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.
Reconciling morals
mynameisuntz
Explorer
Ever since really learning about Buddhism and attempting to apply its practice in my own life, I have struggled with the notion of morality. From my understanding, the Zen perspective (not as certain of others) does not really perceive a "right" and a "wrong" as it rejects such a dichotomy.
But when I hear of respectable monks such as Thich Nhat Hanh and his role in speaking out against the Vietnam War, which can arguably be seen as an act of protest, I wonder what drives this act? Is it not a call to do something "morally good?" Is it something else that drives such individuals to remove themselves from a stance of inaction, to one of action? How might this be identified? What is the motivation behind this?
Any thoughts on this? Thank you, all!
But when I hear of respectable monks such as Thich Nhat Hanh and his role in speaking out against the Vietnam War, which can arguably be seen as an act of protest, I wonder what drives this act? Is it not a call to do something "morally good?" Is it something else that drives such individuals to remove themselves from a stance of inaction, to one of action? How might this be identified? What is the motivation behind this?
Any thoughts on this? Thank you, all!
0
Comments
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/20421/morality-x-mind-with-no-preferences
You cannot advance to the hights of meditative bliss without the practice of livinga more beneficial life for yourself and others through performing skillful actions of thought, word, and deed.
- Buddhist ethics aren't like Christian ethics, they aren't rules given by a father figure that you have to obey just because.
- There is a big theme of ethics being related to practice-- if you're smashed drunk, you can't meditate.
- Some ethical rules follow from metaphysical realizations regarding impermanence, change, anatman, sunyata, and so on-- usually some variation on reframing our sense of self so that altruistic actions are just as desirable to us as selfish ones.
- Buddhism has the same idea as the Confucians that a good (enlightened) person will do the moral thing naturally, so the nit pickly lists of rules are a temporary thing until you are doing the right thing because that's what you'd do anyhow.
- Engaged Buddhism is something of a new thing. Historically renunciates were all about leaving society to form a new community, a sort of utopian vision. Someone has to pay for and permit this, so Buddhism in all countries had to have the support of the government-- to actually give it money and so on, or to explicitly allow it exist. So Buddhism institutionally didn't rock the boat much. When Buddhism arrives in a new country, it picks up some of these values of the time and place- so TNH is rather modern with respect to engagement.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19857/being-a-buddhist-doesn-t-mean-renouncing-social-engagement/p1
My experience was that with meditation practice, the precepts began to keep themselves ... that it was impossible to be peaceful WITHOUT keeping them. Morality was not so much something you ought to do because you'd get punished if you didn't, but rather something without which the understandings of meditation didn't make any well-rounded sense and a full understanding simply would not materialize. The importance of morality lay more in the fact that "it works" than in some other make-nice sense.
This is not to suggest that anyone can just run around doing any damned thing s/he pleases until the dime drops. As with all else, there is a phase of what might be called faking it -- following good rules because it's socially nicer to do so. With practice, unless I am mistaken, what was once goody-two-shoes virtue just evolves into what's obvious ... not fancy, just obvious.
There is no knowing from what grounding anyone makes a decision to speak or act out ... as for example speaking out against the Vietnam war. Is it an activist virtue schtick or is it because, as Shunryu Suzuki put it once, there are things "to do" and things 'not to do?"
There is simply no knowing another's grounding. But there is knowing your own -- finding your own grounding and then acting. You may be right. You may be wrong. OK ... but pay attention to and take responsibility for the action or words. In this way, a little at a time, a moral lifestyle will become less of a praiseworthy goal and more just par for the course.
Just some noodling.
If you can accept that...
Morality is the manifestation of compassion, love and wisdom. &
A lack of morality is the manifestation of greed, hate and delusion.
What would your question look like?
How can people be free to cultivate peace when they are being attacked and savaged by outside forces? Is there any other recourse than to speak out against the perpetrators of violence, even if they be thousands of miles removed from the scene that they are responsible for?
Excellent!
"No good/right or bad/wrong" in zen generally should be viewed in the context of attachment and non attachment. For example, "me" being alive is "good or right" and "me" dying is "bad or wrong" according to most everyone. If you don't make "me living" and "me dying" into some "good vs bad" thing, then living is ok and when it comes time to die, that's ok too.
There is a good zen story about this: Some other stuff from the Platform Sutra. And commentary on that by Master Hsuan Hua. No right or wrong really just mean "without producing a defiling attachment".
Who or what is waging war on who or what? Compassion is a noun. It names a moral quality.
Mettha
As for the "warlike" attribute, I meant that facetiously in response to a Know-it-all comment above.
je comprends maintenant...
Mettha
To perform skillful acts,
To purify the mind,
This is the teaching of the awakened ones.”
dhammapada 183
Yes Indeed.
On the whole . . .
The kindness thing with demons is often to chop off their heads.
Many of us are battling our own and life's demons. If you are lotus born and having a wonderful life . . . just remember it won't last . . . (was that a wikid reminder?)
The important thing is to leave extreme morality to the uniformed branch (the sangha). Yes they are there to inspire us in extremes of practice, precepts, drop dead dharma knowledge and other extremes that a cloistered existence allows. They have their dilemmas too.
Should we be as kind as possible? Yes.
As we move through the hindrances and develop wisdom, we begin to understand when to be tough with the useless and often powerful delusions in our being and this gives us insight into others. Because the truth is the person we harm most often and the most . . . is . . . [dramatic drum-roll] . . . ourselves . . .
Be Kind. Start with yourself.
Well, the first thing we must admit as people who practice Zen, maybe our understanding and even the teaching might be lacking. Zen as passed to us from the main sects of Japan certainly can be and is criticized for stressing intention and mindfulness over moral rules. But then, no practice can be totally separated from the culture and Zen developed in an extreme militant society. It's no wonder morality ended up being defined as "mindless action without intention is above morality" by the end of this period.
But that was then and this is now. Does morality have to be built on dividing the people and their actions into good or evil, right or wrong, etc? Non-duality remains a powerful teaching but unless we can reconcile that and retain the necessary judgement for moral behavior, then perhaps it should be rethought.
How about, saying the world and reality cannot be crammed into two opposite boxes is not the same as saying the two extremes do not exist. It's just that most of reality is somewhere between and once we assign a label on something, then we want to deal with the label instead of the reality.
But then, my own thinking on this subject is prehaps not fully enlightened. While I agree with the sutras that duality is Samsara, at the same time there is good and there is evil in the world. I don't know how to reconcile the two. Perhaps wiser men than me have found a way.
A part of us is in need of healing... Common sense calls to action the logic of compassion.
Common sense is not so commonly found. Either in ourselves or others. Few people need to know or be told what is the right thing to do.
They quite often want unkind, selfish, useless behaviour encouraged or endorsed.
Part of growing up is realising our infantile habits and how through our heedless ignoring they have become deeply entrenched.
This is why it is so important to find a teacher, preferably within ourselves.
Morality is about honesty and integrity.
Are we hypocrites? Most certainly but can we perceive the subtlety of our delusions? Maybe that takes practice . . .
As human beings we want our weaknesses admired as part of our character. We all have weaknesses but also and in a real sense, we have sila/morality as a common being.