the danger of creating heroes

genkaku

I suppose that creating heroes and saints and other somehow-greater beings is par for the human course, but I think that the creation of distance (me-down-here-he/she/it-up there) defeats and defames the very veneration being bestowed ... and might be something for a Buddhist to consider when elevating heroes/saints/greater beings in the mind. Is this separation useful or dangerous? Is it even true?

What brought this to mind was the tale of a Utah collision Monday in which a motorcyclist was trapped under a car and students rushed to lift the car off the cyclist: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110914/D9PO94P01.html

"For their bravery, the rescuers are being called "heroes" and "angels," though none want the labels.

"That's a big title," said Sharif, a doctoral candidate from Lebanon. "I don't consider myself a hero. It's just our humanity ... Everyone is going to help."

It's just our humanity ... isn't that better and more accurate than saints and heroes?

Yishai

I think elevating people like that can make the general populace feel as though it can't attain/do the same things.

Paradox

I disagree in so far as I think ideals inspire us to become better people and guide our behaviour. I beleive a healthy amount of admiration for others can be both inspiring and humbling. It's like anything in life - it's not the thing, but rather the attachment to the thing that causes suffering. Nothing wrong with looking up to other people as long as it helps you forward on the path.

Although i agree that terms like 'saints' and 'angels' are pretty ludicrous. I find it annoying that people ascribe human good to some higher power rather than giving humanity the credit.

vinlyn

I agree, Paradox. Heroes -- yes...that car could have easily exploded, yet they stepped in risking their own safety. But, saints and angels...yes, ludicrous.

Dakini

I agree, Paradox. Heroes -- yes...that car could have easily exploded, yet they stepped in risking their own safety. But, saints and angels...yes, ludicrous.

This sums it up. It depends on whom you're elevating, and, I suppose, how far you're elevating them. The Dalai Lama said that veneration has spoiled some lamas. He observed that some of his formerly humble colleagues, after spending time in the West, changed into ego-driven characters he hardly recognized. And that excessive veneration can come back to haunt the disciples; history with Hindu and Buddhist "gurus" or teachers has shown that some take advantage of the window of vulnerability that opens up when students put their teachers on too high a pedestal.

The reluctant hero is the most admirable type, I think; the ones who shy away from publicity and say they didn't do anything anyone else wouldn't have done in a crisis. That pilot who landed the plane in the Hudson River comes to mind. No attachment to accolades or attention, his actions were just part of his job, was his attitude.

genkaku

I wonder what Gautama might have thought of the followers who came in his wake.

AMH

It reminds me of part of a sermon at the Unitarian Universalist church I have attended. The minister shared a story of a woman who did something very compassionate and giving as being something almost no one would do. Well that was difficult in a way because before I heard that interpretation I had been thinking it was an action that I would have done or thought was good but not supernaturally good.

There is always a person this would inspire and another one who gets discouraged. I prefer not too much attention to individual acts as if they are amazing but since I can be pretty hard on myself it is very supportive to see what others notice. So today I went to one of my after school sites and a kiddo was sobbing due to his grandfather passing away last year. It is not super special that the other teacher and then I sat with him, but I will tell that staff person I notice her empathy and compassion. Treating that as amazing as rather a person doing a good job could not develop what I am looking for.

Paradox

It's a kind of cop-out too. If we raise compassionate and generous acts up to the level of being somehow rare and miraculous, then it normalizes our lack of compassion, giving us permission to feel ok about our everyday selfishness.

tmottes

@Paradox I generally agree with your sentiments about justifying our selfishness. Moreover, I would 'heroize' the actions and not the person.

riverflow

It's a kind of cop-out too. If we raise compassionate and generous acts up to the level of being somehow rare and miraculous, then it normalizes our lack of compassion, giving us permission to feel ok about our everyday selfishness.

Reminds me of this song by Wire:



There's great danger, for the loneliest ranger in town,
no silver bullets, Tonto's split the scene.

Next week will solve your problems,
but now, fish fingers all in a line,
and all the milk bottles stand empty,
stay glued to your T.V. set.

There's great danger, at hand most caped crusader of all,
no cloak of justice, Robin's split the scene.

Next week will solve your problems,
but now, fish fingers all in a line,
and all the milk bottles stand empty,
stay glued to your T.V. set.

Paradox

@tmottes you make a really good point. we are more likely to seperate the actions and the person when it is an undesirable action. So why not with noble actions to?

@riverflow interesting song. I think hollywood has really trivialised and commercialised the idea of heroism.