Malala Yousafzai: The Essence of Courage

I’m not going to relive the tragic events that fell upon Malala. The world has already done that. What struck me was that in this day and age hate still seems to rule. The history of the world follows two paths: the road to enlightenment and the road to perdition. We know those who travel or have traveled on the road to enlightenment. The Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Albert Schweitzer, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and now Malala Yousafzai. On the other road we also know the travelers. They are the ones who spew hate, hijack thoughts and beliefs, and refuse to acknowledge that we are one species: human. Catholics and Protestants made Europe their battle grounds.

Too many people have died for professing their beliefs. A case can be made that it is how we interpret things may be a major cause of humans acting non-human. Catholics and Protestants differed not on the existence of God but how His Words were interpreted. Sunni and Shiite paths diverge after the death of the Prophet Mohammed. In Buddhism differences among the different traditions could be attributed to the interpretations of The Buddha’s teachings, or who can achieve Buddhahood. Because of these differences of opinions and beliefs, millions of people have died in the course of history.

So, what was Malala’s crime? She wanted to be educated. She wanted all girls to have access to education. She wanted to learn. We may never know who called out her name on the bus and shot her. What many of us do know is that Malala represents us. We may eventually achieve religious and racial equality, but it will mean nothing if we still view women as less equal.  -Glenn

The Abhaya Mudra or No Fear

The Abhaya Mudrā of Buddha: A Discussion.

We are, more or less, familiar with different Mudrās (symbols) of Buddha; and their meaning. One of these mudrās known as the Abhayamudrā means the posture or gesture of fearless. It is also known as Varadāmudrā as well. When the Buddha is shown with the Abhayamudrā; he shows Abhaya-fearless gesture to his fellow beings. He, then, becomes an Ahayadātā– the giver of fearlessness.

The Buddhist interpretation of  Abhaya Mudrā is both spiritual as well and worldly. According to early Buddhist scripture, the Buddha did not rely much on an almighty providential authority, but earthly and practical view of life. Yet, his Abhaya Mudrā remained uniquely outstanding. Buddha is not a creator, or destroyer nor a protector as in the case of Hindu god Śiva. Buddha’s is a self-reliance teaching; so grace or providential protection is out of question in terms of salvation. However, the Abhaya Mudrā in Buddhist Art has different displays, according to different region, and meanings viz., the Gandhara Buddha images both in sitting or standing; and the gesture means preaching of the first sermon- the Dharmacakrapravartana– (the turning the wheel of righteousness), the South-East Asian countries-Thailand, Laos and Cambodia have the same meaning, but the image could be in standing or walking position. However, the term ‘Abhaya Mudrā’ is a combination of two words; ‘abhaya’ which means fearless and the ‘mudrā’ mean symbolic patterns of fingers. And the meaning of the combined two words is the ‘symbol of fearlessness’. The symbol could not be spoken or verbally interpreted, but spiritually felt and understood only.

Here is a general speculative interpretation of the Buddha’s Abhayamudrā, and interpretation of it according to the Buddha’s teachings as found in the Buddhist canonical literatures. The view of this discussion differs from broader scholarship’s interpretation and which are known to specialists only; and, therefore, since this is a only a blog posting, it should not be viewed as a scholarly piece, but a speculative interpretation only. I would like to interpret that the Abhaya Mudrā in Buddha images is meant to show the spreading of Buddha’s universal principle or the righteousness (Dharmarājya) in the ruling of the universe.  In other word, it is the Dharmavijaya – the conquering and ruling the universe with the five universal rules (Pañcasīla) or means. However, I do not intend to use any literature from the (school of) Art, but a few Buddhist canonical references.

            From the comparative standpoint, I am not aware of any definition of the Abhayamudrā, but, from the Buddhist standpoint, a Sanskrit Buddhist sutra provides a short description of how an Abhayamudrā is shown in Buddha. Thus Shuyu Kanayoka quotes from the Mahāvairocana Sutra as:

“Stretch the right hand and five fingers up, turning the palm outside. This is the sign of non-fear. One who makes this mudra is called a non-fear giver. …..I-tsing commented on the Mahāvairocanasutra, “This posture when assumed makes one appear as if beckoning with the hand is almost identical with the Śākya mudra of the Yogācāra system. One who makes this mudra is able to banish all kinds of impurities and to dispel all fears.” In the same fasc., occurs the statement, “this mudra symbolizes the five characteristics of the attainments of Buddha and Bodhisattvas, namely, faith (śraddhā), diligence (vīrya), mindfulness (smriti), concentration (dhyāna) and wisdom (prajñā).  (Shuyu Kanaoka – (1961) Abhaya-dāna in Encyclopedia of Buddhism Vol. 1. (Ed By G.P. Malalasekera), Colombo: Government of Ceylon Press, p. 20)”

The Abhayamudrā is associated with the Bhaisajyaguru Tathāgata- one of the Mahāyānī Buddhas, and many other Bodhisattvas who make this mudrā and one of the forty hands of the Bodhisattva  Shahasrabhujavalokitesvara makes this mudrā and recited the mantra ‘Om ānaya hum phat.”(Ividem. P.20 )’

However, from the general Buddhist standpoint we are allowed to make a statement that all the fears are born out of worldly behaviors of day by day routine. The Sāṃsāric (worldly) behaviors of human include killing, steeling, drinking alcoholic beverages, lying out of which according to Buddhist social ethics, come the fear as well as the personal character degeneration.

According to the Pali Buddhism or the Theravāda tradition, there are several precepts for the follower; 227 precepts for the monastics, ten for a novice, and ten for lay monastic (upāsakas), a set of five precepts for general Buddhists are indicated in the canonical texts. Among these five precepts are:

1. abstaining from injuring a living being (pānātipātā verāmani sikkhāpadam);
2.  abstaining from taking anything which is not given (adinnadānā verāmani sikkhāpadam);
3. abstaining from sexual misconduct (kāmesu micchācāra verāmani sikkhāpadam);
4. abstaining from telling lie (musāvādā verāmani sikkhāpadam); and
5. abstaining from drinking alcoholic beverages (surāmereya majjapamādatthāna verāmani sikkhāpadam).

The Pali Sutra tells us that all the social problems or insecurities are rooted in the heart of these five precepts. These five precepts are supposed to be the foundation for one’s good character. In Cakkavattīsīhanāda Sutta of Dīgha Nikāya (3:26.8), the cakkavatti king (universal monarch) instructed his fellow rulers to follow these five precepts if they wanted a righteous and just society. This cakkavatti king is identical with the Buddha; and the Buddha is also known as dhammarāja. The dhammarāja reins his universe or cosmic world with the righteous means, i.e., five precepts are the righteous means here.

Furthermore, a cakkavatti rājā is equal to the righteous Buddha (dhammiko dhammar jā) and the Buddha is the Dhammarājā who reins his kingdom with righteous rules- the five righteous principles of precepts. The Sutra gives a story of a ruler who did not rein according to these five precepts. The result was that his kingdom became corrupted; killing increased in the country, so did steeling, lying, sexual misconduct and toxic uses among the people. Entire kingdom became full of violence, hatred and citizen became full of delusion. Laziness spread all over the kingdom. The king did not distribute sufficient wealth to his subjects. Due to the lack of proper distribution of wealth, poverty increased, so did the greed. People started to steal other’s property, when they were asked, they lied of stealing, and punishment was introduced. Seeing the punishment people started to lie more to avoid subsequent results. The civilization collapsed. On the other hand, in the future, when a different king ruled and used five righteous rules and reined his kingdom, the happiness returned. The kingdom started to prosper.

Finally, scriptural origin of the Abhaya Mudrā in Buddhism is not clearly known. It is not described in any of the early canonical texts. With the exception of (the school of) Art, the Abhaya Mudrā did not play an important part in monastic or non-monastic environment either. Furthermore, however remote and vague this speculative interpretation of the five precepts and the Abhaya Mudrā could be, the practical aspect of the mudra is found in an incident when a drunken elephant was let by Devadatta and his princely friend- Ajātasattu, towards the Buddha, the Buddha raised his right hand with the Abhaya Mudrā which could be considered as the origin of the Mudrā in Buddhism itself, and the Buddha probably meant, ‘hey you drunken beast! I am fearless, compassionate to everyone. May you be happy and free from fear. So when we see raised palm of the Buddha, we see the five fingers- each finger representing a precept. This five fingered raised palm mudra could be interpreted here  multiple ways- the five precepts for a layperson to follow which will bring good result in social environment; the five golden rules to reign a cosmic or worldly kingdom by the ruler, so the prosperity will continue; even just a blessing gesture from a superior being.

Venerable Lokananda Bhikkhu

A concluding remark could be added here that when we see an Abhayamudrā of a deity, we anticipate the Devine graceful protection; but when we see such a mudrā from the Buddha statue, we not only anticipate the blessings, but also should anticipate a number of instructions to follow- the five precepts, an assurance ‘do not fear’ (as long as you are righteous), or just simply ‘sukhī bhavatu’ (‘be happy’).     -Lokānanda Bhikkhu.

Occupying The Beloved Community: A Presentation Review

Dr. Richard Rose

Dr. Richard Rose, Professor of Religion and Philosophy at the University of La Verne was the keynote speaker at the ICBS Spring 2012 Lecture Series IV. The lecture series topic was “Humanistic Buddhism: Past, Present, and Future”, and was given at UWest on April 16th, 2012. If you have not had a chance to listen to Dr. Rose, I recommend that you visit the University of La Verne website and see if Dr. Rose has any on-campus lectures planned.

Dr. Rose started his lecture by quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., by stating that we have inherited a large house where all must live together “…because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace.” Then Dr. Rose started defining concepts and foundations used by the Occupy movement. In fact, the reasons for the birth of the Occupy movement were very similar to those of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s. The principles of solidarity of both movements were results of discrimination, social and economic injustice. In essence, Dr. Rose states, “Occupying the Beloved Community is to develop a way of life that allows us to live in, dwell in inhabit, or reside in the Beloved Community in this particular time and space.” As Dr. Rose describes the evolution of the Occupy Movement, he states that the basic philosophy that guided the movement were the same principles that guided the decades-long march for civil rights. A combination of “… the Christian doctrine of love operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence was one the most potent weapons available to the Negro in his struggle for freedom.” Nonviolence, according to Dr. Rose is not a strategy in the true sense of the word by a way of life. Dr. Rose, then discusses several major points:

• Nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards
• Nonviolence does ‘…not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding.’
• The attack is directed against persons who happen to be doing the evil
• Nonviolent resistance is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliation
• Nonviolent resistance…avoids not only external violence but also internal violence of spirit.
• Nonviolent resistance is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice.

Dr. Rose then went on the discuss and religion from the viewpoint of Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism. Exclusivism states that there is only one true religious tradition. Inclusivism accepts that one’s own religious tradition has the absolute truth, but acknowledges that other religious traditions with the same beliefs can be included. Pluralism beliefs that there are multiple authentic religious traditions, and that religious/spiritual truths can be expressed in a plurality of ways.

If you would like a copy of the slide presentation [pdf], please email glennd@uwest.edu.

What Would The Buddha Eat? Buddhism & Vegetarians

Vegetarianism has been –and continues to be- a burning issue among socio-cultural and health conscious people.  There are even different socio-cultural organizations who promote the vegetarian diet based on various ideologies- religious, food culture, social status, etc. as there are groups of people who would not even use any product which are made out of animal products. More and more people are proud to identify themselves as Vegans.

Vegetarianism knows no political, religious, or socio-cultural boundaries.  Not all Buddhists are vegetarian although the majority are.   Many practicing Hindu, Buddhists or Jain abstain from eating meat. There are also many other people who have other belief systems, and who have declared themselves as Vegans. Their view is that by being a vegetarian there is something spiritually wholesome (kusala). Vegans claim that they don’t kill animals for consumption since animals are also entitled to live like rest of others as the human beings. Every living being deserves respect.

The majority of Vegetarians exemplify the spirit of ‘non-violence, or ‘Ahiṃsā’ (to use an Indic term).    They want to live just by eating vegetarian diets- rice, legume, beans, and plants.  However noble and altruistic that purpose is, it is far from practical. And indeed it ignores the fact that maybe fruits and vegetables also have “feelings”. Professor Hopkins states from the Indian Brāhmanical standpoint, as:

“In regard to hurting sentient things, Brahmanism holds theoretically that even trees, plants, and grasses are kind of animals. They differ only in being stable (fixed) instead of mobile; but a long argument which I have cited elsewhere from the Great Epic shows that plants really see, hear, feel, and smell, as well as possess the more obvious sense of touch, and that, therefore, they are living, conscious things, endowed like other animals with their own part of the anima mundi.  ” (Hopkins. E.W. –The Buddhistic Rule Against Eating Meat in Journal of American Oriental Society 27 (1906) Pp. 459-60)

Furthermore, vegetarians also ignore that cultivating vegetables, and transporting them to grocery store can cause ecological damage to the environment. Tilling the land to grow the vegetable causes destruction to insects through the use of pesticides. Perhaps Vegetarians are only concerned about animals.

From a religious standpoint Hindus, Jain and Buddhists are divided into two different diet groups- vegetarians and non-vegetarians. The Buddhists following the Theravāda tradition of South and South-East Asia are not strictly vegetarians (except  some Bhikkhus and laities in Sri Lanka). The Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition of the many East Asian countries such as China, Korea, and Vietnam, the vegetarian diet is strictly observed.  Nevertheless, there is an argument also against partaking in the meat by the Buddha himself which was summarized by Prof. Arnold Kunst, as:

”This is stated in the chapter (VIII) on the Māṃsabhakṣaņaparivarta, which is generally considered as a later addition to Lankāvatāra and where Buddha forbids once and for all eating meat, though he admits that the practice of abstaining from meat had not been observed by all Buddhists and that there was a slanderous rumour that he himself was partaking of meat eating.”  (Kunst  Arnold, – (1980),   Some of the Polemics in the Lankāvatārasūtra in Buddhist Studies in Honour of Walpola Rahula. Ed. By Somaratna Balaooriya et el. London: Gordon Fraser, P. 111)

Venerable Lokananda Bhikkhu

Vegetarianism is a well-debated issue among the western followers of Buddhism as well. Furthermore, the vegetarian issue, probably, was an issue in the time of the Buddha as well; especially considering the presence   of the influential Jain teacher-the Mahāvīra, who was strictly a vegetarian himself and his followers in North India. Therefore, it would be natural to argue that there was a vegetarian movement in the time of the Buddha in North India and there were followers of such a movement as well. On the other hand, there were ascetics as well who wanted to impress the laities in their favor; and the Buddha’s cousin Devadatta, probably, was one of them. Devadatta formulated five ascetic rules-one of them was that a Bhikkhu should follow a strict vegetarian diet, and requested the Buddha to approve them and introduce them to the Buddhist monastic tradition, but, the Buddha refused them categorically on the ground that these rules would be contrary to his middle way, and are not conducive to the attainment or realization of Nirvāņa. Post by: Venerable Lokananda Bhikku

Proud of Our Student Scholars

On Monday the 16th and Tuesday the 17th of April, some of University of the West’s best and brightest presented papers for the Institute of Chinese Buddhist Studies [ICBS] Seminar: “Humanistic Buddhism: Past, Present, and Future”. I will not take time to discuss in detail these presentations, but you can email me at glennd@uwest.edu if you want detailed synopses. The seminar was divided into several morning and afternoon sessions with opening remarks by the Venerable Dr. Jue Ji, Director of ICBS. Each person was allowed 15 minutes presentation time, but I could have listened to the presenters for many more hours.

PANEL I

Nathan Michon

Nathan Michon [Religious Studies] talked about the “Use of Buddhist Meditation in Conflict Transformation Training”. Of course we have all heard of conflict resolution, and I have done extensive studies in this area, but conflict transformation is a new subject to me. I mean, why would anyone transform instead of resolving conflict? Nathan stated in his presentation that to trainers in this relatively new area, peace of mind must precede delivering peace to others.

Anthuan Vuong

Anthuan Vuong [Buddhist Chaplaincy] presentation on “Awareness, Identification, and Action: Thich Nhat Hanh’s Socially Engaged Buddhism at Work” discussed the life and impact of the Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh. Although through out Buddhist history we have read about Buddhist monks who are engaged in spreading The Buddha’s teachings, we seldom read about socially-engaged Buddhists such as theVenerable Thich Nhat Hanh. Of course, all of us are familiar with the Dalai Lama but here the conversation stops for many Buddhist and non-Buddhists. According to Anthuan’s presentation, socially-engaged Buddhism is transforming the world. Whether applying the Buddhist precepts of compassion to combating devastating global health and welfare issues, or seeking political solutions, socially-engaged Buddhism is tran

Eddie Escalante

Eddie Escalante’s [Psychology] presentation covered “Humanistic Buddhism in Latin America: Past, Present, and Future” and the slow-but-steady growth of Buddhism in Latin America. European colonization, Eddie postulates, has forced indigenous people to accept a foreign theology that went against local belief systems. Also Eddie states that it was the yoke of American imperial power that had a strong negative on freedom of expression in the Latin Americas. Eddie emphasized that one of the hurdles and challenges is the ability of Buddhism to adapt to Hispanic culture. As with the Roman Catholic priest in Latin America applying Liberation Theology to geo-political situations, Buddhism must also take into consideration the political and sociological landscapes of the Latin Americas.

PANEL II synopses will be in the next blog.

Auf Wiedersehen Dr. Locke

Jesus of Nazareth said:

“I have come so that you might have Life, for the ways of mortals are living death, but the Way of the Eloheim is deathless Life. The person who walks the Way I walk, though he may die, will live forever, for he cannot be overcome. Death is swallowed up in the victory of Life.”

Muhammed said:

“The Faithful do not die; perhaps they become translated from this perishable world to the world of eternal existences.”

The Buddha said:

” “He who shelters in the way, and travels with those who follow it, comes to see the four great truths concerning sorrow, the beginning of sorrow, the eightfold way, and the end of sorrow. Then at last he is safe. He has shaken off sorrow. He is free.” “

A Hebrew proverb states: “Say not in grief ‘he is no more’, but live in thankfulness that he was.”

Dr. Kenneth Locke | Resquiat in Pace

We, the family of students, faculty, and staff at University of the West and the Institute for Chinese Buddhist Studies say, Thank you Dr. Locke for sharing your goals, visions, and love for the University of the West with us. Our paths crossed yours yesterday. Our paths diverged today. Our paths will cross tomorrow.

Thank you | Danke | Xie Xie

Birth Control and Buddhism

The subject of “birth control” is a complicated topic for theistic or non-theistic adherents; including Buddhist and Jain devotees – who advocate non-injury to all living beings.  Controlling birth involves a number of complexities of the modern world, ranging from technologically advanced socio- ethical, psychological, philosophical, sociological, moral, economic, and political ramifications.

There was a time in the history when people did not care much about birth control due to the fact that it was not an important, burning issue involving peoples’ daily lives. In fact, only through unfettered birth could clans or groups expand. Having many members in a clan or group had both survival and sociological implications. Large groups could expand their territories through aggressive and non-aggressive means.  In modern society, warfare continues to be the method of expansion and exploitation of people and resources. Overpopulation strains the social and political fabric of any nation or society. The migration of undocumented people or unchecked population growth continues to have negative effects on many countries and regions.

The primitive method of birth control was feticide and/or infanticide which in modern medical science transformed into varieties of abortion methods; most of which are either ante-natal or post-natal, done.  From the Buddhist standpoint the ‘male sperm’ or ‘female egg’ is a living or potentially-living being in its micro-level existence within the human body.  Therefore, he question that arises is if the Buddha has condemned the destruction of a life by the mean of violent action, and in the same time, fostered the loving-kindness (mettā/maîtrī) to all living beings, how and what could be the Buddhist attitude toward the birth control which prevents conception?

In Buddhist Scriptures, the Buddha instructed to his followers to extend loving-kindness, amity and friendliness not only to all living beings who are already born (bhūta vā), but also to all those who are still to be born (sambhavesi vā); and here the reference to the latter section of the quotation is meant to life of the “foetus”.  In brief the Buddha’s overall attitude toward the living beings was ‘may all the beings be happy- sabbe sattā suhkitā bhavantu.” (Mettā Sutta, SN 1:8).

Nevertheless, the Buddha did not preach any discourse relevant to this question and with Buddhism being one of the major world religions, it cannot ignore the controversy of birth control.  There is no such esthetic literature as the “kāmasūtra” (of Vatsayana) in Buddhism to explain human esthetic practices. But, considering the nature of problem and the depth of the question, despite the lack of any discourse (sutra) regarding the procreation process in Buddhism, it is possible, in fact, to reconstruct a method akin to the Buddhist teachings, of the inartificial way of birth control.

We must consider here that the Buddha did not discourage sexual pleasure for the laity with the exception of the monastics. It is clearly indicated in the Cakkavattīsīhanāda Sutta (DN 26) and Aggañña Sutta (DN 27) of the Dīgha Nikāya where it is suggested that the members of the society should abstain from the sexual misconduct (kāmesumicchācāra verāmani)-among other precepts, in order to prosper and run a righteous society. The Pali literature mentions five qualities of sexual or sensual pleasures (pañcakāmaguṇa) which can be enjoyed by people as the kāmasukha – “happiness or welfare arising from (sensual) pleasure” (PTS Pali Dictionary- P.206). The “kāmasutta” of the Sutta Nipāta (SN 4:1) tells us both the positive and the negative sides of the sensual/sexual pleasures. It is not prohibited there.

However, in Buddhist appraisal, there are three factors that must be met: (a) both parents must get together for the purpose of (sex) procreation; (b) the mother must be in her proper period; and (c) there must be a gandhabba/gandharva –an intermediary life, be present to be conceived in the womb of the mother by this union  (For further reference on this term, please refer The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvāṇa in early Buddhism by Brian Peter Harvey, London: Curzon Press, 1995). If any one of these three factors, nevertheless, is absent, there is no possibility of conceiving of an embryo in the womb of the mother. Thus the Buddha said in the Mahātaṇhāsamkhaya Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya (MN38) as:

“… the descent of the embryo takes place through the union of three things. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, but the mother is not in season, and the gandhabba is not present—in this case no descent of an embryo takes place. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, but the gandhabba is not present—in this case too no descent of the embryo takes place. But when there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, and the gandhabba is present, through the union of these three things the descent of the embryo takes place”. (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha -Majjhima Nikāya. Eng. Tr. By Bhikkhu Ñānamoli & Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2005 (3^rd Edition). Boston: Wisdom Publications, p. 358)

From the philosophical standpoint we should remember that the Buddha taught the cessation of birth (jāti) or re-becoming.  But that is a different theological, ontological and religious issue; here the issue is population control. We should also remember that the Buddha emphasized intention (cetanā) and volition of mind (citta) as every root of action. Whatever action (kamma/karma) – mental (mana), vocal (vāca) and physical (kāya), one undertakes, he/she has to observe as to whether such an action is conducive to oneself – (attabyāvādāya pi saṃvattati), to others- (parabyāvādāya pi saṃvattati), and to both (ubhayabyāvādāya pi saṃvattati) (MN-Ambalaṭṭhikā Rāhulovāda Sutta). However, it must be noted here that this is a theoretical/methodological observation and the author, who lacks practical knowledge, does not make any recommendations.
Finally, considering all the factors noted above, it leads us to conclude that the Buddhist attitude towards the Birth control is affirmative as long as there is no harm to any ‘micro’ or ‘macro’ level existence of living being. We should be aware of our responsibility to our earth as well as our environment.  We should know the limitation of our resources. We should not overuse this little earth as we should consider our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and those of theirs. We should not overpopulate our planet.

-Lokānanda Bhikkhu

7 Billion – So How Was Your Day?

Officially today, October 31 ,2011, the 7 billionth person will have made his or her presence felt on our planet. While the number 7 billion and today’s date may be more symbolic than anything else, the implications to this world is immeasurable. With all the progress made over the past several hundred years by scholars, scientists, and artist, poverty, discrimination, and pain still exist. Isaac Newton may have discovered gravity and thereby allowing us to visit the moon and set up a space station, but the second definition of gravity -grave consequence; seriousness or importance – is more applicable today then it was during Newton’s time. By the way, when Newton was born, the earth’s population was estimated at “only” 500 million; today, 361 years later we managed to add 200 million more people. It should then come as no surprise when one ponders what the Buddha said: “I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act.”