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.
If I think from Dogen's teachings' point of view, then the reason morality would not have been stressed much in Zen is that we need to realize our true nature. But for acting morally, the discrimination needs to be done between good and bad, before that the discrimination between self and others and in a way, whole construction of duality. As per Dogen's teaching, when we go out and try to actualize myriad things, it is delusion and different things coming and getting actualized by themselves is enlightenment. So if we need to practice morality, then we need to reach out to goodness, which even though shall be virtuous, but still keep the delusion continuing. So Dogen taught zazen as thinking not thinking or non-thinking. In a way, the immediacy of the experience in the moment by neither grasping onto it, nor rejecting it, but letting the experience arise, stay and cease by itself. Then when in daily life, this practice of non-thinking occurs in daily activities, the actions which would be performed will be at least not immoral. So morality might come as a by-product of the Zen practice of just sitting or zazen. That is why I think Dogen did not emphasized morality as a stepping stone to start practice.
In Zen, compassion and moral behavior is sort of seen as the default setting of the human mind, and once a person begins seeing the world with a clear mind, that comes naturally.
@Dakini said: So, in Taoism, lying, stealing, taking advantage of people is irrelevant? Help me out, here.
No, that is not Taoist teaching. Rather, humankind has been teaching moral education in one form or another for thousands of years now. Where is the evidence that it has helped? Don't people still lie, steal, and commit acts of violence? There is a story about Lao Tzu meeting Confucius. Lao Tzu made this remark to Confucius, "Sir, you've been teaching about morality all your life. How come morality is still in decline?"
Even punishments do not seem to help. There has to be a better way. I think the practice of mindfulness is one.
@Cinorjer said:
In Zen, compassion and moral behavior is sort of seen as the default setting of the human mind, and once a person begins seeing the world with a clear mind, that comes naturally.
According to Lachs and some of the historical masters he quotes, that was not the case for much of Zen's history. It seems that once someone has that satori experience, it can take time to integrate it into their personality, and for morality to catch up. But this position was abandoned at a certain point in Zen's evolution.
I think a lot depends on the individual, but I don't think moral behavior can be taken for granted, or as the mind's default setting. Not all humans are wired the same, and you have to keep in mind the influence their upbringing had on them before they came to Zen.
In any case, if what you say is true in Zen, I think that belief has been disproved enough times. Either that, or the people who we're lead to believe have achieved such clarity, in truth, haven't.
No, that is not Taoist teaching. Rather, humankind has been teaching moral education in >one form or another for thousands of years now. Where is the evidence that it has helped? Don't people still lie, steal, and commit acts of violence? There is a story about >Lao Tzu >meeting Confucius. Lao Tzu made this remark to Confucius, "Sir, you've been teaching about morality all your life. How come morality is still in decline?"
Even punishments do not seem to help. There has to be a better way. I think the practice >of mindfulness is one.
Yes, I understand that about Taoism now, thanks. But mindfulness isn't a panacea, either. Mindfulness, like teaching about morality, is only as effective as the sincerity and determination of the practitioner.
@Dakini said:
Either that, or the people who we're lead to believe have achieved such clarity, in truth, haven't.
I think that is more likely the case. A Buddha, by definition, has boundless, infinite compassion, perfect effortless morality, and can't be any other way. Although, just because someone received dharma transmission in some zen lineage, does not necessarily mean they are now a Buddha. Certainly does not mean they are now perfect like a Buddha! I would agree with Cinorjer to a certain extent if "default setting of the human mind" actually means "your true nature" or "Buddha nature", etc. The degree of naturally occurring morality and ethics I think is directly proportional to the extent of the manifestation of that true nature. Although, I think it's obvious that you don't need to manifest it fully and completely in order to receive a dharma transmission certificate.
It keeps coming back to the Noble Truths, doesn't it? People are capable of both breathtaking acts of self-sacrifice and love, and tremendous acts of evil, and societies and religions have tried everything to find that magic formula that will cure us of our madness. Even Zen, for all I cherish the practice, runs up against human nature.
@Cinorjer said:
It keeps coming back to the Noble Truths, doesn't it? People are capable of both breathtaking acts of self-sacrifice and love, and tremendous acts of evil, and societies and religions have tried everything to find that magic formula that will cure us of our madness. Even Zen, for all I cherish the practice, runs up against human nature.
Trungpa was well known for crazy wisdom teachings and some imperfect behaviour such as a relationship to alcohol. At the same time he referred to those who are immoral and take that meditatively and called it 'shunyata poison'.
Well, @Dakini, in the end, D.T. Suzuki, with all his imperfections, was an excellent Zen teacher and left some brilliant work behind him.
Stuart Lachs is also a human being and his interpretation of Suzuki's Zen is just that: his own personal interpretation.
It's all very well to have some background information, but try to read Suzuki's work itself and see how it agrees with you, rather than try to filter him through someone else's opinion.
As to the ethics or moral in Taoism, they go beyond our traditional idea of "morality," in a sense that the simple utterance of the word perverts the real sense of what morality sets out to define.
Lao Tze had a deep contempt towards Confucius' constant harping on morality and label-dropping.
Confucius was very much into giving things its right name, like "filial piety," "humanity" or "loyalty." "If all men were humane, filial, and loyal, no one would profess these virtues, and they would therefore never be named. And in the same way, if all men were virtuous, the names even of vices would be unknown," was Lao Tze's idea.
To Lao Tze, a good ruler would rule by example, not by the enactment of laws.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
It's be nice if when we were talking about morality, we were talking about the same thing. It's like "God", something that means different things to different people.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
It's be nice if when we were talking about morality, we were talking about the same thing. It's like "God", something that means different things to different people. @AldrisTorvalds said:
It's be nice if when we were talking about morality, we were talking about the same thing. It's like "God", something that means different things to different people.
Being that this is a Buddhist forum, it's generally understood that what is meant is the precepts. The basic 5, usually. If you read the thread, you'll see that mentioned here and there.
To Lao Tze, a good ruler would rule by example, not by the enactment of laws.
Did Lao Tze forget that for a ruler to rule by example, he'd need conscientious followers? All of them would have to be conscientious, or open to being inspired by leadership. There would have to be no child abuse, no trauma passed on across generations, no bullying, nothing to create the conditions for deviance.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@Dakini The precepts reflect morality, or at least not-immorality, but what is "morality"? We can't answer with "The Precepts" as someone might answer "The Ten Commandments", or else we'd never be able to figure out anything not covered by those. I think "ahimsa" or non-harm is a good start, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes moral and immoral (and especially why). That's what I'm referring to, and it's a conundrum!
I'd rather it not be "my religion" vs. "your religion" when it comes down to it. Morality should either transcend or precede religion, and I think it very much does. That's why such sentiments as not killing and stealing are practically universal (and if they don't exist somewhere, I haven't heard of that place, at least for the "in" group or tribe).
@Dakini said:
Did Lao Tze forget that for a ruler to rule by example, he'd need conscientious followers? All of them would have to be conscientious, or open to being inspired by leadership.
The idea was that a good ruler's virtues percolate down to his followers.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Dakini The precepts reflect morality, or at least not-immorality, but what is "morality"? We can't answer with "The Precepts" as someone might answer "The Ten Commandments", or else we'd never be able to figure out anything not covered by those. I think "ahimsa" or non-harm is a good start, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes moral and immoral (and especially why). That's what I'm referring to, and it's a conundrum!
Well, yes, it usually boils down to non-harming/ahimsa. Hmm... :scratch: .
@AldrisTorvalds said:
It's be nice if when we were talking about morality, we were talking about the same thing. It's like "God", something that means different things to different people.
Not again the G-word, Aldris...!
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
Guilty? I'm done with arguing about "God", but it still stands that people mean different things by that word, so it's appropriately analogous to "morality". Some think morality means whatever a deity tells you to do (including harming others), some think it's non-harm (some to the extent of straining their water!), others think it's well-being (little hard to judge), and so on. Philosophies abound about ethics.
I think it's solely about how we treat one another, and includes both non-harm and compassionate speech/action to alleviate suffering, but convincing someone else that's what it means? That'd be very difficult! I think it should extend to all sentient beings... but we're not enlightened enough as a species to do that yet.
@DhammaDragon said:
The idea was that a good ruler's virtues percolate down to his followers.
I think Lao Tze was naive, or didn't understand psychology, and the causes of deviant behavior. In an ideal world, everyone would be good-hearted, and would be inspired by kind, principled leadership. But the world is less than ideal.
I think "ahimsa" or non-harm is a good start, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes moral and immoral (and especially why).
That does seem to be what the precepts imply. But are people naturally inclined to ahimsa, or do they need some encouragement? World history suggests the latter!
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@SpinyNorman I think people are naturally selfish and naturally selfless. They are selfless in regards to themselves (naturally), their children and immediate family and sometimes that extends even further. I think we have to nudge "morality" to be more inclusive... that everyone is part of the family. Jesus said love thy neighbor as thyself. I think he even said love your enemy as yourself. How can we do that unless we love them as our own children? No matter how misguided our children, or what they do, that doesn't remove the love. Love is like our pure awareness in that way; "soul doesn't judge" (Ram Dass).
Breaking the self/other barrier would seem to be a way to get this job done!
I think morality has been evolving and becoming more inclusive as a matter of necessity, and where people are against the happiness of others (i.e. LGBT marriage), it's usually because they're putting them in the "them" category instead of "us". It's all us!
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
I think that also quite explains how anti-LGBT Senators and Congressman can suddenly be pro-LGBT when they find out their child is LGBT. It's not hypocrisy, it's that through a family connection they can extend that love, that desire for happiness, to others. It opens their eyes. We all need that where we're lacking. We learn so much from family! But we can also work on changing our minds in general.
I think we have to nudge "morality" to be more inclusive... that everyone is part of the family.
I've found the precepts to be a useful "nudging" device. Or more positively, developing some right intention.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
The precepts help us avoid bad actions, as Buddhists, but developing compassion and acting compassionately is the other side of the coin. Also others don't follow our precepts. I meant more generally, waking "people" up to a more-inclusive morality and family.
@DhammaDragon said:
Just wanted to put you into the underpinnings of how "morality" works in Taoism.
The morality that can be named is no longer morality.
Yes, I got that, thanks. This has turned into such an interesting thread! :thumbsup: . It's taken an unexpected an pleasantly surprising turn, with the Taoist input.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
SpinyNorman I think people are naturally selfish and naturally selfless. They are selfless in regards to themselves (naturally), their children and immediate family and >sometimes that extends even further. I think we have to nudge "morality" to be more inclusive... that everyone is part of the family. Jesus said love thy neighbor as thyself. I >think he even said love your enemy as yourself. How can we do that unless we love >them as our own children?
This is paralleled with the teaching in Buddhism that we shouldn't discriminate in whom we choose to show compassion to. We should be compassionate to all, regardless of status, relationship to us, friend, acquaintance or stranger. Or foe.
BTW, is Aldris Torvalds your real name? Are you from the Baltics, or do you have Balt ancestry?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Dakini said:
I think a lot depends on the individual, but I don't think moral behavior can be taken for granted, or as the mind's default setting. Not all humans are wired the same, and you have to keep in mind the influence their upbringing had on them before they came to Zen.
Well, to be fair, we also have to keep in mind that if we take any outside influence into consideration, we are not talking about the default setting.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
“To lead people, walk beside them ...
As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence.
The next best, the people honor and praise.
The next, the people fear; and the next, the people hate ...
When the best leader's work is done the people say,
We did it ourselves!”
― Lao Tzu
The shorter version is in the Tao Te Ching;
“A leader is best
When people barely know he exists
Of a good leader, who talks little,
When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
They will say, “We did this ourselves.”
I suspect the same principle exists within the reasoning for the lack of focusing on morality.
“all streams flow to the sea because it is lower than they are. humility gives it its power. if you want to govern the people, you must place yourself below them. if you want to lead the people, you must learn how to follow them.”
@SpinyNorman said:
It might come? Do you mean it might not come?
Regarding this statement - So morality might come as a by-product of the Zen practice of just sitting or zazen - the above question was raised.
The idea of Zen practice of sitting zazen, as can be seen in Dogen's teachings seems to be to be know our true nature. The idea is not to become moral, so whether morality comes as a by-product of the practice or it does not come does not matter much, though the later is not feasible as the true nature of our mind is radiant, pure and non-discriminating, when it is devoid of ignorance. Moreover, from Mahayana teachings, emptiness and compassion are something like simultaneously occurring - if this is, that is - if this is not, that is not - when the emptiness of all phenomena is realized, genuine compassion automatically arises, as the suffering of others seem to be suffering of self, as then there is no discrimination between self and others when emptiness is realized. So my understanding of Dogen's teachings says: the practice of zazen when incorporated in all daily activities by being in the moment, will help us to realize our true nature, which shall transcend the duality of morality and immorality.
Well, clearly, looking back over Zen's history in America, it hasn't come to certain people. I would assume Richard Baker, Eido Shimano, and others of their ilk did maintain a sitting practice, but who knows what was going on in their minds while they sat? Maybe it wasn't a practice at all, but just the outward appearance of practice.
I don't think anything can be assumed. In order for Buddhist (or specifically Zen) practice to work, there needs to be great sincerity in one's practice. One needs to have a heartfelt aim to overcome clinging to ego. If one's ego is stronger than that wish, years of practice won't make a difference. It just becomes false practice.
Having just become aware of this discussion, let me suggest another way of approaching the problem of determining D.T. Suzuki's alleged "morality-free" Zen. That is, by looking at his own words and actions during the Asia-Pacific War (1937-45), certainly a time of great moral challenge with the lives of many millions of human beings hanging in the balance.
In doing this, let me recommend three recent related articles of my own, all of which are available online here: http://japanfocus.org/-Brian-Victoria These articles also contain references to additional related articles, some of them written in defense of Suzuki's alleged wartime "morality."
The challenge I leave readers is to point out when, and how often, Suzuki referred to the first precept that all Buddhists, lay and cleric, pledge to abide by, i.e., to not kill, in his wartime writings?
Let's point out the bad, unfashionable, crazy but hey it's OK they are exhibiting 'crazy wisdom', etc . . .
That will keep us on a never ending cycle to nowhere . . . then let us examine our integrity, morality, compassion, honesty, discernment etc.
In samsara or nirvana it is up to us be the moon not the finger pointer. Shine on. :wave: .
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
edited September 2014
@SpinyNorman said:
That does seem to be what the precepts imply. But are people naturally inclined to ahimsa, or do they need some encouragement? World history suggests the latter!
Indeed :-/ .
@AldrisTorvalds mentions the 'natural and organic' ahimsa that comes quickest for our personal loves (family and friends). With the (statistically) rare psychopath/sociopath making hash of natural ahimsa aside . . . it looks to me like wherever the perceived line demarcating the gulf between us and them is where 'natural and organic' ahimsa doesn't happen.
Someone may have already said this, I haven't read after this post . . . it seems logical that the ahimsa would include everything without exception if the perceiver made no distinction between 'us' and 'them', don't you think? Ahimsa would flow naturally like water through the least resistant grounds, no need to 'encourage' it, the conditions for it to flow easily are there.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Hamsaka said: it seems logical that the ahimsa would include everything without exception if the perceiver made no distinction between 'us' and 'them', don't you think?
Yes that was exactly my thinking. The only way to extend our natural compassion toward everyone is to stop differentiating between self and other, and Buddhism speaks of this in spades!
Comments
If I think from Dogen's teachings' point of view, then the reason morality would not have been stressed much in Zen is that we need to realize our true nature. But for acting morally, the discrimination needs to be done between good and bad, before that the discrimination between self and others and in a way, whole construction of duality. As per Dogen's teaching, when we go out and try to actualize myriad things, it is delusion and different things coming and getting actualized by themselves is enlightenment. So if we need to practice morality, then we need to reach out to goodness, which even though shall be virtuous, but still keep the delusion continuing. So Dogen taught zazen as thinking not thinking or non-thinking. In a way, the immediacy of the experience in the moment by neither grasping onto it, nor rejecting it, but letting the experience arise, stay and cease by itself. Then when in daily life, this practice of non-thinking occurs in daily activities, the actions which would be performed will be at least not immoral. So morality might come as a by-product of the Zen practice of just sitting or zazen. That is why I think Dogen did not emphasized morality as a stepping stone to start practice.
So morality might come as a by-product of the Zen practice of just sitting or zazen.
It might come? Do you mean it might not come?
:eek: .
In Zen, compassion and moral behavior is sort of seen as the default setting of the human mind, and once a person begins seeing the world with a clear mind, that comes naturally.
No, that is not Taoist teaching. Rather, humankind has been teaching moral education in one form or another for thousands of years now. Where is the evidence that it has helped? Don't people still lie, steal, and commit acts of violence? There is a story about Lao Tzu meeting Confucius. Lao Tzu made this remark to Confucius, "Sir, you've been teaching about morality all your life. How come morality is still in decline?"
Even punishments do not seem to help. There has to be a better way. I think the practice of mindfulness is one.
According to Lachs and some of the historical masters he quotes, that was not the case for much of Zen's history. It seems that once someone has that satori experience, it can take time to integrate it into their personality, and for morality to catch up. But this position was abandoned at a certain point in Zen's evolution.
I think a lot depends on the individual, but I don't think moral behavior can be taken for granted, or as the mind's default setting. Not all humans are wired the same, and you have to keep in mind the influence their upbringing had on them before they came to Zen.
In any case, if what you say is true in Zen, I think that belief has been disproved enough times. Either that, or the people who we're lead to believe have achieved such clarity, in truth, haven't.
Yes, I understand that about Taoism now, thanks. But mindfulness isn't a panacea, either. Mindfulness, like teaching about morality, is only as effective as the sincerity and determination of the practitioner.
I think that is more likely the case. A Buddha, by definition, has boundless, infinite compassion, perfect effortless morality, and can't be any other way. Although, just because someone received dharma transmission in some zen lineage, does not necessarily mean they are now a Buddha. Certainly does not mean they are now perfect like a Buddha! I would agree with Cinorjer to a certain extent if "default setting of the human mind" actually means "your true nature" or "Buddha nature", etc. The degree of naturally occurring morality and ethics I think is directly proportional to the extent of the manifestation of that true nature. Although, I think it's obvious that you don't need to manifest it fully and completely in order to receive a dharma transmission certificate.
It keeps coming back to the Noble Truths, doesn't it? People are capable of both breathtaking acts of self-sacrifice and love, and tremendous acts of evil, and societies and religions have tried everything to find that magic formula that will cure us of our madness. Even Zen, for all I cherish the practice, runs up against human nature.
Exactly.
Trungpa was well known for crazy wisdom teachings and some imperfect behaviour such as a relationship to alcohol. At the same time he referred to those who are immoral and take that meditatively and called it 'shunyata poison'.
Well, @Dakini, in the end, D.T. Suzuki, with all his imperfections, was an excellent Zen teacher and left some brilliant work behind him.
Stuart Lachs is also a human being and his interpretation of Suzuki's Zen is just that: his own personal interpretation.
It's all very well to have some background information, but try to read Suzuki's work itself and see how it agrees with you, rather than try to filter him through someone else's opinion.
As to the ethics or moral in Taoism, they go beyond our traditional idea of "morality," in a sense that the simple utterance of the word perverts the real sense of what morality sets out to define.
Lao Tze had a deep contempt towards Confucius' constant harping on morality and label-dropping.
Confucius was very much into giving things its right name, like "filial piety," "humanity" or "loyalty."
"If all men were humane, filial, and loyal, no one would profess these virtues, and they would therefore never be named. And in the same way, if all men were virtuous, the names even of vices would be unknown," was Lao Tze's idea.
To Lao Tze, a good ruler would rule by example, not by the enactment of laws.
It's be nice if when we were talking about morality, we were talking about the same thing. It's like "God", something that means different things to different people.
Being that this is a Buddhist forum, it's generally understood that what is meant is the precepts. The basic 5, usually. If you read the thread, you'll see that mentioned here and there.
Did Lao Tze forget that for a ruler to rule by example, he'd need conscientious followers? All of them would have to be conscientious, or open to being inspired by leadership. There would have to be no child abuse, no trauma passed on across generations, no bullying, nothing to create the conditions for deviance.
@Dakini The precepts reflect morality, or at least not-immorality, but what is "morality"? We can't answer with "The Precepts" as someone might answer "The Ten Commandments", or else we'd never be able to figure out anything not covered by those. I think "ahimsa" or non-harm is a good start, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes moral and immoral (and especially why). That's what I'm referring to, and it's a conundrum!
I'd rather it not be "my religion" vs. "your religion" when it comes down to it. Morality should either transcend or precede religion, and I think it very much does. That's why such sentiments as not killing and stealing are practically universal (and if they don't exist somewhere, I haven't heard of that place, at least for the "in" group or tribe).
The idea was that a good ruler's virtues percolate down to his followers.
Well, yes, it usually boils down to non-harming/ahimsa. Hmm... :scratch: .
Not again the G-word, Aldris...!
Guilty? I'm done with arguing about "God", but it still stands that people mean different things by that word, so it's appropriately analogous to "morality". Some think morality means whatever a deity tells you to do (including harming others), some think it's non-harm (some to the extent of straining their water!), others think it's well-being (little hard to judge), and so on. Philosophies abound about ethics.
I think it's solely about how we treat one another, and includes both non-harm and compassionate speech/action to alleviate suffering, but convincing someone else that's what it means? That'd be very difficult! I think it should extend to all sentient beings... but we're not enlightened enough as a species to do that yet.
I think Lao Tze was naive, or didn't understand psychology, and the causes of deviant behavior. In an ideal world, everyone would be good-hearted, and would be inspired by kind, principled leadership. But the world is less than ideal.
He was unable to borrow Sun Tzu's "Art of War"...
Just wanted to put you into the underpinnings of how "morality" works in Taoism.
The morality that can be named is no longer morality.
I put the LOL before you editted your comment and it read just as I quoted it above...
Is okay.
We seem to be LOLling all the time now, @AldrisTorvalds.
We're probably decompressing from yesterday's tension on another thread... :om: ..
Maybe, but I'm also a free spirit, I think a lot of things are very funny and I'm always smiling or laughing (IRL). Bit of a flake, really.
I think "ahimsa" or non-harm is a good start, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes moral and immoral (and especially why).
That does seem to be what the precepts imply. But are people naturally inclined to ahimsa, or do they need some encouragement? World history suggests the latter!
@SpinyNorman I think people are naturally selfish and naturally selfless. They are selfless in regards to themselves (naturally), their children and immediate family and sometimes that extends even further. I think we have to nudge "morality" to be more inclusive... that everyone is part of the family. Jesus said love thy neighbor as thyself. I think he even said love your enemy as yourself. How can we do that unless we love them as our own children? No matter how misguided our children, or what they do, that doesn't remove the love. Love is like our pure awareness in that way; "soul doesn't judge" (Ram Dass).
Breaking the self/other barrier would seem to be a way to get this job done!
I think morality has been evolving and becoming more inclusive as a matter of necessity, and where people are against the happiness of others (i.e. LGBT marriage), it's usually because they're putting them in the "them" category instead of "us". It's all us!
I think that also quite explains how anti-LGBT Senators and Congressman can suddenly be pro-LGBT when they find out their child is LGBT. It's not hypocrisy, it's that through a family connection they can extend that love, that desire for happiness, to others. It opens their eyes. We all need that where we're lacking. We learn so much from family! But we can also work on changing our minds in general.
I think we have to nudge "morality" to be more inclusive... that everyone is part of the family.
I've found the precepts to be a useful "nudging" device. Or more positively, developing some right intention.
The precepts help us avoid bad actions, as Buddhists, but developing compassion and acting compassionately is the other side of the coin. Also others don't follow our precepts. I meant more generally, waking "people" up to a more-inclusive morality and family.
I meant more generally, waking "people" up to a more-inclusive morality and family.
I'm not sure how we could do that? Apart from hopefully setting a good example ourselves.
Me either. That's the real conundrum, bringing people into alignment.
The morality that can be named is no longer morality.
Yes, I got that, thanks. This has turned into such an interesting thread! :thumbsup: . It's taken an unexpected an pleasantly surprising turn, with the Taoist input.
This is paralleled with the teaching in Buddhism that we shouldn't discriminate in whom we choose to show compassion to. We should be compassionate to all, regardless of status, relationship to us, friend, acquaintance or stranger. Or foe.
BTW, is Aldris Torvalds your real name? Are you from the Baltics, or do you have Balt ancestry?
Well, to be fair, we also have to keep in mind that if we take any outside influence into consideration, we are not talking about the default setting.
“To lead people, walk beside them ...
As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence.
The next best, the people honor and praise.
The next, the people fear; and the next, the people hate ...
When the best leader's work is done the people say,
We did it ourselves!”
― Lao Tzu
The shorter version is in the Tao Te Ching;
“A leader is best
When people barely know he exists
Of a good leader, who talks little,
When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
They will say, “We did this ourselves.”
I suspect the same principle exists within the reasoning for the lack of focusing on morality.
“all streams flow to the sea because it is lower than they are. humility gives it its power. if you want to govern the people, you must place yourself below them. if you want to lead the people, you must learn how to follow them.”
Tao Te Ching
Regarding this statement - So morality might come as a by-product of the Zen practice of just sitting or zazen - the above question was raised.
The idea of Zen practice of sitting zazen, as can be seen in Dogen's teachings seems to be to be know our true nature. The idea is not to become moral, so whether morality comes as a by-product of the practice or it does not come does not matter much, though the later is not feasible as the true nature of our mind is radiant, pure and non-discriminating, when it is devoid of ignorance. Moreover, from Mahayana teachings, emptiness and compassion are something like simultaneously occurring - if this is, that is - if this is not, that is not - when the emptiness of all phenomena is realized, genuine compassion automatically arises, as the suffering of others seem to be suffering of self, as then there is no discrimination between self and others when emptiness is realized. So my understanding of Dogen's teachings says: the practice of zazen when incorporated in all daily activities by being in the moment, will help us to realize our true nature, which shall transcend the duality of morality and immorality.
It might come? Do you mean it might not come?
Well, clearly, looking back over Zen's history in America, it hasn't come to certain people. I would assume Richard Baker, Eido Shimano, and others of their ilk did maintain a sitting practice, but who knows what was going on in their minds while they sat? Maybe it wasn't a practice at all, but just the outward appearance of practice.
I don't think anything can be assumed. In order for Buddhist (or specifically Zen) practice to work, there needs to be great sincerity in one's practice. One needs to have a heartfelt aim to overcome clinging to ego. If one's ego is stronger than that wish, years of practice won't make a difference. It just becomes false practice.
Dear Dharma friends,
Having just become aware of this discussion, let me suggest another way of approaching the problem of determining D.T. Suzuki's alleged "morality-free" Zen. That is, by looking at his own words and actions during the Asia-Pacific War (1937-45), certainly a time of great moral challenge with the lives of many millions of human beings hanging in the balance.
In doing this, let me recommend three recent related articles of my own, all of which are available online here: http://japanfocus.org/-Brian-Victoria These articles also contain references to additional related articles, some of them written in defense of Suzuki's alleged wartime "morality."
The challenge I leave readers is to point out when, and how often, Suzuki referred to the first precept that all Buddhists, lay and cleric, pledge to abide by, i.e., to not kill, in his wartime writings?
Let's point out the bad, unfashionable, crazy but hey it's OK they are exhibiting 'crazy wisdom', etc . . .
That will keep us on a never ending cycle to nowhere . . . then let us examine our integrity, morality, compassion, honesty, discernment etc.
In samsara or nirvana it is up to us be the moon not the finger pointer. Shine on. :wave: .
Indeed :-/ .
@AldrisTorvalds mentions the 'natural and organic' ahimsa that comes quickest for our personal loves (family and friends). With the (statistically) rare psychopath/sociopath making hash of natural ahimsa aside . . . it looks to me like wherever the perceived line demarcating the gulf between us and them is where 'natural and organic' ahimsa doesn't happen.
Someone may have already said this, I haven't read after this post . . . it seems logical that the ahimsa would include everything without exception if the perceiver made no distinction between 'us' and 'them', don't you think? Ahimsa would flow naturally like water through the least resistant grounds, no need to 'encourage' it, the conditions for it to flow easily are there.
Yes that was exactly my thinking. The only way to extend our natural compassion toward everyone is to stop differentiating between self and other, and Buddhism speaks of this in spades!