Who is to blame?

mynameisuntz

It's interesting because I know many within Buddhism take a cause/effect, determinism, conditional will, etc. approach to how we come to be: the actions we make, our behaviors, our thoughts, etc. That is, pure free will does not exist within Buddhism from my understanding.

I heard a clip of Allen Watts talking recently, however, and he was really condoning the concept of personal responsibility. That is, when the question of "who is to blame?" is asked, you place the blame on the individual. Otherwise you are tracing the blame from the person's parents, and their parents, and their parents, and so on and so forth.

How is this view compatible with the concept of "will" or determinism in Buddhism? Regarding criminals as an example: aren't the parents of many violent criminals worthy of some blame? Statistically speaking, there is a clear trend among more violent criminals regarding the childhood they were given and the household they lived in for their lives. So, do we place all the blame on them? Or does their environment receive some of the blame too?

RebeccaS

What good is trying to place the blame anywhere? What for?

vinlyn

Rebecca, do you see placing "blame" and placing "responsibility" as the same?

RebeccaS

No, I don't.

mynameisuntz

RebeccaS said:

What good is trying to place the blame anywhere? What for?

I don't see blame necessarily as condemnation so much as asking, "what is the reason behind this occurrence, and how is it prevented in the future?"

Not so much wagging my finger and saying how disappointed I am, hehe.

taiyaki

The mind is the creator of both samsara and nirvana. End proliferation of perception and one ends the world.

But who is an incorrect question because it assumes an agent. It is better to ask what conditions give rise to this situation of samsara or dualistic vision.

And in fact everything is to blame, including society and the individual. But that is superficial because in Buddhism everything is an illusion. Thus we must deconstruct how we make this illusion into a solid fixed reality. Through meditation and insight practice we break down the solidity and come to realize the illusion and how it is constructed.

There is no agent or doer, there is only a casual process of doing. Play with the conditions and you get different results, without a doer.

Some thoughts for you.

mynameisuntz

taiyaki said:

The mind is the creator of both samsara and nirvana. End proliferation of perception and one ends the world.

But who is an incorrect question because it assumes an agent. It is better to ask what conditions give rise to this situation of samsara or dualistic vision.

And in fact everything is to blame, including society and the individual. But that is superficial because in Buddhism everything is an illusion. Thus we must deconstruct how we make this illusion into a solid fixed reality. Through meditation and insight practice we break down the solidity and come to realize the illusion and how it is constructed.

There is no agent or doer, there is only a casual process of doing. Play with the conditions and you get different results, without a doer.

Some thoughts for you.

When you see in the news that someone killed another person - what do you think exactly? I feel most people in this day and age (aka, not Buddhists, hah) would blame the individual because he/she is personally responsible for those actions.

What do you think when you hear of such events?

robot

mynameisuntz said:

taiyaki said:

The mind is the creator of both samsara and nirvana. End proliferation of perception and one ends the world.

But who is an incorrect question because it assumes an agent. It is better to ask what conditions give rise to this situation of samsara or dualistic vision.

And in fact everything is to blame, including society and the individual. But that is superficial because in Buddhism everything is an illusion. Thus we must deconstruct how we make this illusion into a solid fixed reality. Through meditation and insight practice we break down the solidity and come to realize the illusion and how it is constructed.

There is no agent or doer, there is only a casual process of doing. Play with the conditions and you get different results, without a doer.

Some thoughts for you.

When you see in the news that someone killed another person - what do you think exactly? I feel most people in this day and age (aka, not Buddhists, hah) would blame the individual because he/she is personally responsible for those actions.

What do you think when you hear of such events?

I would generally think " let's see what courts decide". Is the accused mentally fit to stand trial?
When the evidence is presented a person can be found to be not criminally responsible for his actions. In which case he may be committed for treatment.

taiyaki

Well we can view it from many different ways. We can view it as the individual doing an action that is horrible. We can place the blame totally on the individual this presupposes free will and choice. Or we can blame the society and culture and upbringing, etc. Or we can view a bit of both.

See its all empty in that sense because its all views.

So really use the view that suits you the best to justify what that person did. Or let the world and conditioning choose for you. Ultimately you will interpret as how you want to interpret it as. There is no objective reasoning other than the one you give it.

So for instance if someone killed another person, I would probably think about anger and how that individual was wielded by anger. And since that individual didn't have the resources and avenues for expressing that anger they killed another person as an expression. Pretty messed up. So that makes me think about how I should work on my anger and work on practice so that one day I can teach meditation to folks so that they can manage their anger and have more creative solutions for emotions, negativity, etc.

RebeccaS

I don't think taking personal responsibility negates the influence of environmental factors.

But we have to remember that negative childhood environments don't affect all children in the same way. There was a study done on broken families, and there was this particular story from t that I remember... Two boys with a criminal father and a mother who was nowhere to be found... One of the boys became a criminal and the other became an upstanding citizen. Same childhood environment, two completely different outcomes.

Then there are the stories we hear every day of people who had it rough, but really made something of themselves.

Whatever the difference is between the people who make it and the people who don't... That's the key. If we can nail the thing that makes them different, we nail criminality.

But I think the act of taking personal responsibility is very different to trying to find where responsibility lies for someone else. I don't think it's the same thing because the variables (subjective and objective) are so different.

pegembara

No one is to blame. Even though no one is to blame does not mean no action should/can be taken. Things happen due to multiple causes and conditions. The past conditions the present and the present conditions the future.

Everything is changing and nothing is permanently fixed. Impermanence allows one to change course. If things were permanent no change is possible - there is no escape from samsara.

Blaming is resisting what is. It is saying this should not have happened- but however one wishes- it could not have happened any other way. It is what it is!

lobster

I like to blame everyone, especially me.
The Buddha is innocent, what sort of excuse is that?
Responsibility, the idea that we can make a difference, a ripple is far more worthy than ascribing causes for karma. Sounds to me as useful as reverse engineered astrology.

Who is to blame for not generating less blame and more good karma for everyone?
Me for one. :vimp:

driedleaf

Nobody is to blame because we are all the same beings in samsara. But everyone is welcome to blame themselves for blameful actions that increase suffering instead of helping to reduce it.

DairyLama

RebeccaS said:

But we have to remember that negative childhood environments don't affect all children in the same way.

Yes, it's the old nature v. nurture argument. Though it does seem that there is a cycle of deprivation, ie poor parenting often leads to poor parenting in the next generation.