to go back and land and walk around a bit."

Gadis Bispak Imut

• Lihat Foto
• Lihat Foto

Mindhacker 101

A number of readers have emailed me to ask that I blog more about mindhacking. Separately, I have noticed that some of my readers seem to be fervent Buddhists (see readers comments' over here). So today I will blog about mindhacking, and inject some Buddhist perspectives into it.

As our starting point, we'll use karma, as explained in Buddhism. If you think that karma is superstitition or hogwash, this is not a post for you and you can stop reading right about here (because the rest of the post is predicated on the basis that the Buddhist explanation of karma is correct).

For the rest of you, let's proceed.

Buddhism tells us everything in the universe comes into being purely as a result of the combination of causes and conditions. In other words, there are natural causal laws that operate throughout the universe.

Karma is just one of those natural causal laws. The distinguishing feature is that karma is based on intention. For example, suppose you drive a car and knock someone down. The karmic consequences depend on your state of mind. Did you accidentally knock him down, or were you deliberately plotting to kill him? The physical effect - a dead man - may be the same, but the karmic consequences will be very different.

Buddhism tells us that there is no escaping karma. It is not something that operates only from Monday to Friday; it does not close shop or stop work after 6 pm. Every intention, every thought has karmic consequences.

Let me say that again, because the point is very important - every intention, every thought has karmic consequences. Everything happening in your life now is the consequence of some combination of thoughts and intentions you have had, sometime in your past.

It is a universal law, you see. Even death is not an escape. Accumulated karma that hasn't fully expressed itself in this lifetime will simply follow you into the next.

Actions (or more precisely, deliberate actions) can, in Buddhism, be broadly categorised into three groups. There are positive or virtuous actions (which will lead to positive and desirable consequences, such as experiences of happiness). There are negative or nonvirtuous actions (which will lead to suffering and pain). Then there are actions which are neither virtuous nor nonvirtuous (these lead to neutral feelings and experiences).

Buddhism understands that the average mortal has little control over his mind. Intellectually, we may know that it is a good time to be kind, compassionate, patient, loving, forgiving, peaceful etc etc. In reality, we find it difficult to be kind, compassionate, patient, loving, forgiving, peaceful all the time, or even some of the time.

Thus Buddhism teaches a systematic process towards enlightenment. The earlier steps of the process focus on guarding our body, speech and mind from engaging in negative actions (for example, lying, stealing etc).

At this point in time, we'll stop to look at the basic proposition again - every intention, every thought has karmic consequences.

For example, if you are a kind, loving person who constantly thinks kind, loving thoughts, the universe will deliver into your life the karmic consequences of those kind, loving thoughts. If you are an angry, violent person who constantly thinks angry, violent thoughts, the universe will deliver into your life the karmic consequences of those angry, violent thoughts.

Every intention, every thought has karmic consequences. The universe will always ensure that.

Now suppose you are a perfectly "average" person, with an average family, an average job, average wealth, average health, average sex life, average friends, an average home, with an average everything, and if you were asked to honestly describe yourself, you would say:

"I am quite an ordinary person, with average levels of ability, my luck is neither very good nor very bad, and I expect to have an average number of successes and failures in my life. I suppose I can't say that my life as a disaster, but of course I am not particularly happy or I don't feel completely fulfilled either."

So those are your self-beliefs. Those are your thoughts about yourself. Next, suppose that through mindhacking you manage to rip this set of beliefs out of your head. Maybe not all at once, but step by step, over weeks, months or even years - through mindhacking. So that you end up believing, say, something like this:

"I am a highly successful person, furthermore I am extremely lucky, I am always in the right place at the right time. I have outstanding ability, I have a wonderful family, I am a happy person, everything is always working out fine for me, in fact, better than I expected. I'm really grateful for all the good things I have, and I feel blessed."

Now, let's go back to the basic Buddhist propositions again - every intention, every thought has karmic consequences. This is a universal law of cause and effect. Your thoughts and intentions are the cause of everything that happens in your life. The karmic consequences of your thoughts will always be delivered into your life. Because the universe will always ensure that.

How would your life change, if you held on to that new set of thoughts described above?
Gadis Bispak Imut

• Lihat Foto
• Lihat Foto

In Search of Higher Purpose

A number of readers have written to ask how they should go about finding their Purpose in life.

This question has several implicit assumptions. Firstly, it is assumed that each person DOES have a Purpose in life.

Secondly, it is assumed that the Purpose ought to be discoverable now or in the near future, as opposed to, say, at a much later stage in life.

Thirdly, it is assumed that each person only has ONE purpose.

Of course, none of these assumptions are necessarily true. For example, it may well be that the Universe hasn’t assigned a specific Purpose to you that you are supposed to discover – instead you'll have to choose your own Purpose and stick to it.

Or it may well be that you do have a Purpose assigned to you by a Higher Power, but this Purpose will unfold itself to you not now, not tomorrow, but 5, 10, 15 or 20 years later, when the time is right.

Or it may well be that you could have several different Purposes at any given time, or alternatively you could have a Purpose at a particular time, and another Purpose at another time in your life.

Now let’s look at all this in a practical way, by revisiting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

People wondering about their Purpose in life are actually wondering what they should be doing at Level 5, when they get there.

But maybe they should get there first, that is, climb right up into Level 5, and then their Purpose (or Purposes) will become clear to them.

In other words, take care of your Level 1 – 4 needs first, and then (and only then) may your Level 5 needs become crystal clear to you.

Remember, Maslow’s needs are hierarchical. A person facing big challenges at Level 1 would be unclear about Levels 2 or 3. A person who is facing big challenges at Levels 2 or 3 would be unclear about Level 4.

And to be clear what you want at Level 5, perhaps what you need to do is to fully address your Level 1 to 4 needs.

Consider for example, Gautama Buddha, who was once a prince. As a prince, he had power, respect, authority, riches, royal luxuries, palaces, guards, servants and furthermore, parents who loved him so much that they did not want to know him to know that pain, suffering or death existed.

In other words, Gautama Buddha had just about everything that anyone could want, at Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4.

And that, perhaps, was why he was eventually able to launch into such a determined, inspired effrt into satisfying his Level 5 need (in his case, the need to understand the ultimate meanings of life).

And eventually he attained Enlightenment – but that is not the point of my post. The point of my point is – perhaps you can discover your Purpose only after satisfying your every other lesser purpose, goal, desire or ambition first.

And then your Purpose – the one with the capital P – may finally unfold itself to you.
Gadis Bispak Imut

• Lihat Foto
• Lihat Foto

Love, Life and Poetry

In a recent post, I mentioned my all-round philosophy to life. Here's an example of how it works.

I used to be in private practice in one of Singapore's top law firms. It paid very well and the work was very interesting. In fact, for my particular area of practice, no other firm in Singapore offered more challenging work. A year of experience there was worth two or three in other law firms. However, due to a chronic shortage of lawyers, the hours were very long.

Then my first child was born. Six months later, I quit the job. Mrs Wang quit private practice too. The kind of work/family balance we wanted was not going to happen, in a law firm environment.

I had absolutely no regrets. If I thought only in terms of the cost to my career, I would have had regrets. But the wiser thing to do was to consider life as a total package. I looked at my life as a whole, and the correct decision became quite clear to me. So I left private practice without hesitation, quite happily, and much to the dismay of my then-bosses. And I haven't looked back.

Now I have two kids. Recently, I've once again been spending less time with them than I would like. This time it's not the job. It's my exams. Fortunately, they will be over soon. Also, there is another difference, compared to the earlier days. Now the kids are older, more independent, and they have each other as playmates. I've been discovering that their new attitude is: if Daddy can join in, that would be great, but if Daddy can't, then that's fine too.

Gasp. They're growing up. That was quick.

A Worried Mother recently wrote to me - she is stopping work for a few years, to be a full-time mother to her newborn. I say this: don't fret about taking time off from your career. In the big picture of things, it does not matter whether you devoted 40 years of your life to your career, or 38, or 37. But the time with your child is very important, and once lost, doesn't come back.

Because kids are not kids forever. They grow up. Treasure the time you have with them, while you still have it. Because before you know it, they'll have their own lives and it will be time to let them go.

That's what Kahlil Gibran wants to tell you too:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you,
yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

Interestingly, in this other post of mine, a Buddhist reader, Chan, makes a bizarre argument against homosexuality. I thought I'd heard it all before, but this one is new to me. Chan says that homosexuality is wrong because the gay person, by not procreating, is being unfilial to his parents.

I then mentioned Buddhist monks. Are they, I asked, also unfilial to their parents, for choosing a life of celibacy and thereby not procreating? Chan's reply was that if the Buddhist monk seeks his parents' permission before entering monkhood, then the Buddhist monk is not unfilial. By extension, Chan says, if a gay person seeks his parents' permission before adopting a gay lifestyle, then the gay person's behavior becomes acceptable.

I'm struck by Chan's emphasis on filial piety. But personally, I think that in such a context, the principle has been stretched waaaay too far. Human beings are human beings, not the slaves or dogs of their parents. When they are adults, they must be left to make their own decisions and choose their own paths in life. Suppose you feel a strong calling to be a Buddhist monk. If your parents approve, that's great. But if they don't, then don't let their objections stop you.

Here is a real-life example: the Venerable Hyon Gak Sunim, Head Teacher at Hwa Gye Sah Temple in South Korea. Formerly, he was Paul Muenzen, the son of staunch Roman Catholics in the USA, and a graduate of Yale and Harvard. He pushed it all aside, to be a monk. Well, he's happy. And it's his life, after all. Not his parents'.

Speaking for myself, if my children grew up and decided to convert to Buddhism, I would not stop them. If they decided to convert to Christianity or Hinduism or Islam, I would not stop them either. In each case, I would only want to know that they have reflected and considered carefully and have concluded that this is what they really want for themselves. And if my children grew up and one day told me that they were gay, then in a strange way I think I would feel honoured. That they loved and trusted me enough to tell me such a thing, in a society where such things are often so deeply misunderstood.

In all cases, I think I would continue to love them, as a father should. I would respect their basic intrinsic right, as human beings, to choose their own paths in life, even if these are not paths I would have chosen for myself, or for them. How did Kahlil put it?

"You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you."

I like Kahlil's works. They contain such great wisdom. It's such a pity that our education system places little emphasis on Literature. It's just about the only subject that examines the condition of being human.

My next-door neighbours are always fighting and quarrelling, and it all started from the time when the handsome young Indian man there fell in love with a pretty young Chinese girl. That was years ago. Now they're married, but the man's parents are still fighting over this interracial marriage. Every now and then, they still throw the Chinese girl out of the house. So she sits outside the flat and cries. I see this as just another kind of Romeo & Juliet tragedy. If only the man's parents had read Shakespeare ... maybe they'd stop their bad behaviour.


Gadis Bispak Imut

• Lihat Foto
• Lihat Foto