Wall Murals in Thai Buddhist Temples in Singapore: Case Studies of Wat Ananda Metyarama and Wat Palelai

Buddhist temples in Thailand have been ‘custodians of the beautiful long before museums or private collections of art’ (Ferguson and Johannsen, 1976). The mural paintings inside wiharns (worship halls) depicting scenes of the lives of the Buddha, the rows of krajang taa oi (lotus bud shape) and kanok patterns embellishing the temple architecture and the statues of yaks and singhas are all different manifestations of art in the temple compound. This paper looks at the Thai Buddhist temples in Singapore, and specifically examines the wall murals in them. It attempts to explain the functions and significance of these murals in the context of Singapore.

Thai Buddhist Temples in Singapore

There are at least six Thai Buddhist temples in Singapore, including Wat Ananda Metyarama, Wat Palelai, Wat Uttamayanmuni and Wat Kancanarama (Wong, 1986). It is easy to distinguish them from the majority of the Chinese Buddhist temples from the exterior by looking at the façade of the temple buildings, the roof lined with gold-coated krajang taa oi and kanok embellishments and the compound wall fence which is usually adorned with lines of krajang taa oi designs.

.

Plate 1 Roof with krajang taa oi and kanok embellishments at Wat Kancanarama

Plate 2 Compound wall fence with krajang taa oi designs at Wat Ananda Metyarama

Methodology

There is no existing literature on wall murals in Thai Buddhist temples in Singapore. To gather information, fieldwork was done in the four temples as mentioned above. However, wall murals were only found in two of them, namely Wat Ananda Metyarama and Wat Palelai. Personal interviews were conducted on-site with Venerable Phramaha Rian, Honourary Secretary and resident monk of Wat Ananda Metyarama and Mr Sebastian Wong, President of Wat Palelai management committee. Secondary sources such as publications of temples and academic papers were also consulted.

Wat Ananda Metyarama

There are four paintings on the compound wall fence, with the first one depicting a story from Mahajanaka Jataka, one of the previous lives of the Buddha. The painting is divided into four scenes, which shows the Buddha swimming in the sea for several days after encountering a shipwreck and therefore perfecting the virtue of perseverance. The second to fourth murals are all scenes from the Vessantara Jataka, the previous life of the Buddha before he was born as Prince Siddharta. These three murals depict the journey of Prince Vessantara and his family to the forests to live as hermits after being put in exile from their kingdom as a punishment for giving away a sacred white elephant. It is understood that these murals were being repainted by commissioned artists who came from Bangkok, Thailand, in February 2009 (Interview 1).

Plate 3 First mural painting depicting a story from Mahajanaka Jataka

Plate 4 Second mural painting depicting a scene from Vessantara Jataka, where Vessantara gives away his chariot and horses

Plate 5 Third mural painting depicting a scene from Vessantara Jataka, where Vessantara and his family are on their way to the forest to live as hermits

Plate 6 Fourth mural painting depicting a scene from Vessantara Jataka, where Madri, Vessantara’s wife, is breastfeeding Kanha, their daughter

Wat Palelai

There is only one mural painting in this temple which can be found above the main entrance in the worship hall. The mural depicts a scene from the life of Gautama Buddha, where he was expounding the Maha-samaya Sutta, which is literally translated as The Great Gathering. The painting depicts most of the gods from ten world-systems gathering to see Gautama Buddha and the five hundred monks who were with him (Interview 2).

Plate 7 Mural painting inspired by the Maha-samaya Sutta

In a separate building, there are two wall murals which are in the form of stone carvings. One mural depicts the life of Gautama Buddha in 31 scenes and the other depicts the teachings of Gautama Buddha in 32 panels. The mural painting and the two mural carvings are all done by Thai artist Khun Teerayoot Daocharat (Wat Palelai publication, 2007).

Plate 8 Mural carving depicting the life of Gautama Buddha

Plate 9 Mural carving depicting the teachings of Gautama Buddha

Buddhist Wall Murals in the Context of Singapore

In Thailand, wall murals are usually found on the side walls and on the end wall in wiharns and ubosots (ordination halls) (Ginsburg, 2005; Ferguson and Johannsen, 1976), where it is convenient for public viewing. Interestingly, none of the walls murals in both temples are located at those positions. At Wat Ananda Metyarama, the four mural paintings are on the compound fence wall, with three of them behind a side gate where visitors of the temple do not have direct access to. The mural painting at Wat Palelai is above the main entrance in the wiharn, which is inconspicuous as well and can hardly command attention. The mural carvings are placed in a new multi-storey building which houses classrooms, a library, multi-purpose and meditation halls.

It is understood that Wat Ananda Metyarama did not have the walls of its wiharn painted with murals as it was beyond their financial ability to do so (Interview 1). Venerable Phramaha Rian added that there were no artistic talents for such a task in Singapore. For the case of Wat Palelai, the design of the wiharn did not allow the side walls to be painted as windows have taken up a considerable proportion of space on the wall (Interview 2).

By virtue of where they are placed, it can be seen that the murals are not exactly highlights in the grand scheme of the temple compounds. As such, it is worth questioning the role and significance of these murals in the Singapore context. Ferguson and Johannsen (1976) studied Buddhist murals in the temples in Northern Thailand and mentioned that they served to make Buddhist ideas concrete to promote understanding to the laity as well as to engage the youths in Buddhism in a bid to counteract the forces of modern entertainment. Cate (2003) mentioned that part of the intention of the murals in Wat Buddhapadipa in London, UK, is to educate visitors to the temple. Do the murals in Singapore serve the same function?

To that, Venerable Phramaha Rian replied that it was unlikely that Singaporeans would learn much from the murals as most of them do not have basic education in Buddhism. He related his own experience as a Thai kid who received formal schooling in Buddhism and hence being able to understand what the content of the murals entail. Similar to the visitors in Wat Buddhapadipa in UK, Singaporean Buddhists who are not schooled in Buddhist narratives would encounter problems of access and analysis when faced with the murals, which they may admire without deriving explicitly religious values (Cate, 2003).

When asked about the possible different interpretations of the murals by Singaporean and Thai devotees, Venerable shared that the Thai people can connect to the murals beyond the aspect of aesthetics. An example would be that Thai devotees, when looking at the murals depicting Vessantara, would be able to contemplate on the act of giving (the virtue which Vessantara perfected in the Jataka) as they understand the context of the mural (Interview 1). Singaporean devotees would unlikely be able to get the same realisation.

Employing Panofsky’s (1939) treatment of iconography, in which the first stage involves identifying images to understand primary symbolism, second stage identifying themes behind primary symbolism, and the final stage understanding the intrinsic meaning of content, it can be said that a Singaporean is likely to reach only the first, maximum second stage when looking at the mural. A Thai is more likely to reach the final stage as the mural connects with them on the level of narratives rather than aesthetics.

The choice of the theme of mural painting also implicitly reveals the non-educational intents of the mural itself. The mural painting at Wat Palelai is inspired by one of the Buddha’s discourse known as ‘The Great Gathering’ and it is chosen because it fits the purpose of the worship hall where devotees gather for evening chants (Interview 2). The narrative here is relatively superficial and the intrinsic meaning of the content of the mural in this case is highly accessible.

It can thus be seen that murals in Thai Buddhist temples in Singapore are not primarily intended and are unlikely to educate the Singaporean devotees on Buddhist concepts and teachings.

However, it is interesting to note that in the new building of Wat Palelai, there are huge panels on the wall with photos and captions introducing the four holy sites of Buddhism.

Plate 10 Photos and captions introducing the four holy sites of Buddhism

These can be seen as modern and convenient alternatives to murals, with their production requiring less expertise and with them having greater potential in the local context to transmit relevant knowledge to the Singapore devotees.

Both informants revealed that the murals in their temples were made possible with the generous donation of the devotees. For both temples, artists from Thailand have been invited over to complete the murals and were commissioned. The repainting of the four murals at Wat Ananda Metyarama, for example, costs $15000 (Interview 1). The financial supporting of the murals in the Buddhist context can be considered merit-making deeds, not unlike artists in Thailand who would paint murals for free to accumulate merit (Ferguson and Johannsen, 1976). Especially in Singapore where most people cannot afford the time to offer food to the monks and help out in the temple services, cash donation is the best way for the devotees to contribute to the temple. The murals in Singapore can be seen to have taken on the function of a merit-making platform for the devotees.

The mural carvings at Wat Palelai present another dimension to the case of murals in Singapore. When asked about the reason why stone carvings were chosen, Mr Wong replied:

‘There is the Borobudur in Indonesia. There is the Angkor Wat in Cambodia. In Singapore we have this at Wat Palelai. (laughs) These can serve the same function as mural paintings.’

It is understood that the decision of having mural carvings is made by Venerable Ajaan Kheng, a Singaporean monk, as well as the management committee including Mr Wong himself (Interview 2). The dynamics in decision-making here is not so much between the binary categories of monks and artists, which is the case for both Northern Thailand and Wat Buddhapadipa (Ferguson and Johannsen, 1976; Cates, 2003). Rather, it is between the Singaporean Buddhists and the Thai artist, where the latter in a transactional deal helps the former to realise their ambition of creating a national icon of sorts in their temple. The discourse of Thai authenticity and value of art are not so much in question when put against the larger nationalistic endeavour in the creation of this piece of art.

Conclusion

The socio-cultural context of Singapore has made the role and significance of wall murals in Buddhist temples unique in its own, as shown by the case studies of Wat Ananda Metyarama and Wat Palelai, likely the only two temples in the country with wall murals. It is understood that Wat Ananda Metyarama is intending to have its wiharn painted with murals within the next two years (Interview 1) and that Wat Palelai has plans to install electronic devices to explain meanings of the mural carvings (Interview 2). While the murals may not function as educational tools as of now, the same cannot be said for the future. The murals in Singapore have yet to be used and seen beyond its aesthetic façade. With its potential for greater purposes, murals in Singapore are likely to receive more attention and have their functions maximised in the years to come as the temples venture into different ways to educate and promote religion in this secular nation.

Robed Criminality: Bogus Buddhist Monks in Singapore

Introduction

Bogus Buddhist monks has started surfacing in Singapore as early as 2002, when it was reported that sixteen of them were detained by authorities just within the first ten weeks of the year (CNN, 2002). These phony holy men came from Thailand and cloaked in their own novice religious robes, they operate around the island collecting money from unsuspecting Singaporeans. Similar cases have been reported the last two years (The Straits Times; 2007, 2008). This paper wishes to examine this peculiar form of criminality and illuminate how these criminals accomplish their missions by taking advantage of the society-monk-laity power configurations in Singapore which facilitated their operations.

Buddhist Code of Discipline

In accordance with the Vinaya Pitaka (Code of Discipline) laid down by Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, monks and nuns are disallowed from handling ‘gold and silver’ or, in today’s context, money. Over time, Buddhist institutions modified this rule and the practice of monks and nuns handling money have for some time been relaxed (Jones, 2003). Such a phenomenon, inevitably brought about by modernisation, created space for rogues to role-play as monks to cheat on people’s sensibilities.

Manipulating Space for ‘Power’

Despite the crackdown reported in 2002, bogus monks are still appearing in Singapore. In a Straits Times (2007) report, it was mentioned that ‘such a scam has been going on for two years’ and one bogus monk interviewed said it was ‘his third time involved in such an operation’. The same report revealed that these fake monks operate in syndicates which are based in Johor and Hatyai in southern Thailand, where the syndicate leaders, who pocket 30 per cent of the bogus monks’ collections, work closely with their partners in Singapore. The fact these acts are being carried out systematically, openly and repeatedly reflects the special nature of such a crime. It is thus important to discuss the power relations which facilitate the operation and the ensuing success of this crime.

It may be a contestable issue as to whether these bogus monks should be termed ‘criminals’, as after all, the acts which they are engaged in are essentially the same as those of ‘beggars’, people whom we think of as needing financial help and whom we do not usually associate with ‘criminality’. A basic definition of crime would be ‘an act that is legally prohibited’ (Dictionary.com, 2009). In the eyes of the Singapore state, such an act is officially a crime. Under the Miscellaneous Offences Act, anyone who collects alms or solicits charitable contributions under false pretences can be fined up to $2,000 or jailed up to three months, or both (The Straits Times, 2007).

These bogus monks come from Thailand, where Buddhism is the national religion and where it is common practice for monks to make alms rounds in the mornings near the temples they reside for people to make food offerings to them (Ishii, 1986). Such a culture has been established for long and it has become a way of life for the locals. Should a man decide to become a bogus monk there, he would only expect to get food from the locals. Moreover, monks are not an uncommon sight in Thailand as many Thai men ordain as monks during some point of their life for short periods; there is also another category of ‘influential monks’ who have practiced for long and thus gained support and trust from the respective communities they are serving (Mulder, 1969). These circumstances have made it unlikely for any man in a monk’s robe to easily evoke religious awe in the public. The socio-cultural context in Thailand can be seen to have incapacitated the ability of a bogus monk to amass money (instead of food) and also disqualified whatever ‘power’ a bogus monk could potentially seem to possess.

Criminality as an ideology needs to be contextualised in time and space. In Thailand, it is difficult to draw a distinction if such an act would constitute a ‘crime’. Transposing such an act over space to Singapore would render it an illegal act, as earlier mentioned. What then motivates these bogus monks to become criminals in Singapore when they could have done the same act in Thailand without the ‘criminal’ label? The promise of lucrative monetary returns is not warranted by the sole fact that Singaporeans are a relatively well-off bunch; it is aided by a unique set of local socio-cultural factors which invest these bogus monks with ability and power to run their operations successfully.

Power and the Interplay between Bogus Monks and Singaporeans

An understanding of the local factors in Singapore requires some description of the religion scene. As of 2000, 42.5% of Singaporeans stated Buddhism as their religion (Leow, 2001). However, a significant number of Singaporean ‘Buddhists’ believe that the word ‘Buddhism’ actually refers to the Chinese syncretic religions of Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese folk religion (Wee, 1997). Thus, a large proportion of Buddhists in Singapore would have very little or no education on the correct understanding of canonical Buddhist teachings (Chia and Chee, 2008). Their perception of monks and monkhood does not derive from the Vinaya Pitaka, which is more emphasized in Theravada Buddhism as largely practised in Thailand but not in Singapore.

Such an incomplete understanding of their religion by the Singaporean Buddhists serves to empower the bogus monks in their operations. The laity’s simplistic understanding of karma would have led them to unquestioningly donate money to these bogus monks. They are likely to believe that they can get merit from the act of giving to a monk, and that they may face the consequence of getting bad karma if they do not give. They are also likely not to suspect if the monk is a genuine practising one, for they would think such a thought may generate bad karma in itself. A retiree interviewed by The Straits Times (2007) said that he ‘never doubted if they (bogus monks) were real or not’ and that he donated when ‘he is in a good mood’.

It is an interesting scenario in that the victims of this crime are actually supporting the criminals in their act. The laity essentially sees the bogus monk as someone who possesses spiritual power by virtue of his status, someone who is able to dispense merit when offered a donation. In some instances, the bogus monks take their operations further by offering to perform rituals for the laity at rates up to USD50 (CNN, 2002). The perceived superhuman power of the bogus monks, which is conferred to them by their attire (the novice religious robe), supplementary accessories such as alms bowl and their bald-head appearances, helps them in achieving their objective of amassing money.

Power is also bestowed onto these bogus monks in terms of the invisibility of criminality in their act. Unlike crimes such as robbery and molest, where all, if not most, eyewitnesses have the knowledge that such acts are illegitimate and the courageous ones amongst them would take action against the criminals, the dimensions are trickier in the case of bogus monks. The non-Buddhists in Singapore, who account for the majority, are unlikely to interfere in the bogus monks’ acts as they would not have the knowledge if such a practice is acceptable and if the monk is real or bogus. The Buddhists in Singapore who do not have a canonical understanding of their religion would make up the bulk of people supporting the bogus monks and are unlikely to have any intention to investigate the ‘genuineness’ of the monks. There leaves only the third category of population - Buddhists well-steeped in canonical Buddhist teachings who can spot the criminality in the acts of the bogus monks and have the impetus to interfere in such acts to uphold the image of their religion and prevent more people from getting cheated of their money. The demographics in Singapore play to the advantage of these bogus monks and consequently empower them. The obscurity of their misdeed gives them the means to commit the crime repeatedly and with success.

Admittedly, such a clear-cut classification could obfuscate the individuals whose acts do not correspond with what is postulated from their religious identities. Moreover, the high-profile reporting on the national newspaper The Straits Times in 2007 and the consequent reinforcing actions taken by local Buddhist organizations such as expressing their stance on this issue (The Straits Times, 2007) and putting up notices in temples (see Plate 1) would have served to increase the awareness of such criminality among the public. This could have led to increased policing of such acts by a larger proportion of the population, including the non-Buddhists. There could also be the increased disinclination to donate to these monks, which could gradually lead to the demise of such a crime.

Plate 1 Notice at Palelai Buddhist Temple, Singapore (Source: Author’s Own) Photograph taken on 29 March 2009.

The power balance is tilted towards the bogus monks even when placed against the relevant higher authorities in Singapore. Should the bogus monks be approached by officers of the Singapore Police Force, they may not at that moment be engaged in the act of soliciting money and they would have valid social visit passes to display. The officers would have no basis to arrest them without any offence noted. It is also not under the scope of main Buddhist bodies such as Singapore Buddhist Federation to be patrolling for bogus monks. True practising monks in Singapore are unlikely to be out of their temples or monasteries to take action against their counterfeits.

The ‘Crime’ in the Crime

In the eyes of the state and most of the population, the ‘criminality’ in the act of soliciting money under false pretences is in the cheating and victimisation of the generous and unsuspecting members of the public. However, to the Buddhist cognizant of canonical teachings, there is another layer of ‘criminality’ in such an act, albeit not under the scope of and therefore punishable by the state law. That is the desecrating of the religion and the practice of monkhood. Monks are supposedly followers of the religion who have decided to renounce worldly pursuits and concentrate on a spiritual one as guided by the teachings of Gautama Buddha. The acts of the bogus monk contradict the very renunciant notion of monkhood and only serve to contribute to the misconceptions of monkhood in Singapore. Especially for the learned Buddhist, the spoiling of the sanctity of their religion by these bogus monks adds another dimension to the ‘criminality’ in their acts.

Conclusion

The socio-cultural dimensions of Singapore have shaped the power relations between the bogus monks and most of the Singaporeans to a scale where the bogus monks are on the upper hand and are in a position to take advantage of the latter. The crime in focus here, absurdly, is being supported by the victims themselves. The nature of such a crime is unfavourable towards policing agents, and thus further empowers the criminals. With the increased reporting about such crimes in the mass media and the consequent augmented public awareness, the power relations between these criminals and the general public are likely to shift to an order where the increasingly informed Singaporeans no longer support such criminality, and inevitably leading to the extinction of such a crime.

Is Jesus A Buddhist?

Mindful Way by Ajahn Chah

Buddhism: The Only Real Science by Ajahn Brahm

I used to be a scientist. I did Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, hanging out in the same building as the later-to-be-famous Professor Stephen Hawking. I became disillusioned with such science when, as an insider, I saw how dogmatic some scientists could be. A dogma, according to the dictionary, is an arrogant declaration of an opinion. This was a fitting description of the science that I saw in the labs of Cambridge. Science had lost its sense of humility. Egotistical opinion prevailed over the impartial search for Truth. My favourite aphorism from that time was: "The eminence of a great scientist, is measured by the length of time that they OBSTRUCT PROGRESS in their field"!

To understand real science, one can go back to one of its founding fathers, the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561 - 1628). He established the framework on which science was to progress, namely "the greater force of the negative instance". This meant that, having proposed a theory to explain some natural phenomenon, then one should try one's best to disprove it! One should test the theory with challenging experiments. One must put it on trial with rigorous argument. When a flaw appears in the theory, only then does science advance. A new discovery has been made> enabling the theory to> be adjusted and refined. This fundamental and original methodology of science understood that it is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. One can only disprove with absolute certainty. For example, how can one prove the basic law of gravity that "what goes up comes down, eventually"? One may throw objects up one million times and see them fall one million times. But that still does not prove "what goes up comes down". For NASA might then 'throw' a Saturn rocket up into space to explore Mars, and that never comes down to earth again. One negative instance is enough to disprove the theory with absolute certainty.

Some misguided scientists maintain the theory that there is no rebirth, that this stream of consciousness is incapable of returning to a successive human existence. All one needs to disprove this theory, according to science, is to find one instance of rebirth, just one! Professor Ian Stevenson, as some of you would know, has already demonstrated many instances of rebirth. The theory of no rebirth has been disproved. Rebirth is now a scientific fact! Modern science gives a low priority to any efforts to disprove its pet theories. There is too much vested interest in power, prestige and research grants. A courageous commitment to truth takes too many scientists out of their comfort zone. Scientists are, for the most part, brainwashed by their education and their in-group conferences to see the world in a very narrow, microscopic way.

The very worst scientists are those who behave like eccentric evangelists, claiming that they alone have the whole truth, and then demanding the right to impose their views on everyone> else. Ordinary people know so little about science that they can hardly even understand the jargon. Yet, if they read in a newspaper or magazine "a scientist says that?", then they automatically take it to be true. Compare this to our reaction when we read in the same journal "a politician says that?"! Why do scientists have such unchallenged credibility? Perhaps it is because the language and ritual of science has become so far removed from the common people, that scientists have become today's revered and mystical priesthood. Dressed in their ceremonial white lab coats, chanting incomprehensible mumbo jumbo about multi-dimensional fractal parallel universes, and performing magical rituals that transubstantiate metal and plastic into TV's and computers, these modern day alchemists are so awesome we'll believe anything they say.

Elitist science, as once was the Pope, is now infallible. Some know better. Much of what I learnt 30 years ago has now been proved wrong. There are, fortunately, many scientists with integrity and humility who affirm that science is, at best, a work still in progress. They know that science can only suggest a truth, but can never claim a truth. I was once told by a Buddhist G.P. that, on his first day at a medical school in Sydney, the famous Professor, head of the Medical School, began his welcoming address by stating "Half of what we are going to teach you in the next few years is wrong. Our problem is that we do not know which half it is!" Those were the words of a real scientist.

Some evangelical scientists would do well to reflect on the (amended) old saying "Scientists rush in where angels fear to tread" and stop pontificating about the nature of the mind, happiness and even Nirvana. Neurologists are especially prone to such neuroses (Neurosis: an undue adherence to unrealistic ideas of things). They are claiming that the mind, awareness and will, is now adequately explained by activity in the brain. This theory was disproved over 20 years ago by Prof.> Lorber's discovery of> the student at Sheffield University with and IQ of 126, a> First Class degree> in mathematics, but with virtually no brain (Science, Vol. 210, 12 Dec 1980)! More recently, it was disproved by Prof. Pim Van Lommel, who demonstrated the existence of consciousness activity after clinical death, i.e. when all brain activity has ceased (Lancet, Vol. 358, 15 December 2001, p 2039). Although there may be correlation between a measurable activity in part of the brain and a mental impression, such co-occurrence doesn't always imply that one is the cause of the other.

For instance, some years ago, research showed a clear correlation between cigarette smoking and the non-occurrence of Alzheimer's disease. It was not that smoking cigarettes somehow caused immunity from Alzheimer's, as much as the tobacco companies might have wished, it was only that many smokers did not live long enough to get Alzheimer's disease! Thus a co-incidence of two phenomena, even when repeated, does not mean that one phenomenon is the cause of the other. To claim that activity in the brain causes awareness, or mind, is plainly unscientific.

Buddhism is more scientific than modern science. Like science, Buddhism is based on verifiable cause-and-effect relationships. But unlike science, Buddhism challenges with thoroughness every belief. The famous Kalama Sutta of Buddhism states that one cannot believe fully in "what one is taught, tradition, hearsay, scripture, logic, inference, appearance, agreement with established opinion, the seeming competence of a teacher, or even in one's own teacher". How many scientists are as rigorous in their thinking as this? Buddhism challenges everything, including logic.

It is worth noting that Quantum Theory appeared quite illogical, even to such great scientists as Einstein, when it was first proposed. It is yet to be disproved. Logic is only as reliable as the assumptions on which it is based. Buddhism trusts only clear and objective experience. Clear experience occurs when one's measuring instruments, one's senses, are bright and undisturbed.

In Buddhism, this happens when the hindrances of sloth-and-torpor and restlessness-and-remorse are both overcome. Objective experience is that which is free from all bias. In Buddhism, the three types of bias are desire, ill will and sceptical doubt. Desire makes one see only what one wants to see, it bends the truth to fit one's preferences. Ill will makes one blind to whatever is disturbing or disconcerting to one's views and it distorts the truth by denial. Sceptical doubt stubbornly refuses to accept those truths, like rebirth, that are plainly valid but which fall outside of one's comforting worldview. In summary, clear and objective experience only happens when the Buddhist 'Five Hindrances' have been overcome. Only then can one trust the data arriving through one's senses. Because scientists are not free of these five hindrances,> they are rarely clear and objective.

It is common, for example, for scientists to ignore annoying data, which do not fit their cherished theories, or else confine such evidence to oblivion by filing it away as an 'anomaly'. Even most Buddhists aren't clear and objective. One has to have recent experience of Jhana to effectively put aside these five hindrances> (according to the> Nalakapana Sutta , Majjhima No. 68). So only accomplished meditators can claim to be real scientists, that is, clear and objective. Science claims to rely not only on clear and objective observation, but also on measurement. But what is measurement in science?

To measure something, according to the pure science of Quantum Theory, is to collapse the Schroedinger Wave Equation through an act of observation. Moreover, the "un-collapsed" form of the Schroedinger Wave Equation, that is before any measurement is made, is, perhaps, science's most perfect description of the world. That description is weird! Reality, according to pure science, does not consist of well ordered matter with precise massed, energies and positions in space, all just waiting to be measured. Reality is the broadest of smudges of all possibilities, only some being more probable than others.

Even basic 'measurable' qualities as 'alive' or 'dead' have been demonstrated by science to be invalid sometimes. In the notorious 'Schroedinger's Cat' thought experiment, Prof. Schroedinger's cat was ingeniously placed in a real situation where it was neither dead nor alive, where such measurements became meaningless. Reality, according to Quantum Theory, is beyond measurements. Measuring disturbs reality, it never describes it perfectly. It was Heisenberg's famous 'Uncertainty Principle' that showed the inevitable error between the real Quantum world and the measured world of pseudo-science. Anyway, how can anyone measure the measurer, the mind?

At a recent seminar on Science and Religion, at which I was a speaker, a Catholic in the audience bravely announced that whenever she looks through a telescope at the stars, she feels uncomfortable because her religion is threatened. I commented that whenever a scientist looks the other way round through a telescope, to observe the one who is watching, then they feel uncomfortable because their science is threatened by what is doing the seeing! So what is doing the seeing, what is this mind that eludes modern science? A Grade-One teacher once asked her class "What is the biggest thing in the world?" One little girl answered "My daddy". A little boy said "An elephant", since he'd recently been to the zoo. Another girl suggested "A mountain". The six-year-old daughter of a close friend of mine replied, "My eye is the biggest thing in the world"! The class stopped. Even the teacher didn't understand her answer. So the little philosopher explained "Well, my ye can see her daddy, an elephant, and a mountain too. It can also see so much else. If all of that can fit into my eye, then my eye must be the biggest thing in the world"! Brilliant.

However, she was not quite right. The mind can see everything that one's eye can see, and it can also imagine so much more. It can also hear, smell, taste and touch, as well as think. In fact, everything that can be known can> fit into the mind. Therefore, the mind must be the biggest thing in the world. Science's mistake is obvious now. The mind is not in the brain, nor in the body. The brain, the body and the rest of the world, are in the mind! Mind is the sixth sense in Buddhism, it is that which encompasses the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, and transcends them with its own domain. It corresponds loosely to Aristotle's "common sense" that is distinct from the five senses.

Indeed, ancient Greek philosophy, from where science is said to have its origins, taught six senses just like Buddhism. Somewhere along the historical journey of European thinking, they lost their mind! Or, as Aristotle would put it, they somehow discarded their "common sense"! And thus we got science. We got materialism without any heart. One can accurately say that Buddhism is science that has kept its heart, and which hasn't lost its mind!

Thus Buddhism is not a belief system. It is a science founded on objective observation, i.e. meditation, ever careful not to disturb the reality through imposing artificial measurements, and it is evidently repeatable.

People have been re-creating the experimental conditions, known as establishing the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, for over twenty-six centuries now, much longer than science. And those renowned Professors of Meditation, the male and female Arahants, have all arrived at the same conclusion as the Buddha. They verified the timeless Law of Dhamma, otherwise known as Buddhism.

So Buddhism is the only real science, and I'm happy to say that I'm still a scientist at heart, only a much better scientist than I ever could have been at Cambridge.



Ajahn Brahmavamso
8th February 2004

How To Change The World by Ajahn Brahm

Dealing with Emotions by Ajahn Brahm