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.
simply write deliberately harmful actions off as situations that are subject to change, and allow abuse to continue? Compassion needs to be factored in and balanced with other teachings. Otherwise nonsense is the result.
Compassion does not need to be "balanced with other teachings". Do you think acting from compassion means being silent and permissive? On the contrary, compassion is often quite proactive... it just isn't agressive or motivated from ego.
Thank you, aMatt! This is exactly what I'm saying. Did you read Upekka's posts, that I was responding to? He was leaving compassion out of the equation. (you cut off a key part of the first sentence you quoted, so that it reads as though I'm saying the opposite of what I intend.)
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
To paraphrase Matthieu Ricard, having compassion for our enemies doesn't mean we give them tickets to the Bahamas and say have a good time. If there's a serial rapist or murderer on the loose its possible to act out of compassion to lock them up. Not only does it prevent harm to their future victims but from a Buddhist point of view it prevents their gainig more negative karma and hopefully can get them some help to sort out their mental state.
Thank you, aMatt! This is exactly what I'm saying. Did you read Upekka's posts, that I was responding to? He was leaving compassion out of the equation. (you cut off a key part of the first sentence you quoted, so that it reads as though I'm saying the opposite of what I intend.)
I apologize for the odd quote, I'm on my phone... which makes weird quoting and spelling errors... its not me I swear!
I did read upekka's words, though they seem to me to be just poking at all the solid attributions being made. I am trying to address how you seem to think speaking out is always the right thing to do though... which I find to be a warrior quality, not a wise one.
Sometimes the wisest action is nonaction, sometimes it is action, sometimes speaking out, sometimes being silent. When we are compassionate, mentally still, detached, seeing clearly.. however you wish to describe it, we do the right thing, we don't just speak out.
I suppose the root of the point I've been trying to express is that we are ideally breathing, still minded, compassionate meditators first... social activists second. If we speak from aggression and judgment, we harm.
To paraphrase Matthieu Ricard, having compassion for our enemies doesn't mean we give them tickets to the Bahamas and say have a good time. If there's a serial rapist or murderer on the loose its possible to act out of compassion to lock them up. Not only does it prevent harm to their future victims but from a Buddhist point of view it prevents their gainig more negative karma and hopefully can get them some help to sort out their mental state.
Such an important point, person. Failing to blow the whistle on someone can do them a greater disservice than holding them responsible for whatever transgression. Some people need to have perameters spelled out for them, or they need to know they can't get away with inappropriate actions. And I love that Ricard quote!
Sometimes the wisest action is nonaction, sometimes it is action, sometimes speaking out, sometimes being silent. When we are compassionate, mentally still, detached, seeing clearly.. however you wish to describe it, we do the right thing, we don't just speak out.
I suppose the root of the point I've been trying to express is that we are ideally breathing, still minded, compassionate meditators first... social activists second. If we speak from aggression and judgment, we harm.
aMatt, I think the issue of speaking out was first raised by me back in the beginning, then it came up again when tess joined in. It's definitely not an all or nothing thing, discernment needs to be used in each individual situation, to be sure. But I usually bring up this issue in response to advocates of doing nothing, the erroneous idea that Buddhism necessarily means not getting involved, or taking a passive role. I think compassion compels us to act on behalf of the underdog in some way, whatever is appropriate to the situation. Sometimes it's important to wait, and ascertain the facts of a situation first, or to act behind the scenes. We also had a discussion about whether or not it was a good thing if anger motivated compassion. Anyway, the discussion wasn't based on a lot of complexities, but more on the Buddha's teaching that speaking out is Right Speech, and not speaking out in the face of injustice is Wrong Speech. Some people misconstrue Right Speech as pleasing speech, but the Buddha said it's not always so. If a wrong is being committed, Right Speech is going to be offensive to the perpetrator, no matter how it's handled in some cases.
Person, have we addressed your OP? There were some pretty interesting questions there.
aMatt, I think the issue of speaking out was first raised by me back in the beginning, then it came up again when tess joined in. It's definitely not an all or nothing thing, discernment needs to be used in each individual situation, to be sure. But I usually bring up this issue in response to advocates of doing nothing, the erroneous idea that Buddhism necessarily means not getting involved, or taking a passive role. I think compassion compels us to act on behalf of the underdog in some way, whatever is appropriate to the situation. Sometimes it's important to wait, and ascertain the facts of a situation first, or to act behind the scenes. We also had a discussion about whether or not it was a good thing if anger motivated compassion. Anyway, the discussion wasn't based on a lot of complexities, but more on the Buddha's teaching that speaking out is Right Speech, and not speaking out in the face of injustice is Wrong Speech. Some people misconstrue Right Speech as pleasing speech, but the Buddha said it's not always so. If a wrong is being committed, Right Speech is going to be offensive to the perpetrator, no matter how it's handled in some cases.
Person, have we addressed your OP? There were some pretty interesting questions there.
Yes, Daikani. I quite agree with what you have written, with the key being to be mindful as you act.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Person, have we addressed your OP? There were some pretty interesting questions there.
Yes, I'm very happy with the way this thread has turned out. Most of the questions in the OP were really just rhetorical questions and the spirit of what I was trying to express has been and is being discussed.
I am trying to address how you seem to think speaking out is always the right thing to do though... which I find to be a warrior quality, not a wise one.
I wasn't saying that speaking out is always the right thing to do--did the posts really sound that absolute? Just discussing, like Dakini said, the idea that compassion isn't always about passivity. Isn't that where ending suffering for others comes in--there's an active component there, whether it's influencing public policy (Social Security and widow's benefits was a stroke of genius, for example (opponents called it Communism), that didn't exist until around the early 1930's), or setting up an advocacy organization for the poor and marginalized (John Kerry did that when he was a lawyer), or simply standing up to a bully. Or...not standing up to the bully, if he has a gun. Comforting the sick and aged, whatever.
We are meditators first, because we need to develop the bodhicitta that will motivate our actions. They go hand in hand, IMO. Does one just shrug, and say, "oh well, life is change", and walk back to one's meditation cell, while suffering and mayhem swirl around us? Do we not embody the change we want to see in the world? I think these are crucial questions for Buddhism.
Does one just shrug, and say, "oh well, life is change", and walk back to one's meditation cell, while suffering and mayhem swirl around us? Do we not embody the change we want to see in the world? I think these are crucial questions for Buddhism.
I don't think we need to act to embody the change, its a well rooted part of the whole of the experience, no matter what we do or do not do. I'm not disagreeing with you, but looking at a different angle. Knowing that change is simply unfolding prevents us from falling in the trap of making solid attributions, which make us a catalyst rather than a reactant.
For instance, if we happen upon a mugger and a mugee(?), we might fall into the trap of calling one good and one bad, one a perpetrator and one a victim. If we do that, there are three people who fall deeper into samsara.
If we know that both are experiencing suffering, both are 'victims' of habituation, and are both being "mugged" by happenstance, we see the shifting change of karmic roles, and feel natural compassion for both people in both of the roles of that momentary exchange.
As a catalyst, we can and do shift what reactions are happening... by stopping the crime, calling for help, offering help, whatever seems to fit into the karmic exchange. We are not entangled, though... we do not become an agressive observer/hero/activist. If we do, we just become tied into the karma, rather than help it resolve.
Most Americans believe that the Carter presidency was a failure, and I personally believe he was the worst Democrat president we have had since sometimes before FDR. So, I am passing judgment.
When you visit the Carter Library in Atlanta, the only notable achievement that's truly highlighted are the Camp David Accords. And while they were amazing, I'm not sure they accomplished much toward long-term or broad peace in the Middle East.
Vinlyn,
I'm old enough (gasp!) to remember the Carter presidency and agree with you that it can't be called a success. But he was right -- and ahead of his time -- about many issues, especially the long-term problem of energy. Had we followed through on his energy and environmental policies then, we might not be facing some of the problems we are now.
Instead, we preferred to have Reagan ladle out Kool-aid for the next eight years and many of those initiatives were shelved. As a result, three decades on we are grappling with the same problems, but with a reduced capacity for dealing with them.
Most Americans believe that the Carter presidency was a failure, and I personally believe he was the worst Democrat president we have had since sometimes before FDR. So, I am passing judgment.
When you visit the Carter Library in Atlanta, the only notable achievement that's truly highlighted are the Camp David Accords. And while they were amazing, I'm not sure they accomplished much toward long-term or broad peace in the Middle East.
Vinlyn,
I'm old enough (gasp!) to remember the Carter presidency and agree with you that it can't be called a success. But he was right -- and ahead of his time -- about many issues, especially the long-term problem of energy. Had we followed through on his energy and environmental policies then, we might not be facing some of the problems we are now.
Instead, we preferred to have Reagan ladle out Kool-aid for the next eight years and many of those initiatives were shelved. As a result, three decades on we are grappling with the same problems, but with a reduced capacity for dealing with them.
I don't believe you can look at what a president might have accomplished, you can only look at what he did accomplish.
Instead, we preferred to have Reagan ladle out Kool-aid for the next eight years and many of those initiatives were shelved. As a result, three decades on we are grappling with the same problems, but with a reduced capacity for dealing with them.
I don't believe you can look at what a president might have accomplished, you can only look at what he did accomplish.
It's not necessarily about what Carter would have accomplished. It's about what the US could have accomplished if others had been far-sighted enough to continue Carter's energy policies. Look at what Germany's accomplished in alternative energy development, in just a few years. Carter also desperately wanted to address the economy. Instead, Reagan began to trash it with the beginning of the tax cuts for the rich trend. I think the US would have been better off with 4 more years of Carter rather than Reagan. With Reagan as the comparison, suddenly Carter starts to look a bit better. But we're way off topic. (If anyone wants to continue this, they can set it up under "General Banter".)
Would it even be possible for a buddhist in the west to hold a political position?
I'm not sure why this is presented as a rhetorical question. There are three Buddhists in the U.S. House of Representatives, Mazie Hirono and Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, and Hank Johnson of Georgia.
I'm not sure why this is presented as a rhetorical question. There are three Buddhists in the U.S. House of Representatives, Mazie Hirono and Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, and Hank Johnson of Georgia.
Great post, ihbryant! Buddhists aren't supposed to aspire to political office, grasping for power and all, you know, but I think that applies to monks, not laypeople. I wonder if those Reps bring a Buddhist perspective to their work?
I'm not sure why this is presented as a rhetorical question. There are three Buddhists in the U.S. House of Representatives, Mazie Hirono and Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, and Hank Johnson of Georgia.
Great post, ihbryant! Buddhists aren't supposed to aspire to political office, grasping for power and all, you know, but I think that applies to monks, not laypeople. I wonder if those Reps bring a Buddhist perspective to their work?
I hope they don't. They're elected to represent their constituency...not their religion.
Friends: According to Huston Smith (in the "Buddhism" ch. of World Religions/The Religions of Man), pragmatism is a defining feature of Buddhism. This thread has established that it is the DUTY of Buddhists to not only not harm (act kindly), but to PREVENT harm (act judiciously). It takes A LOT OF INSIGHT to know when to do what. SOME instances are clear cut, but most of the time we do not know if our action/inaction will decrease and/or prevent harm OR perpetuate current harm. However, when we do know, we should act. Always. b@eze Bucky
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I'm not sure why this is presented as a rhetorical question. There are three Buddhists in the U.S. House of Representatives, Mazie Hirono and Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, and Hank Johnson of Georgia.
Great post, ihbryant! Buddhists aren't supposed to aspire to political office, grasping for power and all, you know, but I think that applies to monks, not laypeople. I wonder if those Reps bring a Buddhist perspective to their work?
I hope they don't. They're elected to represent their constituency...not their religion.
This is the crux of the point I was trying to get across in the OP. There seemed to me to be a lot of posts in the wake of Bin Laden saying we shouldn't have killed him because of the first precept and criticism of the Dalai Lama's statement. If we're going to act in the world I don't think its possible if we're going to try to stick to a strict interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. As the Dharma moves to the west its not just being practiced by more lay people but its the first time to my knowledge that the Dharma has been in a democratic society. In this context I don't know that its possible to tow a hard line on the Dharma and function in society. I think instead we have to use the Dharma to inform and guide our decisions.
Friends: According to Huston Smith (in the "Buddhism" ch. of World Religions/The Religions of Man), pragmatism is a defining feature of Buddhism. This thread has established that it is the DUTY of Buddhists to not only not harm (act kindly), but to PREVENT harm (act judiciously). It takes A LOT OF INSIGHT to know when to do what. SOME instances are clear cut, but most of the time we do not know if our action/inaction will decrease and/or prevent harm OR perpetuate current harm. However, when we do know, we should act. Always. b@eze Bucky
In fact, it just occurred to me how we might feel if the Pope posted that Buddhism does not allow for pragmatism.
@person I think HHDL's statement was misinterpreted by the American media, maybe that's why it was being criticized on that thread? Misunderstanding about what he was saying? Anyway, the precepts aren't rules. There's the "higher good" principle that applies, so the Bin Laden thread was exploring whether or not we need to apply more stringent standards in judging when it might be appropriate to go against the 1st precept. I don't know if a conclusion was ever reached, but it's a worthwhile discussion. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Friends: According to Huston Smith (in the "Buddhism" ch. of World Religions/The Religions of Man), pragmatism is a defining feature of Buddhism. This thread has established that it is the DUTY of Buddhists to not only not harm (act kindly), but to PREVENT harm (act judiciously). It takes A LOT OF INSIGHT to know when to do what. SOME instances are clear cut, but most of the time we do not know if our action/inaction will decrease and/or prevent harm OR perpetuate current harm. However, when we do know, we should act. Always.
Friends: According to Huston Smith (in the "Buddhism" ch. of World Religions/The Religions of Man), pragmatism is a defining feature of Buddhism. This thread has established that it is the DUTY of Buddhists to not only not harm (act kindly), but to PREVENT harm (act judiciously). It takes A LOT OF INSIGHT to know when to do what. SOME instances are clear cut, but most of the time we do not know if our action/inaction will decrease and/or prevent harm OR perpetuate current harm. However, when we do know, we should act. Always.
Friends: According to Huston Smith (in the "Buddhism" ch. of World Religions/The Religions of Man), pragmatism is a defining feature of Buddhism. This thread has established that it is the DUTY of Buddhists to not only not harm (act kindly), but to PREVENT harm (act judiciously). It takes A LOT OF INSIGHT to know when to do what. SOME instances are clear cut, but most of the time we do not know if our action/inaction will decrease and/or prevent harm OR perpetuate current harm. However, when we do know, we should act. Always.
Comments
I did read upekka's words, though they seem to me to be just poking at all the solid attributions being made. I am trying to address how you seem to think speaking out is always the right thing to do though... which I find to be a warrior quality, not a wise one.
Sometimes the wisest action is nonaction, sometimes it is action, sometimes speaking out, sometimes being silent. When we are compassionate, mentally still, detached, seeing clearly.. however you wish to describe it, we do the right thing, we don't just speak out.
I suppose the root of the point I've been trying to express is that we are ideally breathing, still minded, compassionate meditators first... social activists second. If we speak from aggression and judgment, we harm.
Person, have we addressed your OP? There were some pretty interesting questions there.
We are meditators first, because we need to develop the bodhicitta that will motivate our actions. They go hand in hand, IMO. Does one just shrug, and say, "oh well, life is change", and walk back to one's meditation cell, while suffering and mayhem swirl around us? Do we not embody the change we want to see in the world? I think these are crucial questions for Buddhism.
b@eze
bg
For instance, if we happen upon a mugger and a mugee(?), we might fall into the trap of calling one good and one bad, one a perpetrator and one a victim. If we do that, there are three people who fall deeper into samsara.
If we know that both are experiencing suffering, both are 'victims' of habituation, and are both being "mugged" by happenstance, we see the shifting change of karmic roles, and feel natural compassion for both people in both of the roles of that momentary exchange.
As a catalyst, we can and do shift what reactions are happening... by stopping the crime, calling for help, offering help, whatever seems to fit into the karmic exchange. We are not entangled, though... we do not become an agressive observer/hero/activist. If we do, we just become tied into the karma, rather than help it resolve.
I'm old enough (gasp!) to remember the Carter presidency and agree with you that it can't be called a success. But he was right -- and ahead of his time -- about many issues, especially the long-term problem of energy. Had we followed through on his energy and environmental policies then, we might not be facing some of the problems we are now.
Instead, we preferred to have Reagan ladle out Kool-aid for the next eight years and many of those initiatives were shelved. As a result, three decades on we are grappling with the same problems, but with a reduced capacity for dealing with them.
According to Huston Smith (in the "Buddhism" ch. of World Religions/The Religions of Man), pragmatism is a defining feature of Buddhism. This thread has established that it is the DUTY of Buddhists to not only not harm (act kindly), but to PREVENT harm (act judiciously). It takes A LOT OF INSIGHT to know when to do what. SOME instances are clear cut, but most of the time we do not know if our action/inaction will decrease and/or prevent harm OR perpetuate current harm. However, when we do know, we should act. Always.
b@eze
Bucky
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- I think this sums it up nicely.
I agree.
Me too. Nicely put.
:clap: