Thursday, December 10, 2009

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech: Full Remarks

President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize Thursday in Olso, Norway. Below is the full text of his speech:
(http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5961370.shtml )

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech: Full Remarks

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease – the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations – total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations – an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize – America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another – that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries – and other friends and allies – demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali – we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant – the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point – the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists – a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests – nor the world’s –are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side

Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable – and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people – or nations educate their children and care for the sick – is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action – it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint – no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith – for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their faith in human progress – must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith – if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace – then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

So let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that – for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

ดาวน์โหลดไฟล์เสียง mp3 china232.com


Monday, October 19, 2009

พระไตรปิฎก ภาษาไทย - ภาษาอังกฤษ หลายฉบับ


พระไตรปิฎกฉบับ มหามกุฎราชวิยาลัย 91 เล่ม

ส่วนแรก 95.37 MB http://tinyurl.com/yzsd59e
ส่วนที่สอง 83.97 MB http://tinyurl.com/yh9hva3

พระไตรปิฎกภาษาไทย 45 เล่ม เป็นไฟล์ WORD
บีบด้วย WinRar:

คลิก: http://www.4shared.com/file/125354537/a117f28b/Tripidok.html?s=1
บีบด้วย Zip:
- http://www.4shared.com/file/125354506/fd3d91de/Tripidok.html?s=1
- http://www.mediafire.com/file/dwm84w7cn1f78m4/Thai%20Tipitaka.zip

อ่าน online และดาวน์โหลดเพื่อเก็บไว้อ่าน offline

[1]: พระไตรปิฎกภาษาไทย
45 เล่ม อ่าน online ที่นี่ครับ:

- -1: http://84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/

- -2: http://budsir.mahidol.ac.th/
คลิกที่ Sign up เพื่อพิมพ์ ชื่อ นามสกุล

คลิก Thai panelที่มุมบนขวา
คลิกเลือกประเภทพระไตรปิฎก / เล่มที่จะอ่าน / สารบัญประจำเล่ม

คลิก Back ที่ทูลบาร์เพื่อย้อนกลับ

- -3: http://larndham.net/buddhism/tsearch.htm
[2]: พระไตรปิฎกฉบับประชาชน เรียบเรียงโดยอาจารย์
สุชีพ ปุญญานุภาพ ซึ่งย่อความจากพระไตรปิฎกฉบับภาษาบาลี
45 เล่ม
เชิญอ่านได้ที่นี่ครับ: http://www.larnbuddhism.com/tripitaka/

[3]: พระไตรปิฎกฉบับพ้นทุกข์ จัดทำและเรียบเรียงโดยท่านธรรมรักษา

เชิญอ่านได้ที่นี่ครับ: http://www.geocities.com/krongthipi/

[4]: พระไตรปิฎกฉบับปฏิบัติ
"พระไตรปิฎก ฉบับปฏิบัติ" ของ ท่านธรรมรักษา

[5]: พระไตรปิฎก พระพุทธศาสนาจากพระโอษฐ์คัดลอกพระพุทธดำรัส
605 บท มาจากพระไตรปิฎก เขียนในลักษณะ คำถาม คำตอบ น่าอ่านมากครับ
จากหนังสือ พระพุทธศาสนาจากพระโอษฐ์ โดย รองศาสตราจารย์แสง จันทร์งาม

เชิญอ่านได้ที่นี่ครับ: http://www.84000.org/true/index.html

[6]: พระไตรปิฎกพุทธประวัติจากพระโอษฐ์ในจำนวนหนังสือ พุทธประวัติภาษาไทยเท่าที่เคยมีการตีพิมพ์มาตั้งแต่อดีตจนถึงปัจจุบัน
และอาจจะล่วงเลยไปถึงอนาคต ผมคิดว่ายากนักที่จะมีเล่มใดสมบูรณ์กว่าหนังสือ
ความพยายามอย่างมาก- และความเหน็ดเหนื่อยอย่างมาก ในการแปลจากภาษาบาลีเป็นภาษาไทย รวบรวม
คัดเลือก และเรียงร้อยจนเป็น
เชิญดาวน์โหลดได้ที่นี่ครับ: http://buddhadasa.in.th/site/download.php?fid=tqc_01
--- หรือที่นี่ 
Buddhadasa 1.pdf

[7]: พระไตรปิฎกขุมทรัพย์จากพระโอษฐ์ผลงานการแปล / เรียบเรียง อีกเล่มหนึ่งของท่านอาจารย์พุทธทาสภิกขุ
แม้เนื้อหาจะเน้นที่การสั่งสอนพระภิกษุ แต่ฆราวาสก็สามารถอ่านได้ประโยชน์ไม่น้อยเลย

เชิญอ่านได้ที่นี่ครับ: http://buddhadasa.in.th/site/detail.php?fid=tqc_03
Buddhadasa 3.pdf

[8]: พระไตรปิฎกอริยสัจจากพระโอษฐ์ท่านอาจารย์พุทธทาสภิกขุคัดมาจากพระไตรปิฎก
4 ซึ่งพระพุทธเจ้าตรัสสอนไว้

ภาคต้น: http://buddhadasa.in.th/site/download.php?fid=tqc_02
--- หรือที่นี่ ภาคต้น: buddhadasa_as1.zip

ภาคปลาย: http://www.buddhadasa.in.th/site/detail.php?fid=tqc_02b
หรือที่นี่ ภาคปลาย: buddhadasa_as2.zip

[9]: พระไตรปิฎก ปฏิจจสมุปบาทจากพระโอษฐ์
--- หรือที่นี่ 
Buddhadasa 4.pdf

[10]: พระไตรปิฎก พุทธสุภาษิตจำนวน 32 หมวด 1517 ข้อ

[11]: พระไตรปิฎกฉบับ ฉบับมหามกุฎฯ (91 เล่ม)
ส่วนแรก 95.37 MB http://tinyurl.com/yzsd59e
ส่วนที่สอง 83.97 MB http://tinyurl.com/yh9hva3

[12]: พระไตรปิฎกภาษาไทย 45 เล่ม เป็นไฟล์ WORD
(จาก kroophra.net)
บีบด้วย WinRar:
บีบด้วย Zip:

[13] เว็บรวมเสียงอ่านพระไตรปิฎกทุกเล่ม

Monday, June 15, 2009

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

















































Saturday, June 6, 2009

Who Is Best?

Who Is Best?

A long time ago, there were three men who were close friends. The first was named Boon (Merit), the second was named Man (Diligence) and the third was named Panya (Wisdom). Once, during a time of famine, the three men decided to leave for another town to look for jobs.

At last, they found a rich farmer who would hire them to clear land for more rice fields. The rich farmer had only one condition. They must finish the task in seven days.

Every morning, a servant brought the three men food for the day. Every evening, the rich farmer came to see how much they had accomplished. The rich farmer was pleased to see that the three men worked very hard. They would be able to accomplish this task within the seven days.

On the last day, the three finished their work early, but nobody brought them their food. They waited and waited, still the servant did not come. While they waited they began to boast among themselves about their names. "My name is the best," said Mr. Boon. "If you lack boon (merit) you will not become rich and prosperous even if you are diligent and clever." Mr. Man interrupted, "No, my name is best. Even if you have boon, if you do not have man (diligence) you will starve to death." But Mr. Panya disagreed. "No. Even if you have boon and man you cannot prosper unless you have panya (wisdom)."
Suddenly, the three were attacked by hunger. Panya got up and walked around looking for something to eat. He soon noticed a trail of ants. Each ant was carrying a single grain of rice. Right away, he realized that the rich man had sent the food, but that the servant had been instructed to hide it from them. He told his friend Man, "The servant did bring the food. It is hidden. Look for it."

Mr. Man got up and looked around. He searched diligently until he discovered the packet of food, wrapped in its banana leaf covering, hidden in the forest. He brought back the food and shared it with his friend Panya, saying, "If Boon is truly blessed by his previous good deeds and merits, he will have somebody bring him food. He will not need this."
After Panya and Man were full, there was still a bit of food left. So Panya and Man tossed it to Boon. Boon accepted the food gratefully and ate hungrily. But as he finished the food, Boon discovered several pieces of gold in the bottom of the packet! The rich farmer had hidden their promised reward under the food.

Boon was delighted. He showed the money to his friends, who promptly asked for their shares. Panya said, "If it had not been for my wisdom, we would not have known the food was hidden." Man said, "If it had not been for my diligence, we would not have found the hidden food." Boon said, "You two still lack boon. Good deeds bring good in return. As you lack merit, you threw your gold away with the food scraps. You cannot say that this gold belongs to you. What is thrown away is no longer yours."

While the three quarreled, the rich farmer arrived. The three asked the rich farmer to be the judge. After hearing their story, the rich man took the six gold pieces and divided them equally among the three. He explained, "Each of you is equally important. No one alone is sufficient. All three are needed. In order to succeed and prosper, a man must have all three of your qualities: merit, diligence, and wisdom."

Drinking with Yommaban

Drinking with Yommaban, the King of the Dead

There was a man who loved to drink whiskey. It was his habit to drink whiskey every day until he became drunk. When he was really drunk, he did not know what was going on around him. He wasn't even aware of the mosquitoes swarming around to bite him. And he wasn't aware that those poor mosquitoes became drunk themselves just from drinking his alcohol-laden blood!

This man had a wife and several children. There was only one thing that he really wanted in this life. He kept saying, "Before I die, I want to see my son ordained as a monk." Nothing else seemed to matter to this man, except for his whiskey. He even told his wife, "When I die, don't bother to do merit for me. I wouldn't even care. Just remember to put a bottle of whiskey in the coffin with me. That is important."

The time arrived when his son came of age. He could now become an ordained monk. The man was glad that this happy day was finally at hand. He told his wife to prepare for his son's ordination. But before the ceremony could occur, this drunken man died. His wife grieved, but as he had wished, she dutifully laid one bottle of whiskey in the coffin with his corpse.

As his spirit lifted from his body, the dead drunkard snatched the bottle of whiskey from the coffin and carried it with him on his way to hell. Yommaban, the King of the Dead, greeted the new arrival. "During your life have you done many good deeds? Have you gained any merits?" The man shook his head. "No, Sir. I never bothered myself with making merits. I just spent my time drinking whiskey." He opened the bottle and took a big drink, right in front of the King of the Dead.

The smell of that whiskey tickled the nose of the King of the Dead. He was curious. "What is it about this whiskey that makes you want to drink it all the time? Does it taste so good?" The drunkard nodded. He poured some for Yommaban. "If you do not believe my words, sample some yourself. Whiskey is man's best friend. Whiskey is always faithful to man. The more you drink, the more drunk you become. The less you drink, the less drunk you are. If you do not drink, you do not have to urinate as often. If you drink a lot, be prepared to relieve yourself. Whiskey can be depended on."

The King of the Dead was curious. He wanted to see whether this man told the truth. Yommaban, King of the Dead, sat down and took a drink of the whiskey. It tasted bad, but still there was something about it. Yommaban drank some more. There they sat, the King of the Dead and this drunkard, talking and drinking until the bottle was empty.

Suddenly the man remembered his past and started to cry. Yommaban was confused. "Now, what? You just finished drinking your whiskey. Why do you cry?" "I am thinking of my son," said the man. "I will not be able to attend his ordination ceremony. I wanted to see my son enter the monkhood. Everything is already prepared. If only I could see my son become a monk, I would not feel sorry to die." Yommaban was pleased to learn that the man told the truth and that he still believed in religion, even though he had not bothered to acquire merit in his life. Yommaban pulled out his record book and checked the drunkard's status. He found that this man was only 40 years old. Well, he could spare him a bit more time on earth. What would that hurt? Yommaban spoke to his drinking partner. "I hate to see you cry like this. I feel sorry for you. Look, why don't I send you back to earth for one more year, so you can see your son ordained into the monkhood. I will send somebody to pick you up and bring you back down here afterward. You are 40 now. Here, I will just add a "I" to your score. What is one more year between friends, eh? By the way, you might bring along another bottle of whiskey when you come back down." Yommaban drunkenly scratched a "I" in his record book and slammed it shut. Calling one of his assistants, he had the drunkard escorted back to earth.

The man recovered from his death. He told his wife all about his agreement with Yommaban. Then he prepared everything for his son's ordination. Once the son was ordained into the monk-hood, the man relaxed. Now he had only to settle back with his whiskey bottle and wait for Yommaban to send for him again.

As the year drew to an end, the man began to drink more whiskey than ever. But the anniversary of his death passed and Yommaban did not send for him. A second year passed. Still, the man lived on. Ten, 20, 30, 40 years passed. The man was becoming very old. He felt miserable all of the time. He didn't even feel like drinking any more. "Why doesn't Yommaban come for me?" he wondered. "Am I to go on existing in this state of miserable old age forever?"

Meanwhile, Yommaban, himself, was puzzled. It seemed much longer than a year since that drunkard with the whiskey bottle had visited. Why hadn't he returned? Yommaban pulled out his record book and turned to the man's name. "Well now I understand about this drinking business," he said. "No wonder whiskey is said to be bad for you. It must really fog your mind. I,Yommaban, who have never made a mistake before, actually made a mistake!" There in the record book was the man's original death age, clearly written "40." And beside it was scrawled a "1'', the "1" that a drunken Yommaban had added. The man's age of death now read "401.''