Dhamma and Non-duality

zidangus

I have just read a good essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi, there is a difference of views between the Theravada and Mahayana views on this, anyway I thought I'd share.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

Dakini

This is helpful. Thanks zid. Actually, I think it came up before on one of the recent Vedanta & Buddhism threads, but I gave it a more thorough read this time. Some of this can go under the "differences between schools" thread.

Dakini

I have seen Mahayanists argue that ultimately, there is no difference between good and bad, right and wrong, purity and defilement, as Bhikku Bodhi says. This is one way problems creep into Mahayana in terms of masters' moral behavior. But I wonder if this presentation that Mahayana ultimately throws morality out the window, while Theravada maintains that the Buddha's morality applies to everyone, might be considered by Mahayanists biased and potentially inflammatory?

bodhipunk

@Dakini Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu also addresses that very same problem of morality you have addressed here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/reconciliation.html
"Yet right and wrong have gotten a bad rap in Western Buddhist circles, largely because of the ways in which we have seen right and wrong abused in our own culture — as when one person tries to impose arbitrary standards or mean-spirited punishments on others, or hypocritically demands that others obey standards that he himself does not.

To avoid these abuses, some people have recommended living by a non-dual vision that transcends attachment to right and wrong. This vision, however, is open to abuse as well. In communities where it is espoused, irresponsible members can use the rhetoric of non-duality and non-attachment to excuse genuinely harmful behavior; their victims are left adrift, with no commonly accepted standards on which to base their appeals for redress. Even the act of forgiveness is suspect in such a context, for what right do the victims have to judge actions as requiring forgiveness or not? All too often, the victims are the ones held at fault for imposing their standards on others and not being able to rise above dualistic views.

This means that right and wrong have not really been transcended in such a community. They've simply been realigned: If you can claim a non-dual perspective, you're in the right no matter what you've done. If you complain about another person's behavior, you're in the wrong. And because this realignment is not openly acknowledged as such, it creates an atmosphere of hypocrisy in which genuine reconciliation is impossible.

So the solution lies not in abandoning right and wrong, but in learning how to use them wisely. Thus the Buddha backed up his methods for reconciliation with a culture of values whereby right and wrong become aids rather than hindrances to reconciliation. To prevent those in the right from abusing their position, he counseled that they reflect on themselves before they accuse another of wrongdoing. The checklist of questions he recommended boils down to this: "Am I free from unreconciled offenses of my own? Am I motivated by kindness, rather than vengeance? Am I really clear on our mutual standards?" Only if they can answer "yes" to these questions should they bring up the issue. Furthermore, the Buddha recommended that they determine to speak only words that are true, timely, gentle, to the point, and prompted by kindness. Their motivation should be compassion, solicitude for the welfare of all parties involved, and the desire to see the wrong-doer rehabilitated, together with an overriding desire to hold to fair principles of right and wrong.

To encourage a wrongdoer to see reconciliation as a winning rather than a losing proposition, the Buddha praised the honest acceptance of blame as an honorable rather than a shameful act: not just a means, but the means for progress in spiritual practice. As he told his son, Rahula, the ability to recognize one's mistakes and admit them to others is the essential factor in achieving purity in thought, word, and deed. Or as he said in the Dhammapada, people who recognize their own mistakes and change their ways 'illumine the world like the moon when freed from a cloud.'"

Also, on the subject of non-duality, in Snp 3.12 Buddha actually instructed specific contemplations on dualities. Also, AN 10.29 clearly states that despite a non-dual perspective there is still change and irregularity.

riverflow

"When Zen arrived and began to take root in this country [the US], there arose a misconception about the role of morality and ethics in the practice of the Buddhadharma. Statements that Zen was beyond morality or that Zen was amoral were made by distinguished writers on Buddhism, and people assumed that this was correct. Yet nothing can be further from the truth. Enlightenment and morality are one. Enlightenment without morality is not true enlightenment. Morality without enlightenment is not complete morality." ~ John Daido Loori, Invoking Reality: Moral and Ethical Teachings of Zen

And this sentiment has been echoed by every Mahayana Buddhist teacher I have come across. As well as Mahayana Sutras. Wisdom and compassion are dependent upon one another. If you don't understand what amounts to a dialectical movement in sunyata (emptiness), then you will miss the boat entirely. That goes for people IN the Mahayana tradition as well as outside of it.

Dakini

Good stuff, I agree, riverflow and bodhipunk. But it gets confusing when an impeccable master like Sheng Yen says that the students shouldn't concern themselves with the teachers character and behavior, and that "Even if the master tells lies, steals, or chases women ... he is still to be considered a true master as long as he scolds his disciples if they too commit transgressions."

And this, from a Zen practitioner, commenting on a roshi's career-long misconduct and criminal behavior: "As Zen students, we must bring our practice to bear on our response to him. All of us know that our roots are in the Heart Sutra, the identity of Relative and Absolute, thus we are obliged to challenge dualistic moral judgment and appreciate the distinction--and lack of such--between the realm in which cause and effect are one, and the realm in which they're separate. ... If he's failed us as a human being, he's not the first master whose realization did not carry over into the relative realm..."

I think it's this sort of thing that leads some, including Bhikku Bodhi, to conclude that Mahayana gives teachers and advanced adepts a free pass on moral laxity.

taiyaki

emptiness poisoning is common. human beings like to reify and grasp at things.
the greatest ignorance is that there is no correct function. such correct function is not conventional but it can be.

the emphasis is on community rather than the individual. we save ourselves so we can save others. this is the emphasis.

non duality is the beginning of the path. the rest of it is learning what is right or wrong. or rather what works and what doesn't.

to awaken to your true nature is one thing. watching the interaction and response from an awake mind/heart is another.