Equality

1. DEFINITION

a. Equality is different from levelling out benefits.

Levelling out benefits means forcing everyone to receive the same share of benefits, even though their merit differs, the effort they put in differs, and the results they bring about differ.

The word "Six Harmonies" in the way monks live is often understood as this kind of levelling too: everyone has the same benefits and no one has more than anyone else. In a community of practitioners this can be accepted, because those who have renounced the world do not ask for benefits however much effort they give. But it would be very difficult to apply it across the whole of society.

Almost everyone has some latent selfishness, and everyone wants fairness. Those who do more should receive more. Fairness is also a characteristic of the law of cause and effect: a person with more merit must enjoy more happiness.

In society, those who contribute more effort should enjoy more benefits. That is the fairness of society. So society cannot force everyone to enjoy the same benefits when their abilities differ. A person who is more intelligent, more talented and works more effectively cannot receive the same pay as someone without talent or intelligence. If everyone were forced to enjoy the same benefits however differently they contribute, individual striving would collapse, because in reality everyone still has a selfish mind and demands fairness.

Therefore, levelling out benefits and forcing everyone to enjoy the same is impossible to carry out. It breaks the law of fairness and leaves many people disheartened.

Only in the setting of those who practise Buddhism can this be done, and then only to a certain extent. In Buddhism, within a great assembly some people can do a lot of work and some can do little. But those who do a lot usually do not cling; they let go of their selfishness and accept a life in which benefits are levelled. Of course, levelling benefits can be applied in a temple only in part, and sometimes not completely. That is when merit rises to the surface in certain members of the assembly. They practise a great deal and contribute a great deal to the community. Although they do not long for more benefits and still want to share everything equally, the merit that comes to them cannot be held back. Many lay followers begin to admire them. Through natural merit their wisdom opens; they can give Dharma talks, expound the sutras and do many outstanding things. So the abbots and senior teachers favour them and give them special privileges. Even though they do not want these, they begin to receive them. And the rest of the assembly are not upset, because their merit deserves such treatment.

So forcing everyone to live with equal benefits is very hard to achieve. In aspiration, those who practise Buddhism have studied the Six Harmonies and so readily accept sharing benefits as brothers even when they contribute more. But there are cases where even a temple cannot manage this, because each person's merit differs.

In the world outside, this is simply impossible. People with talent and wisdom must enjoy more benefits. So equality is not levelling out benefits.

b. Equality is an ethical attitude in dealing with everyone.

If levelling out benefits is a mechanism of an organisation, whether in a temple or in the world, then equality is the attitude of ethics when treating people.

The two concepts are completely different.

In how we treat others, equality is the opposite of partiality. A monastic must treat lay followers equally. Some of those who come to the temple are poor and some are rich. Faced with these two kinds of people, if we can keep equality, we will not treat them differently. Then we are people of equal-minded ethics. But keeping this attitude is not at all simple, and not everyone can do it.

People in the world, like people in the Path, often have many reasons to treat others with partiality.

First, we tend to favour people with whom we have a bond from previous lives (the bond here means a good bond). In past lives they may have shown us kindness and helped us. When we meet again in this life, without meaning to we still favour them and treat them better than others.

For example, because of bonds from a previous life, one person comes asking to be ordained and the abbot accepts at once, while another is turned away. If there is no equality in how people are treated, that too comes from bonds of the past. Although in his heart there is no discrimination, no loving one more or disliking another more, the bonds of former lives pull very strongly, so we show partiality and are not equal in how we treat people. Because this belongs to cause and effect, it is very hard for us to overcome.

Even in the family, parents do not treat their children evenly; there is still partiality. In truth, each child was born to them, so there is no reason for parents to dislike one or treat them differently. But because bonds pull on us, parents often love the child who makes a terrible nuisance of himself while paying no attention to the gentle, well-behaved ones. There are strange feelings like that.

We can explain such partiality only by causes that belong to bonds from a previous life.

Second, we tend to be partial to those who have many good qualities. This was also mentioned in the lesson on loving-kindness. People with good qualities are those who are beautiful, strikingly good-looking or more elegant than others. Although they may not have much of a bond with us, because of those outstanding points we pay attention to them and favour them. Partiality often also hides a kind of courting, a hope that they will look kindly on us and help us. Though it differs in degree, it is still an expression of selfishness.

Partiality is not ethics, and it is something all of us, monastics and lay people alike, easily fall into. If our practice is not firm and the strength of our path is not great, we will easily slip into treating people with partiality.

Today it is very common, and complained about everywhere, for monastics to treat lay visitors to the temple differently, discriminating between the rich and the poor. Any lay follower who has not met this is fortunate and has met genuine practitioners. Not a few people are deeply dissatisfied to see that in some places the monks are attentive and effusive only towards wealthy lay followers and neglect the poor and suffering.

To explain this to lay followers, we can only say that in past lives those people created merit and cared for others. Merit shows itself in a radiant face, a lovely gaze, plenty of money, a dignified appearance and so on, so they have a force that draws other people's attention, and wherever they go they are respected. When they come to the temple, they draw the attention of the monastics too. The poor are usually those with little merit, and others do not notice them. That is the law of fairness, a fairness so harsh that we have to accept it.

But as for the monastic, if he knows how to cultivate his mind and keeps it pure, then in front of anyone and any scene his mind does not run after them. He always keeps watch over his own mind. Faced with those two kinds of people, the merit of the rich person may draw his mind, but because the strength of concentration in his heart is firm, his mind is not pulled there. He stays with his own mind. So however wealthy the other person is, however radiant their face, he stays with his mind and is not swayed.

Whether reciting the Buddha's name or practising Zen, a person who knows how to practise is usually not swayed by outer circumstances. Sometimes while reciting the Buddha's name, though speaking to someone else, they remain with the recitation in their own mind and the mind does not turn outward. A Zen practitioner is always watching their mind, seeing whether it is calm or agitated. Though talking with others or doing some task, they are always staying with the mind, keeping watch over it. The deeper their concentration, the less they are swayed by outer circumstances.

This is a subtle matter of the mind, and also a hard one to grasp. A person whose practice is not firm is usually pulled outward by outer circumstances. A person with firm practice stays with their own mind. So between the rich and the poor, nothing can pull them away. This shows itself in outward conduct. It is compassion, and it is equality.

A person who keeps their mind in concentration is a person of wisdom. Because they have wisdom, they usually pay more attention to the poor and suffering. They do so because they know the poor easily feel inferior, ashamed of their humble lot. When such people come to the temple they often do not dare to meet the abbot. They hang about doing some chore or other, or when they listen to the Master speak they choose a hidden seat and do not dare to show their faces.

If the monastic has firm practice and a steady mind, he will recognise the sense of inferiority and sorrow in the poor, especially the disabled, and will show them more love and care. It is precisely our love and measured attention that will help ease the feelings of inferiority that lie deep in their hearts. That is the ethics of equality. In truth, in this case, for people of wisdom, equality carries another, more flexible meaning: equal, yet partial towards the poor. The wealthy often become arrogant about their riches. If we are attentive and effusive towards them, they grow even more arrogant. With such people it does no harm if we are not partial, for if this temple does not pay attention to them, another temple will.

Some lay followers, relying on their wealth, demand when they make offerings that the temple do things their way. In such cases we must be firm and never go along with them. We refuse in order to extinguish their ego, to extinguish the conceit that comes from their wealth. Of course, our cool strictness sometimes achieves nothing, because such a person can go to another temple and be warmly welcomed. Or the result may be the reverse: that person never comes to the temple again. But we must still be resolute, to give them a lesson. They may be warmly received at another temple, but at least they will understand that there is at least one place where their conceit has no seat.

The poor who often come to the temple are those who love the temple and need affection. If we do not receive them, they feel lost and ashamed of their lot. So we must love the poor and suffering and make up for what is lacking in their spiritual lives. With the disabled we must care even more, so as to gradually dispel their feelings of inferiority and help them join in life with confidence.

If we are in charge of an assembly, we must create equal opportunities for its members to practise, study and do meritorious work, without distinction of lineage or talent. Then we have kept the ethics of equality.

A practitioner usually has three tasks: practising, studying and working.

Practice includes many things: sitting in meditation, bowing to the Buddha, chanting the sutras. Study can be understood broadly: studying in class, studying on one's own at home, studying with a teacher and so on. The person in charge of the assembly must create conditions for its members to do these two things. He must create the conditions without partiality. For those who have the means to study, we must help them study and help them have time to practise. For a monastic, practice is the most important thing. So laziness and not practising are unacceptable. A practitioner may study little, but practice must always be diligent; if one does not practise diligently, one is not worthy of being a monastic.

The issue here is not to be partial. The abbot, the teacher, the steward or whoever is in charge of the assembly must create equal conditions for everyone to study and practise. We may have a stronger bond with one person and a weaker one with another, but we must care about everyone, about each person and each person's capacity. If we let someone's merit draw us and give them special support, then we are people without strength of path. At every moment and in every place we must be careful not to be partial because of another person's merit, because partiality towards those with merit makes us lose the ethics of equality.

If we are responsible for others, we should pay more attention to those whose wisdom is weak, whose capacity is still poor and whose character is not yet upright, because after all they have made the vow to leave home. Those with merit can walk by themselves and stand firm on their own two feet. Those without merit we must accompany, and remind and look after more. That is precisely the ethics of the person in charge of an assembly.

Meritorious work is also very important for a practitioner. So we must take care to create conditions for it. Without meritorious work a monastic cannot advance on the Path.

Abbots often make the mistake of punishing those with bad temperaments or who often commit faults by making them do heavy, tiring work. That is dangerous for the great assembly later on. In assigning them such work we think we are punishing them, but in fact we are creating conditions for them to do meritorious work. Later they will have merit and will become leaders in the temple. Once a person of bad character leads the temple, what happens? Surely the temple is no longer a place of serious practice. Those who practise well will not be able to bear it and will eventually leave.

Some will wonder why someone not good ends up as a leader. This too is reasonable, reasonable by the law of cause and effect. Because earlier they were disliked by their elders and made to do a great deal of work, now they enjoy the merit and become leaders.

So, according to the law of cause and effect, we should note this: if we want to train people of ethics to become good leaders in future, we must make them do more meritorious work. A leader of the assembly who has ethics will be very good for the temple. A temple with such leaders will be a place of serious study and practice, a place lay followers can choose as a firm refuge. Good temples help the Dharma flourish more and more.

Fundamentally, we create equal opportunities for the great assembly to do meritorious work, so that they have merit and practise diligently. But meritorious work inside the temple alone is not enough; a monastic must know how to do meritorious work outside the temple too. If such work is confined to the temple, with everyone doing good deeds for one another, then the practitioner advances only in ethics and not in merit. The abbot must create conditions for the assembly to do meritorious work outside the temple and to do charitable work regularly, to create merit for the future.

Some temples do things that deserve great praise. In one temple, when needed, as many as 42 members of the assembly gave blood. We must see that there is no merit greater than the merit of giving blood to save a life. People can give money, but not everyone can give blood. This is called giving of one's own body.

We should note: no partiality, but also no levelling out of benefits. For, as said above, levelling out benefits breaks cause and effect. Within the assembly, in treating everyone, we must always create equal opportunities for them. Whether they make use of them, however, depends on them. Some people, when practice time comes, concentrate their minds with great diligence. Others still sit there, but their minds are not with them and wander off. Some bow to the Buddha with earnest reverence, while others bow perfunctorily. Here, the cause and effect is sown by them and not by us any more. Our responsibility is to create equal conditions for everyone. How much they apply their minds and effort is up to them. As time goes on, each person's merit gradually separates out. Good people will follow the good road. Those who are not yet good will naturally stop and be left behind. That is natural; we cannot resist it, even though our hearts remain loving and equal. Never think that equality means everything must be equal. That is, that because everyone has not reached this, no one else can reach that. To understand it that way is a mistake, and holds back each individual's growth and diligent practice.

For example, when someone practises well, their wisdom opens, many lay followers respect them, and the bond for them to teach has come, we should not hold them back. We should not obstruct their giving of Dharma talks on the grounds that many others have not yet gone out to teach and instruct. To do that is to begin to fall into the illness of levelling out benefits. When their merit is already different and their bond has come, we must, according to circumstances, create conditions for them to bring out their abilities and do larger Dharma work. That is not partiality. It is conduct in accord with the law of cause and effect.

In how we treat others we need to keep to the Middle Way. That is, our hearts still love everyone equally, without partiality, and still want everyone to be good. But when we act, we must follow the circumstances, the merit and the cause and effect of each person, and should not impose or level out benefits. In other words, there is a difference between equality and levelling out benefits, and we must tell them clearly apart so as to apply them correctly and avoid mistakes. This is a difficult point that abbots need to note. If we are not careful and cannot keep our minds, we will be partial in how we treat people.

If at some moment we fall into an extreme, fail to see cause and effect and so level out benefits while each person's merit has begun to differ, we have resisted cause and effect. Then we have made a mistake. This is where a practitioner must be careful. So speaking of the ethics of equality is speaking more of outward judgement, even though there is also control of one's own mind.

2. EQUALITY EXPRESSES THE STRENGTH OF THE PATH

A person with merit always creates a pull on others. Conversely, a person with wrongdoing, or a poor and suffering person, often creates indifference and coldness. If we cultivate little compassion and do not love the poor and suffering, we will be drawn by the merit of the wealthy and become partial. Then we become narrow and personally biased. How, then, could we be worthy to be a shade tree for everyone?

So for us, cultivating a compassionate mind is a basic requirement, a precondition for deeply understanding questions of ethics and applying them effectively in life. A compassionate mind is not cultivated for a day or two but for a whole lifetime. Every day, when bowing to the Buddha and when sitting in meditation, we must contemplate compassion and love everyone. When, in meeting the poor, we find ourselves loving them more, then we are on the right road of a practitioner. In how we treat others, we will surely show the ethics of equality.

A person with strength of path is not swayed by differences in outer circumstances, and does not let those with merit pull their mind running towards them. So in dealing with others we need to keep a compassionate mind equal towards everyone, whether they have much merit or little. Monks and nuns are at present much criticised for being effusive towards the rich and indifferent towards the poor.

We should remember that, with the wealthy, whether we treat them warmly or not does not matter. Wherever they go they are treated warmly. At whatever temple they visit they get the same, and among friends too. Some wealthy people greatly admire us when they see us treat the poor well. As for being attentive and effusive with them, sometimes we are even looked down on. Some wealthy lay followers show contempt when they see a practitioner come to visit. They think we have come to ask for their offerings. Outwardly they often show nothing, but inside a feeling of contempt has arisen. We practitioners must be careful and reserved in meeting the wealthy. Of course we should not tar everyone with the same brush, but we must admit that the rich are often arrogant and quick to think ill of practitioners. So we need to keep a calm attitude in dealing with them. We must absolutely not be cold and indifferent to the poor while being attentive and effusive to the rich. We must let them see the difference between us and people of the world.

To do that, a practitioner must have a certain mettle, a mettle that rises above the ordinary, able to be unconcerned with the rich yet show kindness to the poor.

That said, it is not that everyone who comes to the temple is weighed up by rich and poor. We love the poor because they are easily made to feel inferior and easily feel sorry for themselves. What we really care about and pay attention to in lay followers who come to the temple is the mind. Mind here means the mind for the Path, the degree to which they understand the Path and their eagerness to practise. So from this angle we should not distinguish between rich and poor. There are cases where those who come to the temple are wealthy but have a mind for the Path. We should respect them. Once they understand the Path, such people will not think ill or crookedly when we treat them well.

In short, in our conduct, if we are people with "clear eyes" (in both the literal and figurative senses), we will see how far the wealthy person's mind for the Path goes, and take a suitable attitude. If they are arrogant, we keep an indifferent, cool attitude to give them a lesson in ethics for how to live. If they have a mind for the Path, we must treat them as well as we treat everyone else.

3. APPLYING THE ETHICS OF EQUALITY IN CONDUCT

a. With lay followers:

We try to treat the poor and suffering with kindness because they easily feel inferior. The wealthy are by nature easily favoured in life, and so easily develop conceit. Giving them some indifference is also necessary, to cure that illness of conceit. With those who have the right mind, we always treat them well.

b. With fellow monastics:

We should not form a private friendship with a few people that becomes a seed of division in the Sangha later. For when we make close friends with a few, perhaps those who share our cell or who have a bond with us, we will often visit and cling to that person without caring about those around us. In time, that becomes a seed of division.

So we must be careful. Whether someone has a bond with us or has many good qualities, we try to keep the same ordinary attitude as with others. We may be close to such people to learn from them, but we should not form a private friendship because of it. Private friendship itself creates selfishness, which leads to jealousy.

c. With the assembly under our care:

When many people live together in an assembly, there will surely be some who are good to us and have a bond with us, but we still try to guard our hearts and treat everyone equally, without discrimination. This is very hard, and not everyone can do it easily. If we do not try, we will lose strength of path and become used to partiality, treating people unequally. Gradually, when we go out to do the work of the Path, that partiality will sway us and we will become narrow and parochial.

If we are an abbot or steward, let us give everyone an equal chance to study and practise, never favouring one person and pressing down on another. If a few people are stubborn with us, we should not feel ill will but should love them in order to guide them.

d. Lay practitioners must also treat one another equally.

In society there are many classes of people; beside the wealthy there are not a few who are poor and unfortunate. Lay practitioners should treat one another equally. For the poor, we should give more care, love and help. Those who know the Path, whether a little or a lot, we should hold dear. If they know the Path well, let us regard them as our good spiritual friends and go together with them to learn. Those who do not yet know much of the Path, let us care for and help so that they understand more of it.

For example, when we hear of a teacher giving good talks somewhere, we should invite others to go along. Or if there is a good recording, we should pass it round for each other to hear; if there is a good book, we should encourage one another to read it. Those who understand the Path must create conditions for others to come to it. Lay followers who cultivate compassion will be able to do this.

Towards monks and nuns, lay practitioners should show respect but also equality; that is, they should not be partial to this teacher or that nun. Although there are some from whom we can learn and others who still have much practising to do, lay practitioners should respect them all and learn from them all. Lay followers taking refuge should also note this: taking refuge in the Sangha means taking refuge in the Sangha of the ten directions. So it is not that we know only our own preceptor; wherever we go, if we meet monks and nuns who practise genuinely, we must respect them.

For a time, lay followers held the view that they should respect monks and nuns unconditionally, whatever faults they committed. This view has good sides, and shows the tolerance and generosity of lay followers towards practitioners. But unintentionally it has helped to nurture bad elements in the Dharma, harmed the Path's reputation and caused the Dharma to decline quickly. Lay followers need to be stricter and place their respect and offerings in the right place and on the right people. Only in that way can we gradually filter out those of poor quality who exploit the Dharma to satisfy their own needs.

Rebuilding the Dharma is not only the responsibility and the practice efforts of monks and nuns; lay followers share in that responsibility too. If lay followers are united in being strict in judging practitioners, there will surely be no more casual, careless ordinations. So in the process of making the Dharma flourish again, lay followers make no small contribution.

The Buddha always showed a gentle and measured attitude in his conduct. There is a story that in the Buddha's time, on one occasion, some monks quarrelled with one another. These monks were probably not far advanced in practice, unlike the arhats. When a disagreement arose, they fought and split into two camps. Seeing this, the Buddha advised them in a very mild tone:

"Monks, do not quarrel with one another any more, do not dispute any more, do not be at odds any more."

The Buddha spoke very mildly, but the monks, in the heat of the moment, eager to win and unwilling to lose, could not hold back and replied:

"Blessed One, please rest at ease. We must settle this matter ourselves."

The Buddha said:

"Enough. Do not dispute any more, do not be at odds any more."

They said again:

"Venerable Blessed One! Please withdraw and rest for your health; leave it to us to settle this matter."

The Buddha urged them three times, yet they still did not listen and kept quarrelling. The Buddha felt that these people were too stubborn; he stopped speaking and used another means. He no longer stayed in the monastery but went away. When he had gone, the lay followers made an uproar. They came to reproach the monks and declared that from now on they would no longer make offerings.

"If you need to, go and beg for alms somewhere else; you may no longer stay in our villages and towns. We will cut it off, and no one will make offerings to you, if you keep quarrelling so that the Blessed One has had to leave this place."

At that time the Buddha went to the Gosinga forest, where three venerable arhats were living: Anuruddha, Nandiya and Kimbila. The three lived together in great harmony. The Buddha visited the three and spoke with them for a long time. Later, on the basis of that conversation, we compiled a sutra: the Sutra on Living in Harmony.

Faced with the fierce protest of the lay followers, and with the economic pressure and pressure of the believers, the monks no longer dared to quarrel. Then the Buddha returned to the monastery and continued to teach the monks.

So the attitude of lay practitioners towards monks and nuns is also very important.

Lay followers must keep an attitude of equality, and should not be partial or parochial. Lay followers should not hold the notion that because they are from a certain locality they should look for a temple of that locality to support. In doing so, they are being partial in how they treat people. One more thing lay followers should note: many do not judge monks and nuns on their virtue, but on shallow outward impressions and their own feelings. For example, lay followers often show admiration for teachers who have a beautiful chanting voice or an auspicious face, or those who have many lay followers and influence. That is an inaccurate judgement. Lay followers who judge rightly are those who look at the practice and conduct, at the mind of the teacher. If we pay attention to conduct, we will choose someone worthy to give our respect to and to learn from. That is an objective filtering, and it is also the ethics of equality of a practitioner.

4. GIVE THE MEDICINE TO FIT THE ILLNESS

Equality means our minds are not partial and we love everyone. But the way we treat each person will differ, because each person's temperament and level are not the same.

a. With those who are still touchy:

When such people make mistakes, we cannot yet tell them their faults directly. Those who are touchy easily flare up when their faults are pointed out. We only advise them to bow to the Buddha and to bring humility to mind. Once they have bowed to the Buddha and brought humility to mind, regarding their bodies as grass and rubbish, as sand and dust, they will no longer be touchy as before. Then we can tell them their faults frankly without fear that they will flare up. Not only will they not be angry, they will make an effort to practise and correct their faults.

b. With those who feel inferior:

A person who feels inferior is one who thinks they are poor in ability. Here we need to distinguish two kinds of people. Some think they are inferior because they have a humble mind. Some think they are inferior because they feel inadequate and ashamed. A person who thinks they are lacking (out of humility) is a person of ethics, and will surely progress. But a person who thinks they are lacking and then becomes sad and discouraged, with no more energy to strive, is not a person of ethics. That is a person who has fallen into the illness of inferiority.

Such people usually lack self-confidence. They do not believe they can do good, nor that they will progress on the Path through practice. With them, we should not encourage by praising. If the praise is not right, we will increase their ego. From the illness of inferiority they may develop the illness of self-importance through hollow praise. With such people we only advise them to create merit, to live for others and make sacrifices. The merit of living for others will bring self-confidence. This is a very strange result. If we do not help others, we become timid and lose confidence; if we live well with everyone, we become more confident.

c. With those with whom we have no bond:

With those with whom we have no bond, we should not court them and so lose our dignity, and also easily be looked down on by them. Especially with the wealthy with whom we have no bond, if we are attentive and effusive, they will look down on us.

Our duty is to treat everyone well and not to court anyone, whether wealthy or powerful. With such people, we guide them only by calmly continuing to do good for others. Seeing us care for everyone, they will gradually understand.

d. With those who have a bond with us and favour us:

We should be careful to preserve the bond; that is, not to accept too much from them. We should not rely on their favour, only to part again when the bond and the debt run out. If we see that the person is precious and has character, and we want the affection to last, we should offer them the teachings and accept little money from them. Only in that way will the bond last long.

There was a famous Venerable who went to stay at a lay follower's house. The person looked after him very attentively and even built a small hut in the garden so that the Venerable could practise in quiet. After three years, it seems the debt ran out, and the lay follower became dissatisfied with the Venerable over something. The Venerable could no longer stay and had to leave. From then on, the two did not look at each other. It may be that he had used up all his bond with the other person, and so it ended in such bitterness.

So over countless lifetimes of rebirth, we have sown bonds with others. If the bond sown in previous lives was lasting, those people will stay attached to us for ever. Conversely, if the bond sown was slight, we will meet for a short time and then part. From this we draw a lesson: when we treat people well, our kindness too must be lasting and without limit; we should not stop halfway for any reason. If we have to part because of circumstances, there is nothing to be done. But if we can meet, we must always try to live well with each other so as to keep the bond lasting through the countless lifetimes of rebirth to come.

e. With those who have done wrong:

With those who are not very conceited and whose spirit is not yet strong, if they commit a fault we must care for and remind them more. Only then can they get past the fault and continue on the practitioner's road. If we are cold, rejecting or apply the rules too strictly, they will not be able to follow the Path any longer. Then our Path will have lost one person.

For example, someone in the assembly is guilty of stealing. For a practitioner this is a very serious offence and cannot be accepted. But we should not rush to apply the rules and expel them from the temple. We must calmly observe their character and past, what their family background is like, why they committed the theft and so on. Often, with someone who can be cured, if we do not cure them so that they become better, we too fall short in compassion. Then the Path loses a person and the Buddha loses a living being. Since the Buddha wants all beings to attain the Path and practise, it is also wrong for us to be so harsh that beings are driven away from the Path.

In the book Love of Life, there is a story about a man who was lost. He wandered into a stretch of coast with no food and was terribly hungry. Then one day a ship put in to shore. The people on board found him lying exhausted, took him on board and saved his life. When he came round, throughout the first week they saw that whenever he had a piece of bread he put it in a plastic bag and hid it under his bed. The sailors found this strange and told the captain. The captain said, "He is not a bad man. Anyone who has just escaped starving to death is so haunted by hunger that he gets this illness, the illness of hoarding food."

There are people from very poor families where the parents, going out on the road, pick up anything they see and bring it home. The children born into such a family are affected too, and sometimes end up stealing small things. So over time it becomes a habit, a habit that comes from a poor, pitiable family. If we learn that someone has just stolen a fellow monastic's belongings, we must consider so as to handle it in a way that is both reasonable and humane. If their fault comes from habits left by their family, we should advise them and find ways to help them stand up again, and not cast them aside. That is the ethics of a practitioner.

But with those who are conceited and hard to teach, silence and coolness are sometimes necessary.

A conceited person is very hard to teach. The Buddha himself admitted that it is very hard to guide a conceited person. The Lotus Sutra expresses this idea when it has 500 monks leave the Dharma assembly and go away. It is very hard to speak to a conceited person about a fault. Often we use only silence. Seeing our silent attitude, they gradually have to reconsider and reduce their ego.

So although our hearts are completely equal and impartial, we must still give the medicine to fit the illness.

5. THE TEMPLE'S RULES MUST BE BASED ON EQUALITY

A temple must have rules based on equality. If the temple's rules are lax, members of the assembly will form private friendships in groups and cause division. Or if contact with lay followers is allowed too easily, the monastics will develop partial feelings and form lay followers of their own. The main cause is a poor policy and organisation in the temple. We hope the younger generation of monks and nuns will have more rigorous ways of managing. To do this, we must study administration and management. We can attend classes or borrow books to find out how companies, enterprises, offices and organisations in the world run their administration, and from that apply it to the policies of our temple to make them rigorous and serious.

6. COOPERATING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE A BOND WITH US AND ARE CAPABLE

In life, to get work done effectively, we have to work closely with people who are capable and have a bond with us. However, we should not lose our concern for others, because if we are not careful we will fall into partiality in how we treat people.

7. THOSE WHO ARE GIVEN PRIORITY

According to the ethics of equality, we accept that those with merit enjoy the results, but we still care for and show kindness to those who do not yet have enough ability or enough merit.

8. EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN IN SOCIETY

In society, depending on the outlook of each locality and each age, men and women are treated differently. In some places women are highly valued. Conversely, in some societies women are not valued as they should be.

For example, in Western society, women are always given priority (Ladies first). A man is put in fifth place, after the animals. But in Muslim society, a woman is only a tool for a man. So in how people are treated there is always variation, and no equality.

In our country, in feudal society, women were looked down on and had no role or position in society. They existed almost as a shadow of the man. In society today, the question of equality between men and women receives great attention. There is already equality between them. Women increasingly hold important positions in society and even have the advantage over men. In a civilised, modern society, all kinds of work are gradually being replaced by machines, and women have more opportunities. They can still take on important tasks without having to put in so much effort or do manual labour.

So there is already equality between men and women. However, there is another issue to consider: people's ideas about karma. From of old, people have held that women have heavier karma than men, and so women must always accept some disadvantage and fall a little short of men. That idea is wrong. It was invented only by the "bearded gentlemen" for their own benefit.

According to Confucianism, women suffer a great deal of disadvantage and pain. A man has the right to five wives and seven concubines, while a woman can be faithful only to one husband. There are many other injustices women have had to bear, especially the outdated customs and rules.

However, the role of women in the family and in society varies over time and from society to society. In some places, a wife marries and can take many husbands. In some lands, a woman goes to be a daughter-in-law and wife, that is, a daughter-in-law and wife to all the brothers of one family. Each time she goes to market, the wife need only give orders about what to buy, and the others obey without a word.

In some societies the wife has the right to be the master. But in others the wife is only a servant. When the husband eats, the wife must stand and wait on him. So clearly the idea that women have heavier karma is not right. For if they had heavy karma, why would some societies respect women and give them priority over men?

We should not think that men or women have heavier karma. That depends on each person. Anyone who is used to mistreating women and treating them as tools will be reborn in the next life as a woman in a Muslim society (a society that mistreats women).

9. EQUALITY OF MONKS AND NUNS: THE EIGHT RULES OF RESPECT

It is told that in the Buddha's time, the Buddha's aunt asked to be ordained and he would not allow it. When Ananda pleaded earnestly, the Buddha agreed, but on condition that she keep eight rules. Among those eight, the Buddha required that a nun of a hundred years' standing must still pay respectful homage to a monk even of only one year's standing.

The issue here is that the Buddha placed the rank of nuns well below the rank of monks. From this arose the idea that women have heavier karma than men. In fact, if we put it in the context of the time, we will better understand the meaning of the Buddha's request. The context then was that the first nun was the Buddha's aunt. If the monks and nuns had simply been treated as equal, the other monks would have been very afraid of her. Their fear would have been reasonable, because she was the aunt of the Blessed One, the one who had cherished and nursed the Buddha from when he was small. Her merit was very great. Moreover, she belonged to the royal lineage and was ordained when she was already old. Younger monks and those of other classes who met her would dare only to call her "Your Ladyship". So how were the monks to treat the other nuns who were ordained following her? They too would have to show unfailing respect. From that, the nuns would have come to look down on the monks, destroying the proper order and leaving no more equality. So in the actual situation then, if the Buddha had made everyone equal, inequality would have resulted. That is, from fear of the Buddha's aunt, the monks would have developed a tradition of reverence towards the nuns.

The Buddha, fearing this would happen, turned the matter around: however many years a nun had been ordained, she must still pay respect to a monk. Thanks to this, later on the nuns who were ordained did not dare to rely on the standing of Mahapajapati Gotami to look down on the monks. If their ego had not been cut away, not only would they not have been able to practise, but a tradition would have appeared in Buddhism in which monks were afraid of nuns and revered them. Gradually this would have caused inequality between monks and nuns.

At present, monks stand in a higher position than nuns. That also has its benefit, but sometimes, because of the Vietnamese way of addressing (Teacher–child), we get the feeling that nuns are lowered too much. Abroad, the personal pronouns are simpler (I–You), so that gap is not so evident. However, when nuns address themselves so modestly and seemingly so humbly, they lower their ego a great deal and so have virtue. Conversely, when a nun calls herself "child" to a monk, the monk's ego increases. Then the monk loses virtue.

Monks with ethics are very afraid of this. But monks who do not know it, who think the Eight Rules of Respect are an absolute truth, always look down on the nuns. In the next life, such people will be made nuns, to understand how a nun is treated in a country where the Eight Rules of Respect weigh so heavily.

In the old days, living in the quiet forests and mountains, nuns had to stay near monks to be protected by them. In those days bandits roamed everywhere. In the Four-Part Vinaya it is even recorded that a nun was raped. So to ensure the safety of the nuns, the Buddha told them to spend the rains retreat in places near where there were monks. That is, the monks were responsible for protecting the nuns.

Now the State puts great emphasis on strengthening security, so there is little disorder affecting nuns. Moreover, nuns live in organised communities and so are safer. So we hold that there should be more equality in the relationship between monks and nuns. Often, because of keeping the Eight Rules of Respect, nuns still call themselves "child" before monks. There is nothing wrong in that, but a person with the ethics of equality will feel uneasy. They fear not being able to keep their mind, and that their ego will increase.

It is the same for lay followers: respect should be kept in the heart. It may not be necessary for lay followers coming to the temple to call themselves "child" before monastics.

In short, people usually differ in merit. That is a very natural and reasonable difference. In the face of this, we must not level out benefits. However, neither should we, because of differences in merit, treat people with too much partiality or too wide a gap between one and another. One thing to note is that the ethics of a practitioner require us to care about others and to pay more attention to the lot of those lower down. They are the poor, the disabled, the poorly educated and so on.

Besides treating people equally, we must know how to care about others. What deserves our concern in them is not whether they are rich or poor but their mind, their mind for the Path. Rich or poor, if they have a mind for the Path, they are worthy of our love and esteem. And in the face of such differences, we must also give the medicine to fit the illness. In some cases, treating them warmly will benefit them. In others, we should be indifferent and cool so that they realise it and live better. We must be especially careful: in how we treat others, never to think of our own benefit or to court advantage for ourselves. What matters is choosing the attitude of conduct that benefits others.