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.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2012
There is a saying which goes, "Even the swiftest horsemen in the Emperor's army, riding like the wind, cannot retrieve the word, once spoken." The most difficult Spoke of the Wheel for anyone then, is not necessarily the one we feel is the hardest one to practice. It is perhaps the one which enables us to realise which spoke is the hardest one to practice. And that is Right Awareness, or Right Attention..... Mindfulness is vital. I have a keyring fob which reads, "Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my Mind the most."
good article thanks for sharing...body speech and mind must aligned well for liberation. Right speech is not an interesting topic and we ignore most of the time the benefits of practicing right speech but it is so crucial. This article is great...
Right speech is always the hardest to do. I work for the customer service field. Yes, I do admit I do have to lie to get my job done. Is it wrong? Yes it is, but it gets the job done on those rare occasions. Like for example a customer has a policy issue. Customers usually don't accept: "Because it's policy." I sometimes I have to make up a reason on why we have that policy.
Words can easily make enemies as well. I don't one of my cashiers that I want to do a better job than my boss. Since my current boss has a hard time keep her cashiers brakes and lunches on time. Now my boss thinks I am there just to fire her and take over my position. Which would be nice, but I don't like back stabbing people. I done that for three years working for Rent-A-Center and I do not want to do that.
Right speech is always the hardest to do. I work for the customer service field. Yes, I do admit I do have to lie to get my job done. Is it wrong? Yes it is, but it gets the job done on those rare occasions. Like for example a customer has a policy issue. Customers usually don't accept: "Because it's policy." I sometimes I have to make up a reason on why we have that policy.
...
Why do you have to "make up" a reason for the policy, when I'm quite sure there "is" a reason for the policy?
Why do you have to "make up" a reason for the policy, when I'm quite sure there "is" a reason for the policy?
Yes, there is an reason for some. Yet, customers would just like to argue with me so I have to make stuff up to get them out of here because a lot of then don't want the truth.
For the many years I was a school administrator, I often had parents questioning school policy, which was usually determined by the school board, not by us at the school. When my hands were tied, I often had to tell them that I had to abide by the policy. If they wanted to know why there was such a policy, I would explain if I could, and if I couldn't. I would attempt to learn why there was such a policy, but that meanwhile I would still have to abide by the policy. Few ever questioned beyond that, and if they did I usually found out the answer to "why", or referred them to someone higher up. I NEVER lied about it, because in the end, lies usually are found out or you just look incompetent.
For the many years I was a school administrator, I often had parents questioning school policy, which was usually determined by the school board, not by us at the school. When my hands were tied, I often had to tell them that I had to abide by the policy. If they wanted to know why there was such a policy, I would explain if I could, and if I couldn't. I would attempt to learn why there was such a policy, but that meanwhile I would still have to abide by the policy. Few ever questioned beyond that, and if they did I usually found out the answer to "why", or referred them to someone higher up. I NEVER lied about it, because in the end, lies usually are found out or you just look incompetent.
Unfortunately, you don't have 5 angry customers waiting in line and one customer wants 100% of the attention. After 10 years in retail, you learn how move them out of there and get to the next customer. Also a lot of customers don't want the truth.
For the many years I was a school administrator, I often had parents questioning school policy, which was usually determined by the school board, not by us at the school. When my hands were tied, I often had to tell them that I had to abide by the policy. If they wanted to know why there was such a policy, I would explain if I could, and if I couldn't. I would attempt to learn why there was such a policy, but that meanwhile I would still have to abide by the policy. Few ever questioned beyond that, and if they did I usually found out the answer to "why", or referred them to someone higher up. I NEVER lied about it, because in the end, lies usually are found out or you just look incompetent.
Unfortunately, you don't have 5 angry customers waiting in line and one customer wants 100% of the attention. After 10 years in retail, you learn how move them out of there and get to the next customer. Also a lot of customers don't want the truth.
Frankly, I'd rather deal with 5 angry customers than an "I'm a taxpayer and I pay your salary" parent who is going to "...go to the Board Of Education" or "sue you" or "report you to the Department Of Education" or "go to the Superintendent and get you fired".
Frankly, I'd rather deal with 5 angry customers than an "I'm a taxpayer and I pay your salary" parent who is going to "...go to the Board Of Education" or "sue you" or "report you to the Department Of Education" or "go to the Superintendent and get you fired".
The difference you have time to deal with this stuff and also some sanity in the school system. In retail, there is no sanity. You just have to survive.
For the many years I was a school administrator, I often had parents questioning school policy, which was usually determined by the school board, not by us at the school. When my hands were tied, I often had to tell them that I had to abide by the policy. If they wanted to know why there was such a policy, I would explain if I could, and if I couldn't. I would attempt to learn why there was such a policy, but that meanwhile I would still have to abide by the policy. Few ever questioned beyond that, and if they did I usually found out the answer to "why", or referred them to someone higher up. I NEVER lied about it, because in the end, lies usually are found out or you just look incompetent.
Unfortunately, you don't have 5 angry customers waiting in line and one customer wants 100% of the attention. After 10 years in retail, you learn how move them out of there and get to the next customer. Also a lot of customers don't want the truth.
Reminds me of my volunteer experiment (I'm disabled) where I was handing out brochures and retrieving jewelry purchases as a 'runner'. I had a santa hat on and I was given the directive of telling the customers that the celebration was over. They had a lot of compassion on me and were humorous with me. But I have very rigid expectations and I was frustrated. I joked to the cutey volunteer coordinator that 'people shouldn't drink alcohol'.
I havebeen in both the customer service and the education feild, One of my ways to handle these toughies is to say "I don't know all the reasons for the policy but it means that someone found a way to take advantage of our old policy/it means that a situation happened with a child or family that made this necessary" If you listen to what they have to say, reflect that back, and try a version of what I said it covers a lot of situations (not all by a looong stretch) just an idea.
This was a wonderful article. Thank you. As others have posted, I see the connection between metta and speech but appreciate the reminder - how is it that this obvious connection is so easily lost? As I wait patiently for the world to become what I would like it to be, another day in which I could have made the world what I would like it to be slips quietly by.
And the conversation below is quite interesting too. Thank you all. (And, as it turns out, non-members can post.)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yes, but only on the front page, but it's very nice of you to do so. Thanks for your contribution.
all the 8 spokes of the wheel (of right ___) are interconnected to each other and in the center for a reason. You cannot focus on one before quickly seeing how it relates to all the others. The goos news is there is no order to do these in, a specific list we need to go through. It is also the challenge, without a specific list then we have to discipline ourselves.
Thanks for this article. Lots to think about. I'm having BIG issues with right speech lately and before I learn what to say I need to practice NOT saying anything. It's especially difficult when dealing with people who make me so angry but sometimes that's the most respectful thing to do.
What is the most important thing about being human? If someone were to answer "right speech", they would not be incorrect in my opinion, because speech is intertwined with actions (karma). To be virtuous is to follow the workings of karma. Believing in karma is to believe in performing skilful actions. I believe there would be nothing to hold down our selfishness and conceit without karma.
There have often been times I would like to speak my mind, But then I check and find the mind impure and the resulting speech a cause of unhappiness so its better to remain silent.
What is the most important thing about being human? If someone were to answer "right speech", they would not be incorrect in my opinion, because speech is intertwined with actions (karma). To be virtuous is to follow the workings of karma. Believing in karma is to believe in performing skilful actions. I believe there would be nothing to hold down our selfishness and conceit without karma.
It is not possible not to fall prey to karma. Even if you have never heard about karma, the law still applies to you. A beautiful thought I think
What is the most important thing about being human? If someone were to answer "right speech", they would not be incorrect in my opinion, because speech is intertwined with actions (karma). To be virtuous is to follow the workings of karma. Believing in karma is to believe in performing skilful actions. I believe there would be nothing to hold down our selfishness and conceit without karma.
It is not possible not to fall prey to karma. Even if you have never heard about karma, the law still applies to you. A beautiful thought I think
I'm not so sure that we should call karma "a law", unless we are referring to it as a "law" of Buddhism.
Laws are supposed to be universal, and the law of karma is not universal to all religions.
But I do see it -- in whatever way it works -- as a very valid principle.
I personally refer to Karma as a law, not because it applies to all religions, but because I believe it applies to all people, regardless of religion and regardless of what they believe. Same with reincarnation. As I read once "Belief is not necessary. A leaf does not have to believe in photosynthesis to turn green. You will reincarnate whether you believe or not." (paraphrased). Whether I am correct about Karma and Reincarnation remains to be seen. But I do find a degree of comfort in believing that the same thing happens to everyone when they die and as they live life (the same basic "rules"). Just as, I'm sure, people who are Christian find comfort in believing if they are better people than others, they will be rewarded.
I guess I think that there are a lot of things that are laws of the universe that we don't know or understand yet. We consider them theories, but somewhere the answer exists. To me, the answers to some of those questions are karma and reincarnation, because I believe they are true, but I don't KNOW them to be true. If they are indeed true, then they would be universal laws. The problem is that once we find out the answer, we can't come back and tell everyone it's a law, lol. I think I'm more confused than when I started, so I'll stop now. In my head, it makes sense, but that probably doesn't say a lot
Karma isn't so much a law as it explains how causes relate to effects, both in this life and beyond. A Buddha does not generate new karma for instance. It's like saying if you throw an orange into the air on the Earth, it will always fall. Well, sure, *if* you throw an orange into the air on the Earth. Karma is like that... it applies *if* the conditions are met, which is why killing unintentionally generates no negative karma (the condition of intention is not present).
Buddhas do not throw oranges into the air, or anywhere else, metaphorically speaking.
And so karma is really a "derived" principle or law, something that only applies when it applies (where there is intention), and not at other times. It's there to show us what's harmful and what's beneficial, especially in overcoming suffering.
Karma isn't so much a law as it explains how causes relate to effects, both in this life and beyond. A Buddha does not generate new karma for instance. It's like saying if you throw an orange into the air on the Earth, it will always fall. Well, sure, *if* you throw an orange into the air on the Earth. Karma is like that... it applies *if* the conditions are met, which is why killing unintentionally generates no negative karma (the condition of intention is not present).
...
And so karma is really a "derived" principle or law, something that only applies when it applies, and not at other times. It's there to show us what's harmful and what's beneficial, especially in overcoming suffering.
From my perspective, your viewpoint doesn't cut it in the face of real examples, but perhaps that's because "we" cannot accurately define karma and its results.
Specifically, that unintentional killing generates no negative karma. Let's take the real, well documented example of the PE teacher in my school system back about 20 years ago. He was supervising students on trampolines. He had set up a system whereby 2 trampolines were being used, students were lined up waiting to use each alternately while he was supervising in the middle. The procedures had been approved as being responsible and safe. Students have had the procedures fully explained. A student intentionally does not follow directions, falls on the trampoline, breaks his neck on the metal part of the trampoline and is permanently paralyzed. Witnesses all fully exonerate the PE teacher. The parent sues. The case goes to court. The teacher wins. The parents sue a second time. The teacher has a nervous breakdown, but again wins the trial and is completely exonerated. The nervous breakdown over the case leads to deep depression on the part of the teacher. Due to a deteriorating situation at home because of the depression, the teacher's wife divorces him and the family disintegrates.
Unintentional action (in fact, responsible action) results in negative karma.
I could give other examples where unintentional action has resulted in horrific depressive karmic results.
I'm sorry @vinlyn but it's very clearly stated that karma *is* intention in the scriptures. It's intentional thoughts, intentional speech, intentional actions. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't results from unintentional thoughts/speech/actions, but these are not what karma means in Buddhism.
Karma is not causation, but moral causation. Intentional causation.
After several posts now, I think I can see more clearly where you are coming from -- it seems to me you take positions solely on what is stated in Buddhist scriptures.
Karma isn't so much a law as it explains how causes relate to effects, both in this life and beyond. A Buddha does not generate new karma for instance. It's like saying if you throw an orange into the air on the Earth, it will always fall. Well, sure, *if* you throw an orange into the air on the Earth. Karma is like that... it applies *if* the conditions are met, which is why killing unintentionally generates no negative karma (the condition of intention is not present).
...
And so karma is really a "derived" principle or law, something that only applies when it applies, and not at other times. It's there to show us what's harmful and what's beneficial, especially in overcoming suffering.
From my perspective, your viewpoint doesn't cut it in the face of real examples, but perhaps that's because "we" cannot accurately define karma and its results.
Specifically, that unintentional killing generates no negative karma. Let's take the real, well documented example of the PE teacher in my school system back about 20 years ago. He was supervising students on trampolines. He had set up a system whereby 2 trampolines were being used, students were lined up waiting to use each alternately while he was supervising in the middle. The procedures had been approved as being responsible and safe. Students have had the procedures fully explained. A student intentionally does not follow directions, falls on the trampoline, breaks his neck on the metal part of the trampoline and is permanently paralyzed. Witnesses all fully exonerate the PE teacher. The parent sues. The case goes to court. The teacher wins. The parents sue a second time. The teacher has a nervous breakdown, but again wins the trial and is completely exonerated. The nervous breakdown over the case leads to deep depression on the part of the teacher. Due to a deteriorating situation at home because of the depression, the teacher's wife divorces him and the family disintegrates.
Unintentional action (in fact, responsible action) results in negative karma.
I could give other examples where unintentional action has resulted in horrific depressive karmic results.
In the same way, and to use the same example, the same situations and actions which may lead to depression for one individual may not for another ...the outcome is not entirely about intention
In the same way, and to use the same example, the same situations and actions which may lead to depression for one individual may not for another ...the outcome is not entirely about intention
To me, karma is a part of Buddhism where there is no consensus about what it is or how it works. I picked up most of what I know about Buddhism while traveling in living in Thailand, and there it appears to me -- after many conversations about the topic -- that there is more of a belief that there is some mechanism where you do something bad and a punishment develops. What that mechanism is goes unexplained (at least by the people I have chatted with about it, and that includes both monks and lay people). Here in the West, and particularly on this forum, what people think about karma is very different.
I haven't figured it out, and it is not only a cornerstone of Buddhist thought, but also just plain interesting.
In general I tend to be a very concrete person, and that's why sort of nebulous ideas bother me. That's why I'm more comfortable with (for example) the 5 Precepts being virtual rules than I am with karma being sort of inexplicable. And what I mean by inexplicable is that I've rarely heard 2 people explain karma the same way.
For example, it seems to me that what you are saying ("the same situations and actions which may lead to...for one individual may not for another ...the outcome is not entirely about intention") is very different from what someone else is saying ("only applies when it applies (where there is intention)).
In the same way, and to use the same example, the same situations and actions which may lead to depression for one individual may not for another ...the outcome is not entirely about intention
To me, karma is a part of Buddhism where there is no consensus about what it is or how it works. I picked up most of what I know about Buddhism while traveling in living in Thailand, and there it appears to me -- after many conversations about the topic -- that there is more of a belief that there is some mechanism where you do something bad and a punishment develops. What that mechanism is goes unexplained (at least by the people I have chatted with about it, and that includes both monks and lay people). Here in the West, and particularly on this forum, what people think about karma is very different.
I haven't figured it out, and it is not only a cornerstone of Buddhist thought, but also just plain interesting.
In general I tend to be a very concrete person, and that's why sort of nebulous ideas bother me. That's why I'm more comfortable with (for example) the 5 Precepts being virtual rules than I am with karma being sort of inexplicable. And what I mean by inexplicable is that I've rarely heard 2 people explain karma the same way.
For example, it seems to me that what you are saying ("the same situations and actions which may lead to...for one individual may not for another ...the outcome is not entirely about intention") is very different from what someone else is saying ("only applies when it applies (where there is intention)).
I find it interesting too ... I don't have difficulty with the not knowing all aspects; we do know it is very complex and beyond simple understandings.
Yes, my observation is very different to focus on intention. For example, as my teacher has discussed with me, karma is also factored by what the individual thinks about the situation - for example, some people cope with taking drastic measures because they think the ends justifies the means.
Ahh, I see as we discuss one of the things (which affected my right speech) in how we are comfortable or not with balck and white rules as compared to amore intuitive approach. I generally stay totally out of these things, however at work I was in a difficult situation with a person who took over my after school program at one school. Her first way of approaching it was to read the handbooks in detail, go back to the staff with a rule we had not noticed, and enforce it strictly. Looking back I truly think she thought everyone had the same respect for clear rules and they would be happy. It actually caused a huge rift and one person was eventually moved away from that school. I did not like this person and was caught in the middle of training her while watching this total collapse. a few Parents even took their kids out of the (free) after school program.
In this process I had to realize that the other person was really not a bad person. She was very interested in having a good program, and to have a good program she had to follow all the rules. Of course that is good for the safety of the children, however instead of focusing on how all the other rules were followed well she noticed a staff wearing a hat and handled it. The problem was when all of us (myself included) got into making judgments based on what we saw. I do not think she ever got the understanding I did however with the understanding that she is very rules oriented I was able to make changes in teh working relationship.
Someone earlier made the point that all the spokes are interconnected. Very true. Each leads almost imperceptably into others. Before we can practice right speech, we need need right mindfulness and aspiration. It takes right effort to take time to be careful to practice right speech and right livelihood necessarily requires right speech. As does right conduct and all of these would be a lot of effort if we didn't have right belief that there was a purpose to it all. This right belief is to be found in right meditation. I often skim through longer posts but this one (the original post) was a pleasure to read slowly and fully. Thank-you Andy
@vinlyn the principle of karma is extremely complicated in action. also really, it doesn't make much sense unless we see it as taking place across many lifetimes, rather than one. with the example you cited, you are drawing a very rash conclusion. This really comes down to a fundamental difficulty in understanding that all humans face: why must the innocent suffer for no obvious reason. This is no easy question, and the answer is very complicated. In any case, hastily tying event A to event B is not good. In my opinion, and from my interpretation of scripture, the law of karma is something that should be only generally understood to exist. making specific conclusions is not possible, and inadvisable. We should best see it as something that is real, right and fair, but beyond understanding in a lot of ways...after all the conditions that lead to any and all action are complex beyond understanding. Much better to cultivate perfect wisdom.
Not at all, I am referring to the connection that you made between the teacher's trials and misfortunes and his responsible activity surrounding the student's accident. You said: ""Unintentional action (in fact, responsible action) results in negative karma." Actually, if we expand our view of cosmic cause and effect, the two events may not be connected at all. Do you see what i'm saying.
Comments
The most difficult Spoke of the Wheel for anyone then, is not necessarily the one we feel is the hardest one to practice.
It is perhaps the one which enables us to realise which spoke is the hardest one to practice.
And that is Right Awareness, or Right Attention.....
Mindfulness is vital.
I have a keyring fob which reads, "Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my Mind the most."
Ain't that the truth......
Right speech is not an interesting topic and we ignore most of the time the benefits of practicing right speech but it is so crucial. This article is great...
I love it, as I get older I realize those words do not fade fast.
Words can easily make enemies as well. I don't one of my cashiers that I want to do a better job than my boss. Since my current boss has a hard time keep her cashiers brakes and lunches on time. Now my boss thinks I am there just to fire her and take over my position. Which would be nice, but I don't like back stabbing people. I done that for three years working for Rent-A-Center and I do not want to do that.
My life:
And the conversation below is quite interesting too. Thank you all. (And, as it turns out, non-members can post.)
All things are Mind-wrought.
A beautiful thought I think
Laws are supposed to be universal, and the law of karma is not universal to all religions.
But I do see it -- in whatever way it works -- as a very valid principle.
Buddhas do not throw oranges into the air, or anywhere else, metaphorically speaking.
And so karma is really a "derived" principle or law, something that only applies when it applies (where there is intention), and not at other times. It's there to show us what's harmful and what's beneficial, especially in overcoming suffering.
Specifically, that unintentional killing generates no negative karma. Let's take the real, well documented example of the PE teacher in my school system back about 20 years ago. He was supervising students on trampolines. He had set up a system whereby 2 trampolines were being used, students were lined up waiting to use each alternately while he was supervising in the middle. The procedures had been approved as being responsible and safe. Students have had the procedures fully explained. A student intentionally does not follow directions, falls on the trampoline, breaks his neck on the metal part of the trampoline and is permanently paralyzed. Witnesses all fully exonerate the PE teacher. The parent sues. The case goes to court. The teacher wins. The parents sue a second time. The teacher has a nervous breakdown, but again wins the trial and is completely exonerated. The nervous breakdown over the case leads to deep depression on the part of the teacher. Due to a deteriorating situation at home because of the depression, the teacher's wife divorces him and the family disintegrates.
Unintentional action (in fact, responsible action) results in negative karma.
I could give other examples where unintentional action has resulted in horrific depressive karmic results.
Or am I misreading you?
I haven't figured it out, and it is not only a cornerstone of Buddhist thought, but also just plain interesting.
In general I tend to be a very concrete person, and that's why sort of nebulous ideas bother me. That's why I'm more comfortable with (for example) the 5 Precepts being virtual rules than I am with karma being sort of inexplicable. And what I mean by inexplicable is that I've rarely heard 2 people explain karma the same way.
For example, it seems to me that what you are saying ("the same situations and actions which may lead to...for one individual may not for another ...the outcome is not entirely about intention") is very different from what someone else is saying ("only applies when it applies (where there is intention)).
Yes, my observation is very different to focus on intention. For example, as my teacher has discussed with me, karma is also factored by what the individual thinks about the situation - for example, some people cope with taking drastic measures because they think the ends justifies the means.
In this process I had to realize that the other person was really not a bad person. She was very interested in having a good program, and to have a good program she had to follow all the rules. Of course that is good for the safety of the children, however instead of focusing on how all the other rules were followed well she noticed a staff wearing a hat and handled it. The problem was when all of us (myself included) got into making judgments based on what we saw. I do not think she ever got the understanding I did however with the understanding that she is very rules oriented I was able to make changes in teh working relationship.
Before we can practice right speech, we need need right mindfulness and aspiration. It takes right effort to take time to be careful to practice right speech and right livelihood necessarily requires right speech. As does right conduct and all of these would be a lot of effort if we didn't have right belief that there was a purpose to it all. This right belief is to be found in right meditation.
I often skim through longer posts but this one (the original post) was a pleasure to read slowly and fully. Thank-you
Andy
the principle of karma is extremely complicated in action. also really, it doesn't make much sense unless we see it as taking place across many lifetimes, rather than one. with the example you cited, you are drawing a very rash conclusion.
This really comes down to a fundamental difficulty in understanding that all humans face: why must the innocent suffer for no obvious reason. This is no easy question, and the answer is very complicated.
In any case, hastily tying event A to event B is not good. In my opinion, and from my interpretation of scripture, the law of karma is something that should be only generally understood to exist. making specific conclusions is not possible, and inadvisable. We should best see it as something that is real, right and fair, but beyond understanding in a lot of ways...after all the conditions that lead to any and all action are complex beyond understanding.
Much better to cultivate perfect wisdom.
Perhaps you made a rash conclusion?
I am referring to the connection that you made between the teacher's trials and misfortunes and his responsible activity surrounding the student's accident.
You said:
""Unintentional action (in fact, responsible action) results in negative karma."
Actually, if we expand our view of cosmic cause and effect, the two events may not be connected at all. Do you see what i'm saying.