@Shoshin1 said:
One man's meat is another man's poison
I think the terms good and bad are relative
I don't think you were saying this, its just when I hear someone talking about the relativity of good and bad I worry about falling into some sort of relativistic moral nihilism.
There is the old absolutist moral stance, which is still going strong in many areas of the world today, that says we're right and good and anyone else is wrong and bad.
In reaction to that people have seen the ways that isn't true and that things aren't so absolute. In some extremes, I'd say its been taken too far. For example, "some cultures allow women full participation in society and some practice female genital mutilation, who are we to decide who is right, maybe that is right for them?"
I think the wise stance is one of pluralism rather than absolutism or relativism. That there are many ways of promoting flourishing in the world, but some ways are harmful. That "good" ways of being usually have some level of trade offs in them, that the helpful aspects of one way may have downsides that other ways of being being don't have and vis versa. Like in @Jeroen 's example, one place may have avoided building the steel plant and now don't suffer the negative effects, but they also never experienced the benefits that the place that did build it had.
person
@Shoshin1 said:
One man's meat is another man's poison
I think the terms good and bad are relative ..Doing a good deed for one sentient being may be causing harm to another...
Do no harm or try to do the least harm possible...
Also having the the right 'intent' when performing an action...
I guess in a sense good can be seen as being 'skilful'...
There is a difference between feeling like a “good person” and doing “good deeds”. It is certainly culturally determined, and there is a difference between children’s culture and adult’s culture.
Doing no harm can also be done by doing as little as possible. The Taoist story of the farmer and his “perhaps” is also very relevant, good or beneficial things are often not so easy to discern.
For example in IJmuiden in the Netherlands, where my mother grew up, they built a large steel works, which was intended to help make the country independent in the manufacture of large steel objects. It did that and supplied work for a lot of people, but they are now discovering that the emissions from the works have negatively impacted the lifespans of people living in the area.
So in a way I can sympathise with the wise for being cautious in taking action.
Jeroen
One man's meat is another man's poison
I think the terms good and bad are relative ..Doing a good deed for one sentient being may be causing harm to another...
Do no harm or try to do the least harm possible...
Also having the the right 'intent' when performing an action...
I guess in a sense good can be seen as being 'skilful'...
Shoshin1
@person said:
There is a certain danger in thinking of yourself as a good person in that it automatically sets up a dichotomy of the others which aren't good. And a lot of what is considered good is conditional on time, circumstance and culture, its a sort of trend.
For me, goodness was predicated on being certain things: environmentally aware and pro-active, against violence and in favour of peace, loving and caring, and a few others. It never had anything to do with comparison to others. Nevertheless it is an attachment to an external standard.
I think I agree with @how, it is a source of suffering, one’s own and others because it is a source of division. By being ‘good’ you automatically classify much of the world as ‘bad’ because they don’t do the same things as you.
Jeroen
Is the vastness of the universe equal to the vastness of of our own minds?
However, the more we discover out there , the more we must explore in here.
For where is the boundary between out there and in here?
After all, what is a Buddha but an ordinary person awakened.
Peace to all
Becoming attached to feeling like you are a good person, is one of suffering's causes.
And....
Becoming attached to states that society supports as something positive, is considered to be a compounded delusion for how seldom the resulting suffering gets traced back to its true cause.
how
I was taught that Samatha is a complete practice and is illustrated in the Thanka. There is no other practice needed to achieve both Enlightenment and Buddhahood. You can certainly practice Meta, Tonglen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen and others, but according to the teaching I received, Samatha is all you really need. This is why I practice Samatha, almost to the exclusion of other practices.
@marcitko said:
This quote by Rumi comes to mind (not that I understand it):
"Somewhere beyond right and wrong, there is a garden. I will meet you there."
That is beautiful @marcitko, I had not come across it before. Thank you.
The idea of goodness is something which you at a very early age are taught by your parents to guide you. Do this, don’t do that, this is good, that is not, from toilet training onwards. Later on it is co-opted by teachers, journalists, marketers, managers… it was only when I spent time in solitude that I started to find out what I myself truly valued.
But I think “goodness” is often decent and not problematic, unless it is taken to extremes (and Dungeons and Dragons is full of archetypes of extreme goodness, it’s easy to become seduced into that). It is best to be sensitive to when the right time is to let it go, and go to find a way of wisdom.
If I think of wise people, it is not those people who go crusading or talk at length about the wrongdoing in the world. It is the one who sits in meditation, the philosopher who discusses with friends and pupils, the one who travels visiting the master of a monastery.
Going beyond right and wrong, beyond good and evil, seems a key part of gaining wisdom, no?
Jeroen
I think I share that attachment strongly, and maybe as Buddhists we as a group do too, more than other groups.
On one hand, it is good to do good - it leads to less suffering for self and others. On the other, it is difficult to know what is truly good. It is also not ideal to have a self-image of one who is "good".
A landmine, however, would be to let go of the "I am good" identity, and adopt a "I am bad" identity. The apex of the triangle should be above, beyond both, not in the opposite.
This quote by Rumi comes to mind (not that I understand it):
"Somewhere beyond right and wrong, there is a garden. I will meet you there."
Selflessness in the Prajna sense allows us tremendous freedom. Freedom from the reference point of the central figured called me. It's not as much of a freedom for or freedom to in the usual sense. People want freedom to do such and such thing or freedom from the oppression. But Dharma offers the potentiality of realizing freedom from ignorance. And ignorance is a particular assumptive axiom that we consider very intuitive and unquestionable.
So, from this pov prior to this actualization or seeing of selflessness, all motivation is tainted by the center. And that's very realistic and honest to admit that. You can't actually be selfless or have unconditional altruism. It is always influenced by the lens of self, mine, me, etc. Nonetheless, we practice the vector towards eliminating non virtue and cultivating virtue. This is paramount on a path, with a self, leading towards the recognition of selflessness.
In a very pragmatic sense, selflessness frees up pretty much all strategies and ways of being which typical occupy our existence. You're just free, but not only free, you have tremendous energy. That energy has a communicative urge, it demands expression and response. Thus compassion is essentially the out pouring of a vacuum (selflnessness).
It's somewhat remarkable that this is a natural process, which showcases the structure of non delusion. i mean it could of been something else entirely. What if instead of virtue and altruism, we got meanness and anger?
But it isn't the case. It just happens that the core of reality, is actually very tender, loving, and joyful.
the irony and something one can never really wrap one's mind around, is without a center, there is no circumference. so without self, there is actually no other. And yet without a self, the "otherness" really shines. This means we never particularly saw others or situations clearly from their own point of view. Rather, we only saw from the filter of ourselves. With the barrier or filter gone, the shocking presentation of otherness becomes very obvious. There actually is whole worlds and whole beings apart from myself. This is remarkable. And simultaneously they are inseparable from this whole arising, which includes the self as in this particular individual and the particular other individuals as well. Both are mutually accepted and completely coreless, yet here I am, and here you are.
I apologize for rifting, just something to write to past the time. Drive by musings as they say.
Love in any sense isn't a choice for people. It is somewhat a strategy to well attain union. We are somewhat victims of love so to speak. But selflessness marks the capacity to choose love, in any circumstance and situation.
That's probably the oddest thing of all. You know it just completely turns upside down normal logic. You know people have to deserve love. Or there has to be some kind of exchange. OR even preferences. Or love is something that just happens by chance. But actually its a choice at that point. always a choice, always available.
And if you have it available all the time, well you then tend to love others. It's really strange, really. I mean i am speaking as someone who particularly doesn't enjoy being overly emotional and sentimental. But its really like that. You are forced to love.
Anyways some random thoughts from a npc. much love.
taiyaki