Sunday, September 05, 2010
Teaching violence
Two recent incidents in the news in Thailand have been getting a few comments in online forums.
First a teacher was charged for caning students. A student filmed the act on his mobile-phone camera. The film showed the teacher, who really looked like he was enjoying it, swinging the cane wildly before bringing it down on each boy's bottom. There were also shots showing the bruises left by the caning. The students' crime? Their dormitory rooms were untidy.
In a separate incident, a nine-year-old boy was shot dead while leaving a Bangkok bus on his way to school. There was apparently a gang war between students from two different schools and this unfortunate kid got in the way.
Some of the forum posters suggested that the reason there are gang wars is that there is not enough discipline and that kids should be caned more to make them behave themselves. I disagree strongly and would like to explain why.
I believe that one of the most powerful teaching tools is demonstration, ie kids learn from what is demonstrated to them at home and in the world at large. This has been shown, for example, with literacy. There has been much research to show that children who come from homes where parents are seen to read and write regularly are more likely to do well at reading and writing tasks at school.
I believe that if we want to stop this gang warfare that occurs in Australia, perhaps as much as in Thailand, we need to ask what we demonstrate to our children about the use of violence.
If we demonstrate that when we have a problem with someone, we smack them or beat them then the child grows up believing that violence is a way to solve problems.
If we demonstrate that we can exert our power over another who is smaller than us, the child grows up looking for smaller or weaker people to bully.
If we demonstrate that we are more powerful because we have a weapon, the child who wants to be powerful will be looking to acquire weapons.
If we sit at home with our children watching movies where violence is seen as a solution to a problem, the children are learning that violence is the best solution to problems.
If our children watch the news every night and see people with shirts of one colour or another challenging authority with violence then they may grow up believing that they have a right to use violence to get their needs met.
On the other hand, if we demonstrate that we can have rational discussions with our children; that we can set clear boundaries so they know what they should and shouldn't do; that there are rewards and punishments that are fair and understood and administered fairly and consistently then there is some hope that our children will inherit a peaceful society where one can catch a bus without the fear of being shot.
First a teacher was charged for caning students. A student filmed the act on his mobile-phone camera. The film showed the teacher, who really looked like he was enjoying it, swinging the cane wildly before bringing it down on each boy's bottom. There were also shots showing the bruises left by the caning. The students' crime? Their dormitory rooms were untidy.
In a separate incident, a nine-year-old boy was shot dead while leaving a Bangkok bus on his way to school. There was apparently a gang war between students from two different schools and this unfortunate kid got in the way.
Some of the forum posters suggested that the reason there are gang wars is that there is not enough discipline and that kids should be caned more to make them behave themselves. I disagree strongly and would like to explain why.
I believe that one of the most powerful teaching tools is demonstration, ie kids learn from what is demonstrated to them at home and in the world at large. This has been shown, for example, with literacy. There has been much research to show that children who come from homes where parents are seen to read and write regularly are more likely to do well at reading and writing tasks at school.
I believe that if we want to stop this gang warfare that occurs in Australia, perhaps as much as in Thailand, we need to ask what we demonstrate to our children about the use of violence.
If we demonstrate that when we have a problem with someone, we smack them or beat them then the child grows up believing that violence is a way to solve problems.
If we demonstrate that we can exert our power over another who is smaller than us, the child grows up looking for smaller or weaker people to bully.
If we demonstrate that we are more powerful because we have a weapon, the child who wants to be powerful will be looking to acquire weapons.
If we sit at home with our children watching movies where violence is seen as a solution to a problem, the children are learning that violence is the best solution to problems.
If our children watch the news every night and see people with shirts of one colour or another challenging authority with violence then they may grow up believing that they have a right to use violence to get their needs met.
On the other hand, if we demonstrate that we can have rational discussions with our children; that we can set clear boundaries so they know what they should and shouldn't do; that there are rewards and punishments that are fair and understood and administered fairly and consistently then there is some hope that our children will inherit a peaceful society where one can catch a bus without the fear of being shot.
Labels: Asia, children, family, fear, karma, kids, love, teaching, thailand, violence
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Owning your own
I recently had a conversation with a friend about the subject of karma. We agreed that neither of us believed there was some omniscient being who kept tabs on everyone in the universe. So what is karma?
I don't claim to know. I've heard many versions, many interpretations, and I can't say that I know which is correct. Who truly does? And yet in some sense I still believe in karma.
The Buddhist view is that karma is action and that it brings a result dependent on the intention behind the action. If one rolls over in the night and inadvertently kills an insect that happened to be in the bed there is no bad intention so no bad karma results. At times I choose to kill a mosquito knowing exactly what I am doing. I make a decision that I would prefer this mosquito to be dead rather than buzzing around me with the potential to make me sick if it bites me. Often in such circumstances I say to myself, 'I accept any karma that comes to me from killing this mosquito.'
I believe that in countries where most people consider themselves to be Buddhist there is often a misinterpretation of karma. People go out of their way to make merit (good karma). They feed the monks or give money to the temple. I remember the time a friend had gone to the bank and got brand new notes to make a donation to the temple because she believed that more merit would accrue. I doubt that such actions result in any merit because according to Buddhist teachings karma is the result of intention. If the intention was to create merit then the intention was selfish and no merit would accrue.
Many people in such countries drive fast under all circumstances whether safe or not. There is no mindfulness of karma at this time. The intention is 'I want to get to my destination as quickly as possible and I don't care about anyone else'. Such selfishness cannot lead to merit. If such people drove with more care for others they might not feel so much need to create merit through donations.
I seem to remember a quote from the Buddha saying that one glimmer of mindfulness brings more merit than to feed the entire sangha and the Buddha himself.
In India at times I encountered people whose way of doing business I would consider to be dishonest. It was suggested to me that such practices were so entrenched in India that if you don't adopt them yourself you lose—if you can't beat 'em join 'em. I strongly disagree. No one is responsible for my karma except me. It is only by maintaining my integrity that I maintain any good karma I might have. If someone else is intent on dragging themselves into 'hell', let them do it. I can't stop that. But I can take responsibility for myself.
And what about the bad stuff that does happen to me? There is plenty of evidence of it in the pages of this blog. I've been robbed quite a few times. I have been in situations that I have found to be extremely challenging. Does this suggest that I have been a very bad person in the past?
I don't claim to know but what I believe is this. We do influence our karma by the attitude we carry in our minds. I know many people who have very little to complain about and yet they suffer from deep depression. In the Western world (and perhaps Asia too) how many people are there who can say they can live without the aid of drugs? Nor just the illegal ones, when I say drugs I'm talking about the many drugs that society offers us to help us cope with the unsatisfactoriness of our existence: from caffeine to heroin. The fifth precept of Buddhism requires one to refrain from the taking of intoxicants. Many of the intoxicants popular today were not available in the time of the Buddha. Would they have been acceptable to the Buddha if they were?
When shit happens to me I too sometimes get depressed. I immerse myself in this depression and observe. I don't take anything to get me out of it. And eventually I reach a point where I can say 'thank you'. I say 'thank you' to the situation that brought it about and I ask myself what I have learned. The reality is that I have not learned anything new, I've just been reminded of the Buddha's first noble truth: there is dukkha (unsatisfactoriness). I'm also reminded of the second noble truth: the cause of my dukkha is my attachment to my desires. Basically, I am attached to things being different from the way they are. I have an expectation that things should be otherwise.
I can't change the world. I can only change myself. I ask myself what can I change in my life that will improve my situation. The reality is that while I can change the situation my new situation will also contain dukkha to the extent that I am attached to an expectation of how things should be. I can choose how to see that dukkha. I can let it get me down or I can smile and move on. In this way, I believe I am creating my karma each and every day. What happens to me is not in itself my karmic inheritance. It's the way I handle it that creates my karma.
I don't claim to know. I've heard many versions, many interpretations, and I can't say that I know which is correct. Who truly does? And yet in some sense I still believe in karma.
The Buddhist view is that karma is action and that it brings a result dependent on the intention behind the action. If one rolls over in the night and inadvertently kills an insect that happened to be in the bed there is no bad intention so no bad karma results. At times I choose to kill a mosquito knowing exactly what I am doing. I make a decision that I would prefer this mosquito to be dead rather than buzzing around me with the potential to make me sick if it bites me. Often in such circumstances I say to myself, 'I accept any karma that comes to me from killing this mosquito.'
I believe that in countries where most people consider themselves to be Buddhist there is often a misinterpretation of karma. People go out of their way to make merit (good karma). They feed the monks or give money to the temple. I remember the time a friend had gone to the bank and got brand new notes to make a donation to the temple because she believed that more merit would accrue. I doubt that such actions result in any merit because according to Buddhist teachings karma is the result of intention. If the intention was to create merit then the intention was selfish and no merit would accrue.
Many people in such countries drive fast under all circumstances whether safe or not. There is no mindfulness of karma at this time. The intention is 'I want to get to my destination as quickly as possible and I don't care about anyone else'. Such selfishness cannot lead to merit. If such people drove with more care for others they might not feel so much need to create merit through donations.
I seem to remember a quote from the Buddha saying that one glimmer of mindfulness brings more merit than to feed the entire sangha and the Buddha himself.
In India at times I encountered people whose way of doing business I would consider to be dishonest. It was suggested to me that such practices were so entrenched in India that if you don't adopt them yourself you lose—if you can't beat 'em join 'em. I strongly disagree. No one is responsible for my karma except me. It is only by maintaining my integrity that I maintain any good karma I might have. If someone else is intent on dragging themselves into 'hell', let them do it. I can't stop that. But I can take responsibility for myself.
And what about the bad stuff that does happen to me? There is plenty of evidence of it in the pages of this blog. I've been robbed quite a few times. I have been in situations that I have found to be extremely challenging. Does this suggest that I have been a very bad person in the past?
I don't claim to know but what I believe is this. We do influence our karma by the attitude we carry in our minds. I know many people who have very little to complain about and yet they suffer from deep depression. In the Western world (and perhaps Asia too) how many people are there who can say they can live without the aid of drugs? Nor just the illegal ones, when I say drugs I'm talking about the many drugs that society offers us to help us cope with the unsatisfactoriness of our existence: from caffeine to heroin. The fifth precept of Buddhism requires one to refrain from the taking of intoxicants. Many of the intoxicants popular today were not available in the time of the Buddha. Would they have been acceptable to the Buddha if they were?
When shit happens to me I too sometimes get depressed. I immerse myself in this depression and observe. I don't take anything to get me out of it. And eventually I reach a point where I can say 'thank you'. I say 'thank you' to the situation that brought it about and I ask myself what I have learned. The reality is that I have not learned anything new, I've just been reminded of the Buddha's first noble truth: there is dukkha (unsatisfactoriness). I'm also reminded of the second noble truth: the cause of my dukkha is my attachment to my desires. Basically, I am attached to things being different from the way they are. I have an expectation that things should be otherwise.
I can't change the world. I can only change myself. I ask myself what can I change in my life that will improve my situation. The reality is that while I can change the situation my new situation will also contain dukkha to the extent that I am attached to an expectation of how things should be. I can choose how to see that dukkha. I can let it get me down or I can smile and move on. In this way, I believe I am creating my karma each and every day. What happens to me is not in itself my karmic inheritance. It's the way I handle it that creates my karma.
