This post is me against a conventional teaching:
My mother got angry with me one day (quite some time ago). And when she got angry, she ran away from home for a day. During that time, she confided in one of her friends whom I shall call him Uncle here.
Many many days later, I got a ride from Uncle together with my mother again. Incidently, Uncle picked up a small book and chuck it to me and said: "Read this. Don't always shout at your mother (跟妈妈大声小声)"
It was a children buddhist book in the car which has its title translated to english to sound something like: "It's hard to repay our parents who have gone through hardships for bringing us up."
Straight away you and I know what the book is about. Without shame and guilt, I know exactly where I am going to counter the arguments in the book already.
I read quickly (it was not hard to speed read, it's for kids!) and it goes exactly (in meaning) as what I am going to recite here:
That was the introduction which was only about 6 pages. When I read the next sentence, I stopped:
I bookmarked the page and i chucked it back to Uncle and ask him to read that line and spot the fallacy in that statement.
Pause. Can you spot the fallacy?
My mother got angry with me one day (quite some time ago). And when she got angry, she ran away from home for a day. During that time, she confided in one of her friends whom I shall call him Uncle here.
Many many days later, I got a ride from Uncle together with my mother again. Incidently, Uncle picked up a small book and chuck it to me and said: "Read this. Don't always shout at your mother (跟妈妈大声小声)"
It was a children buddhist book in the car which has its title translated to english to sound something like: "It's hard to repay our parents who have gone through hardships for bringing us up."
Straight away you and I know what the book is about. Without shame and guilt, I know exactly where I am going to counter the arguments in the book already.
I read quickly (it was not hard to speed read, it's for kids!) and it goes exactly (in meaning) as what I am going to recite here:
A high monk and his disciples were travelling (somewhere, say the deserts) and came across a pile of (human) bones. The high monk quickly fall to his knees and kow tow and paid respect to the bones.
The disciples were shocked, "You are the great one, the most respected and highest of us all. Why did you kneel before a pile of bones?
High monk explained that the bones could belong to our parent's parents and ancestors. "Look at their bones so weak and worn, they must have suffered alot etc etc. We should therefore pay respect to them".
All in awe, the disciple were enlightened and quickly realised how difficult it is for parents to raise their children.
That was the introduction which was only about 6 pages. When I read the next sentence, I stopped:
...you see, A mother has to carry her child in the womb for ten (or nine?) months and that is already a lot to bear...
I bookmarked the page and i chucked it back to Uncle and ask him to read that line and spot the fallacy in that statement.
Pause. Can you spot the fallacy?
Comments