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.
No self........ But do you believe in MORALLY right and wrong???
"Is the 8FP only subjectively true" Yes-except maybe Right View. Dukkha, annata and anicca, I would coconsider...
This reminds me of Maimonides' consideration of the Adam/eve/apple mythos. Prior to the apple, he said, there was truth and false. The apple brought good and bad, which are political/social interpretations. Said differently, there is truth to the patterns of nature... it is only our views/interpretations which support the appearance of subjectivity.
With warmth, Matt
So what do we do? The best Truth I have come up with is what's in front of me, to view it with bare attention. The subjectivity drops away. My child is crying I embrace them, someone is hungry I give them food. This for me, is the Absolute, this is truth, everything else is just thinking. All the best, Todd
"Is the 8FP only subjectively true" Yes-except maybe Right View. Dukkha, annata and anicca, I would coconsider...
This reminds me of Maimonides' consideration of the Adam/eve/apple mythos. Prior to the apple, he said, there was truth and false. The apple brought good and bad, which are political/social interpretations. Said differently, there is truth to the patterns of nature... it is only our views/interpretations which support the appearance of subjectivity.
With warmth, Matt
So what do we do? The best Truth I have come up with is what's in front of me, to view it with bare attention. The subjectivity drops away. My child is crying I embrace them, someone is hungry I give them food. This for me, is the Absolute, this is truth, everything else is just thinking. All the best, Todd
I think the problem with anti-intellectualism is that it's not well thought out.
But seriously, the problems and moral dilemmas in life are often best served with at least a bit of thought.
So what do we do? The best Truth I have come up with is what's in front of me, to view it with bare attention. The subjectivity drops away. My child is crying I embrace them, someone is hungry I give them food. This for me, is the Absolute, this is truth, everything else is just thinking. All the best, Todd
Well said! It doesn't occur to you to decide if your child's crying is good or bad, justice or injustice... you're naturally moved to embrace and nourish. When Stalin's actions appear as a child crying, the truth is there with us.
"Is the 8FP only subjectively true" Yes-except maybe Right View. Dukkha, annata and anicca, I would coconsider...
This reminds me of Maimonides' consideration of the Adam/eve/apple mythos. Prior to the apple, he said, there was truth and false. The apple brought good and bad, which are political/social interpretations. Said differently, there is truth to the patterns of nature... it is only our views/interpretations which support the appearance of subjectivity.
With warmth, Matt
So what do we do? The best Truth I have come up with is what's in front of me, to view it with bare attention. The subjectivity drops away. My child is crying I embrace them, someone is hungry I give them food. This for me, is the Absolute, this is truth, everything else is just thinking. All the best, Todd
I think the problem with anti-intellectualism is that it's not well thought out.
But seriously, the problems and moral dilemmas in life are often best served with at least a bit of thought.
My problem is I will tend to overthink it, hence our discussion. After all of our ruminations, thinking and discussing what are we left with? It's like we are driving in a car, the world is flashing by us. We can recall the bridge we just went over, or the deer at the side of the road, we can even look straight ahead and it has gone by. There is really no moment we can hold-it's so insubstantial, every bit of it. All I can do is react to what is in front of me knowing that my reactions will affect me and everyone else. This is the ground I have reached. All the best to you, Todd
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Is speeding in your car morally wrong-No it's not. Someone creates an arbitrary number and says if you go over it that it is wrong? What may be illegal is not necessarily wrong and what may be legal is not necessarily right. The posted speed limit is 5 MPH, if you exceed it your speeding. That's MORALLY wrong?
It is hardly arbitrary. There are reasons why a certain speed is posted as a limit in certain areas. Some situations call or greater awareness. Speeding near a school for example doesn't allow for enough reaction time.
It isn't hard to see how putting lives at stake for ones own convenience would be morally wrong.
Is speeding in your car morally wrong-No it's not. Someone creates an arbitrary number and says if you go over it that it is wrong? What may be illegal is not necessarily wrong and what may be legal is not necessarily right. The posted speed limit is 5 MPH, if you exceed it your speeding. That's MORALLY wrong?
It is hardly arbitrary. There are reasons why a certain speed is posted as a limit in certain areas. Some situations call or greater awareness. Speeding near a school for example doesn't allow for enough reaction time.
It isn't hard to see how putting lives at stake for ones own convenience would be morally wrong.
It's useful and maybe helpful but is the difference between going 55 or 65 mph a moral question? In a school zone it's 25 mph right? Why not 15 or 10 mph wouldn't that be more "moral" One could make the case that driving is immoral, you may kill someone. That's why I think it's arbitrary. All the best, Todd
It's more important to look at our state of mind while driving. Are we driving with a state of mind that lacks compassion, thinking I only care about getting to where I want to go as quickly as possible and I don't care if others are put in danger by my driving. Or are we driving with a state of mind that is full of compassion, thinking I will drive mindfully and carefully so as to avoid causing harm to others.
so before you answer, remember there is no abiding self, and then does that change your answer in some way! ask yourself the question; "do you believe in morally right and wrong even though there is no self anyway?
I think there is good historical evidence to suggest that the Nazis believed themselves to be moral. Some of them, also, might have believed in a soul, others not. I think the Nazis were also of the disposition that reason doesn't require us to be moral. Reason, itself, is a new kind of morality. What is reasonable for me or my party, is morally right.
Can morality deceive us? I think it can. But reason can, too, which easily turns into the evil of ideology.
Right now I am more interested in whether or not we share a collective conscience that goes beyond any individual or group. I am beginning to conclude that we do not, especially, after the Holocaust.
It's useful and maybe helpful but is the difference between going 55 or 65 mph a moral question? In a school zone it's 25 mph right? Why not 15 or 10 mph wouldn't that be more "moral" One could make the case that driving is immoral, you may kill someone. That's why I think it's arbitrary. All the best, Todd
We could investigate the reasons! Arbitrary is just another fabrication we apply to phenomena unnecessarily. Average reaction time, plus average stopping distance per mph, etc. Is the speed limit carefully considered? I have no idea, but same could be said of the vinaya, where some rules are not well understood by my mind, yet there is confidence that there are reasons for the "rules". They might be unnecessary for everyone, but provide guidance for the path.
Morality is based on the clarity of awareness. I can perceive that angry words will harm my family. "Karma" dependently arises with my awareness of mind. Without awareness there could not be any karma. There would still be cause and effect, but karma has to do with the mind and intentions. For example we could accidentally say something that hurts another (cause and effect). But the intention may not have been there and the effect on the mind is based on how awareness becomes more clear and skillful.
I suppose there could be an invisible arbitrary set of rules that say we get a lower rebirth if we drink pickle juice. But that is distinct from the karma seen from our own awareness. I might think factory farming is not immoral. I will only change my mind when I see the clear picture of how it is wrong and that is through perceiving the hurt and dukkha that factory farming creates.
Karma is related to intention. So myself I drink about 10 beers in a week. I have made a strong intention for it not to increase. That intention has born out karma and I am able to limit myself because it is my true wish not to let my body be intoxicated frequently. I can also have an intention to help people and animals. If I make a strong wish and intention my dhamarma/awareness/benevolent mandala will also be strong. With weak intentions my actions will be weak and I will flounder. Breakinig your promises to yourself can cause and exercise or diet routine to end. And the reason is that the conditions created by the intention fall apart once the strong intention falls apart.
Imagine two small children. One pushes the other down and pulls him across the ground as bullying. The teacher has harsh words with the pully and says "how would you feel?" If the bully only thinks "I shouldn't do that because the teacher will be mad at me" he will not have had the more powerful intention "do no harm" or the golden rule.
The problem then is a lack of clarity to see how to be skillful. Good karma follows clarity on what is benefitial and 'appropriate'. It gets very fine and precise. Sometimes elaborate but usually in my experience involves being more simple.
so before you answer, remember there is no abiding self, and then does that change your answer in some way! ask yourself the question; "do you believe in morally right and wrong even though there is no self anyway?
I think there is good historical evidence to suggest that the Nazis believed themselves to be moral. Some of them, also, might have believed in a soul, others not. I think the Nazis were also of the disposition that reason doesn't require us to be moral. Reason, itself, is a new kind of morality. What is reasonable for me or my party, is morally right.
Can morality deceive us? I think it can. But reason can, too, which easily turns into the evil of ideology.
Right now I am more interested in whether or not we share a collective conscience that goes beyond any individual or group. I am beginning to conclude that we do not, especially, after the Holocaust.
I think it would be interesting to change your post just slightly and replace the word with morality with the word intent.
If I make a strong wish and intention my dhamarma/awareness/benevolent mandala will also be strong. With weak intentions my actions will be weak and I will flounder. Breakinig your promises to yourself can cause and exercise or diet routine to end. And the reason is that the conditions created by the intention fall apart once the strong intention falls apart.
Imagine two small children. One pushes the other down and pulls him across the ground as bullying. The teacher has harsh words with the pully and says "how would you feel?" If the bully only thinks "I shouldn't do that because the teacher will be mad at me" he will not have had the more powerful intention "do no harm" or the golden rule.
The problem then is a lack of clarity to see how to be skillful. Good karma follows clarity on what is benefitial and 'appropriate'. It gets very fine and precise. Sometimes elaborate but usually in my experience involves being more simple.
Your words were met by a bewilderment in my mind, and I was wondering if you could explain where does the strength for the intention arise? Said differently, it seems to me that as we strengthen our resolve against future decisions, we are strengthening our ego. I've been operating from an intention to see clearer and let go, and find that drinking (or almost all unskillful actions) is a non-issue because I drank with clarity once and it never seemed like something I would wish to repeat.
This is intended as nameste. I have a friend who describes his intention such as strong visualization of manifestation, and steadfast commitment to that vision. It comes across to me as egoic, because how can we sit peacefully in the present moment with the echoes of such strongly formed mental fabrications? Said differently, doesn't it seems like a 10 beers rule would inhibit your ability to have less? As the mind interprets the beer/not beer moment, doesn't it compare to the vision ("this is only beer 4 this week, therefore it is skillful as it is in alignment with my vision") instead of noticing what is really there?
I have been hesitant about intentionally generating visions, feeling that they are a hindrance... it seems like my mind generates more than enough with out me adding to the chaos. Instead, it seems better to let go and allow our clear seeing to generate clear acting. That way we don't have to worry... we see, we do, we learn, keep moving etc.
Does that make sense? Am I misreading or deluded about your side? It is as likely as anything, but I find it curious!
@aMatt, No you strengthen the refuge and practice. You become increasingly more and more aware what intentions are harming and these are the ego mandala. The intention is to not have more than 10, not exactly 10. To be more precise I buy groceries once a week and I buy 6 beers. When I drink them they are gone. Karma has to do with intentions. If I have a strong desire to learn guitar that intention will make it easier to overcome obstacles. If we don't have a strong commitment to awaken it won't happen on its own.
The idea is not to fabricate for an intention. It is just realizing (as a clarity not a formation) what we truly wish for. Suffering will happen as a goad to make clearer and clearer intentions. You have confidence in the goodness of your heart. The intention to enlighten is part of the Bodhisattva path and is called aspirational Bodhicitta. But from the perspective of the prajnaparamita relative and aspirational Bodhicitta are not real they are conditioned which is why it has to do with karma. Ultimate Bodhicitta corresponds to the qualities of awareness and our hearts (as an access point to intuition of Bodhicitta).
The drinking example is to show that you can be firm in your resolve to not hurt your practice. For me 10 is a compromise between a totally clear mind and losing my great appreciation for fine beers that I have cultivated. There is a spectrum from an ascetic or monk to other lay persons. I have not taken the fifth precept either formally or in my heart.
I think the key puzzle for you is that intention is not a fabrication. The name for intentions also is like a blessing. They are called pranadhanas. The last section of the Avatamsaka suttra is an expertly laid out intention that we can recite and align with in our practice. It is called the Samantabadracharya.
Thank you for the effort, it is highly resonant! It seems we are actually aligned in our efforts, and were using different words. Well struck, though, as I see the attachment to my friend's view fueled the projection into your words... a subtle fear that intention without fabrication leads to foundering. Funny and delightful, as I reread the words of the initial post, they no longer appear the same or bewilder at all. Namaste!
Funny minds!
With warmth, Matt
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Is speeding in your car morally wrong-No it's not. Someone creates an arbitrary number and says if you go over it that it is wrong? What may be illegal is not necessarily wrong and what may be legal is not necessarily right. The posted speed limit is 5 MPH, if you exceed it your speeding. That's MORALLY wrong?
It is hardly arbitrary. There are reasons why a certain speed is posted as a limit in certain areas. Some situations call or greater awareness. Speeding near a school for example doesn't allow for enough reaction time.
It isn't hard to see how putting lives at stake for ones own convenience would be morally wrong.
It's useful and maybe helpful but is the difference between going 55 or 65 mph a moral question? In a school zone it's 25 mph right? Why not 15 or 10 mph wouldn't that be more "moral" One could make the case that driving is immoral, you may kill someone. That's why I think it's arbitrary. All the best, Todd
You do have a point there but where would the line be drawn? I don't actually drive myself but may once electric cars are more mainstream.
If people are mindful, there should be nobody being hit by any cars. Posting a limit may seem arbitrary but it helps keep us grounded.
Maybe that could be a bad example but let's look at the extreme scenario and ask whether driving drunk is morally wrong. There's no way around this one. It is a deliberate act which places ones self and others in danger for convenience and/or sloth.
Comments
All the best,
Todd
But seriously, the problems and moral dilemmas in life are often best served with at least a bit of thought.
All the best to you,
Todd
It isn't hard to see how putting lives at stake for ones own convenience would be morally wrong.
All the best,
Todd
Can morality deceive us? I think it can. But reason can, too, which easily turns into the evil of ideology.
Right now I am more interested in whether or not we share a collective conscience that goes beyond any individual or group. I am beginning to conclude that we do not, especially, after the Holocaust.
With warmth,
Matt
I suppose there could be an invisible arbitrary set of rules that say we get a lower rebirth if we drink pickle juice. But that is distinct from the karma seen from our own awareness. I might think factory farming is not immoral. I will only change my mind when I see the clear picture of how it is wrong and that is through perceiving the hurt and dukkha that factory farming creates.
Karma is related to intention. So myself I drink about 10 beers in a week. I have made a strong intention for it not to increase. That intention has born out karma and I am able to limit myself because it is my true wish not to let my body be intoxicated frequently. I can also have an intention to help people and animals. If I make a strong wish and intention my dhamarma/awareness/benevolent mandala will also be strong. With weak intentions my actions will be weak and I will flounder. Breakinig your promises to yourself can cause and exercise or diet routine to end. And the reason is that the conditions created by the intention fall apart once the strong intention falls apart.
Imagine two small children. One pushes the other down and pulls him across the ground as bullying. The teacher has harsh words with the pully and says "how would you feel?" If the bully only thinks "I shouldn't do that because the teacher will be mad at me" he will not have had the more powerful intention "do no harm" or the golden rule.
The problem then is a lack of clarity to see how to be skillful. Good karma follows clarity on what is benefitial and 'appropriate'. It gets very fine and precise. Sometimes elaborate but usually in my experience involves being more simple.
Your words were met by a bewilderment in my mind, and I was wondering if you could explain where does the strength for the intention arise? Said differently, it seems to me that as we strengthen our resolve against future decisions, we are strengthening our ego. I've been operating from an intention to see clearer and let go, and find that drinking (or almost all unskillful actions) is a non-issue because I drank with clarity once and it never seemed like something I would wish to repeat.
This is intended as nameste. I have a friend who describes his intention such as strong visualization of manifestation, and steadfast commitment to that vision. It comes across to me as egoic, because how can we sit peacefully in the present moment with the echoes of such strongly formed mental fabrications? Said differently, doesn't it seems like a 10 beers rule would inhibit your ability to have less? As the mind interprets the beer/not beer moment, doesn't it compare to the vision ("this is only beer 4 this week, therefore it is skillful as it is in alignment with my vision") instead of noticing what is really there?
I have been hesitant about intentionally generating visions, feeling that they are a hindrance... it seems like my mind generates more than enough with out me adding to the chaos. Instead, it seems better to let go and allow our clear seeing to generate clear acting. That way we don't have to worry... we see, we do, we learn, keep moving etc.
Does that make sense? Am I misreading or deluded about your side? It is as likely as anything, but I find it curious!
With warmth,
Matt
The idea is not to fabricate for an intention. It is just realizing (as a clarity not a formation) what we truly wish for. Suffering will happen as a goad to make clearer and clearer intentions. You have confidence in the goodness of your heart. The intention to enlighten is part of the Bodhisattva path and is called aspirational Bodhicitta. But from the perspective of the prajnaparamita relative and aspirational Bodhicitta are not real they are conditioned which is why it has to do with karma. Ultimate Bodhicitta corresponds to the qualities of awareness and our hearts (as an access point to intuition of Bodhicitta).
The drinking example is to show that you can be firm in your resolve to not hurt your practice. For me 10 is a compromise between a totally clear mind and losing my great appreciation for fine beers that I have cultivated. There is a spectrum from an ascetic or monk to other lay persons. I have not taken the fifth precept either formally or in my heart.
I think the key puzzle for you is that intention is not a fabrication. The name for intentions also is like a blessing. They are called pranadhanas. The last section of the Avatamsaka suttra is an expertly laid out intention that we can recite and align with in our practice. It is called the Samantabadracharya.
Thank you for the effort, it is highly resonant! It seems we are actually aligned in our efforts, and were using different words. Well struck, though, as I see the attachment to my friend's view fueled the projection into your words... a subtle fear that intention without fabrication leads to foundering. Funny and delightful, as I reread the words of the initial post, they no longer appear the same or bewilder at all. Namaste!
Funny minds!
With warmth,
Matt
If people are mindful, there should be nobody being hit by any cars. Posting a limit may seem arbitrary but it helps keep us grounded.
Maybe that could be a bad example but let's look at the extreme scenario and ask whether driving drunk is morally wrong. There's no way around this one. It is a deliberate act which places ones self and others in danger for convenience and/or sloth.