Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Are opinions mundane?
I have been running in circles with this question for awhile. On one hand I can see that while pursuing something that we find true, if someone were to disagree with it, we may find ourselves offended and haphazardly attempting to defend and refute their opinions, and thus validate our own. Yet, on the completely opposite side of it, without opinion we may not we have passion (which is debatable to be necessary or not in itself) nor have a motive per se.
BUT then of course some question comes up like 1) If we were to understand the true nature of reality as it is, and not try to manipulate or validate ourselves would opinion serve a purpose? Or 2) Is it that perhaps you can have opinion without relying on it, or holding it as your own even if enlightened?
Now I am lost after that point on the necessity in opinions. (And yes I am aware of the contradiction in trying to form an opinion on no opinion). I guess one could look at their opinions and the role that they play, for instance "I am pretty" is an opinion, and it is used to make myself feel good as well as a way to label myself. Is there a need in this, or am I forming an opinion in the wrong manner? What about bigger opinions like "Tibet should be free!" In which case I am laying down suffering once again as they struggle and are not granted freedom, and yet this grants me passion and thus may help me to take action in some manner on advocating their freedom, or helping in some manner.
The question I am ultimately asking is this:
If someone were to understand the true nature, and do things because they should be done (in line with say compassion and loving kindness ) rather than a personal wish to gain something out of it, then would opinion even be present? For instance if a house were burning down, one decides to save the baby inside because it is the appropriate thing to be done, rather than doing it because they think it is the right thing to do. OR do you think that enlightened people still have opinions and instead just don't cling to them as their own.
Sorry that was a mouthful, I hope everyone gets the main idea. XD
BUT then of course some question comes up like 1) If we were to understand the true nature of reality as it is, and not try to manipulate or validate ourselves would opinion serve a purpose? Or 2) Is it that perhaps you can have opinion without relying on it, or holding it as your own even if enlightened?
Now I am lost after that point on the necessity in opinions. (And yes I am aware of the contradiction in trying to form an opinion on no opinion). I guess one could look at their opinions and the role that they play, for instance "I am pretty" is an opinion, and it is used to make myself feel good as well as a way to label myself. Is there a need in this, or am I forming an opinion in the wrong manner? What about bigger opinions like "Tibet should be free!" In which case I am laying down suffering once again as they struggle and are not granted freedom, and yet this grants me passion and thus may help me to take action in some manner on advocating their freedom, or helping in some manner.
The question I am ultimately asking is this:
If someone were to understand the true nature, and do things because they should be done (in line with say compassion and loving kindness ) rather than a personal wish to gain something out of it, then would opinion even be present? For instance if a house were burning down, one decides to save the baby inside because it is the appropriate thing to be done, rather than doing it because they think it is the right thing to do. OR do you think that enlightened people still have opinions and instead just don't cling to them as their own.
Sorry that was a mouthful, I hope everyone gets the main idea. XD
0
Comments
Direct experience is direct experience, but if you try and put that into words to explain to someone, it must then undergo interpretation into linguistic description and subject/object orientation (do to the nature of language). Before thought, before words, that is what you are looking for. When the mind sees for itself, directly, wisdom is born.
This direct experience changes the mind, is a paradigm shift in perspective. Further thoughts, speech and actions would have a different foundation from which to arise. A fully enlightened being's actions would be based on a foundation that is fully free of clinging to views/opinions and that acts fully in accord with the true nature of things. Such a mind would not cling to the aggregates and so would do what it can to ease or prevent suffering as if that suffering were its own.
You can hold opinions without being attached. Some opinions I hold are open to change if I get new information, or if someone makes an opposing point effectively. Other opinions I'm firm on, depending on the issue. Some issues I choose not to take an opinion on. Like Israel vs. Whoever, or "Tibet should be free!" Some issues are too complex, painful and just plain unresolvable by the mere mortal mind, to allow one to have an opinion.
Yes, opinion would be present if one were acting out of compassion. Compassion would demand in certain life-or-death situations that someone have an opinion. Do you throw a drowning swimmer a life saver in high seas, or do you dive in yourself to try to save them? Huge swells, rough seas. Do you not have an opinion as to which course is best?
Don't feel guilty about having opinions. Opinions (if they don't spring from ego) are your mind and inuition guiding you.
There are three kinds of craving:
(1) running towards an object = greed, lust, love, etc
(2) running away from an object = hatred, anger, dislike, etc
(3) running in circles around an object = confusion, delusion, ignorance, etc
My opinion or diagnosis of your dilemma is your mind is projecting its own confusion onto others. Thus you are forced to use the word "we".
Your mind is not concerned about itself but is voyeuristically judging others.
This is a diagnostic sign of intolerance & fundamentalism, masked as "open mindness" and "love". Be very very careful here because this is a grave crossroads. Here, one either succeeds or fails.
As for discussions, debate, etc, this is part of many Buddhist traditions. It allows one to be able to articulate both the Dhamma and one's experience.
The capacity to articulate is very important.
We don't want everyone to be like a "unlearned dumb & mute Zen zombie" now, do we?
For example, the Buddhist scriptures are the accurate articulation of the Buddha's enlightenment experience.
However, for many, even though they may practise meditation quite deeply, they have not seen the function of their minds as the Buddha saw his.
Thus discussion, debate, a challenging environment, etc, is like fire refining steel. It has so many benefits.
Trust me on this matter.
All the best
:coffee:
If someone looks in his fridge and sees he is out of beer, is that an opinion or is that a fact? He might walk back into the living room to say to his mates: "Guys, there is no more beer." They may not believe him or dance around the subject saying things like "There is beer", "Maybe there is beer", "Maybe there is no beer", perhaps one of them is right, but only the guy who looked in the fridge can know for sure.
That's what enlightenment means. You see the fridge is empty of beer. Or in Buddhism, the kandhas are empty of a self. That's not an opinion, that's not something you learned at school and are reproducing, that's somebody an enlightened being would just KNOW. No questions about it, it's just clear there is no beer or no-self.
So no need to be attached to that or feel offended if anyone states the opposite. In fact, when somebody gets offended when you charge their views, I think you can be pretty sure they aren't that sure about those views. No matter what subject it is, even outside of Buddhism you can see this happening.
With metta,
Sabre
to have an opinion is no different than not having one. other than the fact that you are projecting a limited view through language. when one doesn't have an opinion they hold all opinions, because then there is only pure potential.
when one forces an opinion then one is actualizing the potential.
thus emptiness (potential) is no different from form (the actualization of form).
from true nature there is just potential and from that potential arises form. infinite to finite back to infinite.
the problem arises when one attaches to a view or thought. it is merely attachment that causes our suffering. don't identify with thoughts and you're free to just be potential. from the stand point of potential you can actualize form. in a way you live in a direct paradox. there is being (embodying emptiness or potential) and doing (manifestation of form). so you are still, yet moving. you are in the world, but not of it. you look within and there is a deep nothingness, yet you look outside and see oneness. the nothingness is wisdom and the oneness is love.
there is no such thing as relative or absolute views. they are the same and only because we have to communicate do we create this dichotomy.
thus a buddha can say, the sky is blue. it is the buddha's expression of the infinite through the finite.
We have natural preferences, likes and dislikes, viewing our world with personality.
Just observe them.. notice qualities you like but don't get pulled into chasing them. Notice qualities you don't like, but smile at the urge to run away from them. Have your opinions, but don't hold them so tight you go to war over them. Any confusion will settle as you stop clinging and running and fighting.