Is it still a virtue...
Pye
Explorer
I often hear people talk about virtues or how virtuous someone is and would feel ashamed that I was not as strong or as selfless as these virtuous people. When I paid closer attention, I noticed that there were, of course, very genuine cases and others that seemed a bit "off".
I find Buddhists to be very thoughtful and earnest, so my question to you is-
Is an action still virtuous if it doesn't require some sacrifice or real effort on the part of the person performing the virtuous act? If the act involves people you like or who invoke sympathy, if the act makes you look good and raises your standing in the community, if you gain something for yourself other than the pleasure and positive kamma from doing good, does it still qualify as virtuous?
I understand it is a broad term that covers common courtesies and basic good/moral behaviour, but it seems that some are using it more for PR than for the betterment of society. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear or not, but I always admired those who did the right thing when they stood to lose or it was hard. They didn't seem in it for their own benefit and didn't seek accolades and awards.
Just a random thought I put out here - I am interested in your thoughts on the subject.
Comments
I think it depends a lot on various things. Often times simply doing something can elevate your status, even if that was not your intention upon doing whatever the act was. If an act has unintended consequences like that, does it cease being a virtuous act? What if you truly go into something with a good intention and it has a bad result anyhow? Someone else can respond badly to our good intention based actions. That doesn't make the act non-virtuous though.
I don't think the results alone determine whether an act (or the person performing it) was virtuous or not. Some will appear to do something without seeking reward, but still realize they will get a reward and make it out to be virtuous when it was not. I think the only thing that matters, is what you believe. If you do something good/virtuous hoping for recognition or reward, then that is you and your obstacles. It has nothing to do with the act itself or the recipient of that act. If I win the lottery and donate 100% of the winnings, only I know my true intention. If I do it because I want recognition and a pat on the back, it doesn't reduce the impact that the donation will have on someone else's life. It only impacts me to realize my intention. Intentions affect us and our karma and our practice. They don't necessarily impact the results of your actions.
We accumulate karma whether we do something supremely good, or horrifically bad.
Offhand, I'd say if you have a choice whether or not to help someone, and chose to help, then it's a virtuous action. It's the act of making the choice that makes a difference. That choice indicates that you are actually thinking about someone other than yourself.
And there are people who will go out of their way to not help someone, or even hurt someone simply out of spite. So it's not that helping might be the easier path. It rarely is, for that matter.
Beyond that, I suppose we can talk about the difference in someone who donates money to build a hospital but insists on their name being on the building, versus someone who simply donates because they want to help sick people. There's a famous story about Bodhidharma that when he was summoned before the Emperor of China, and asked how much good Merit the Emperor had accumulated for building all those temples and such, the old crusty Bodhidharma said, "No merit at all!"
I can't speak for Buddhists in general, just for me.
About 3 months ago, I gave a co-worker my old Jetta. It had wiring issues (like they all do) but the engine was in great shape, new tires, cool rims, body in good shape, yadda yadda. In the meantime I'd bought a little Hyundai with very little fancy wiring
This gal I worked with had her family car go to the junk yard, and I offered the Jetta to her, if her husband knew how to work on wiring. The expense of having it done in the shop was exactly what I pain for the car in the first place (used). She spoke to her husband and a week or so later, with the Jetta's alarm going off every time you turn on the ignition, off they herked and jerked to their place. I saw the car a week ago, polished, rims gleaming, the kids bouncing in the back seat on my way to work.
Lots and lots of stuff went through my head when I just gave it to them. A particular co-worker overheard me discuss it with the recipient and was shocked and kind of squinted at me, 'you just gave her the car?' It was an accusation, in all fairness. Then she changed her facial expression artificially and said "now that was very niiiiice of you."
I felt FANTASTIC about giving them the car!! For a variety of reasons! It even had a great stereo I'd tried to give to one of my kids, who didn't want it. I feel absolutely RIGHT about giving them the car. I don't get into virtue for virtue's sake, but after the co-worker's little interchange I got a whiff of a different feeling floating in mind . . . still not sure what it is, but I don't want to touch it!
Was it a sacrifice, did I deny myself something I could have had? Obviously, if I'd junked the car I could have gotten 5 or 6 hundred dollars. At another time in my life I'd have junked that car in a hot second. As it was, it was blocking my driveway and getting covered with mold (I live in the Pacific NW). I do feel a goodness and gladness in my heart for the gift of a car to folks who couldn't just go out and get a new one like I can.
I get some of the 'sacrifice' stuff and do feel it in other ways, other 'givings' in my life.
But is a virtuous gift giving ONLY virtuous if it causes me to suffer for the taking?
That to me is pure ego. Ego can get all puffed up and beat it's chest and display after a 'virtuous' gift giving, or it can go the other way, sneakily shivering 'without' while making sure just as many people know as the chest beater.
I don't go around giving high priced items to people in need, it was an opportunity, it just came up. That's the only way I'm gonna do it, except when I sent money to this or that animal charity or the guy/gal on the streetcorner where I drive by on my way to work.
I feel good about it NOW. I don't have the right attention span to worry about 'later'. I have in all honesty wondered if giving a car to someone causes a certain kind of karma, but again, I don't go too far into it. I'm also very selfish, and probably miss a hundred opportunities a week because I'm so self-preoccupied. It all gets too complicated for me.
Actions generally fall into three categories, virtuous, neutral and harmful.
In determining where an action falls intent is considered of primary importance but the action itself matters as well.
Actions are normally a complex mix of virtuous, neutral and negative emotions so its hard to put a sharp demarcation line for an individual action saying this one is good and this one is bad.
I could be wrong, but my sense is that an action loses some of its luster the moment it is called a "virtue."
virtue is defined as that which liberates from craving, deluision, and anger.
Hamsaka- Thank you for sharing your story. It's a good feeling, knowing that you helped someone and you could see, by the appearance of the car, that they appreciate your generous gift. You're co-worker sounded jealous or resentful- not your problem. We give things away, too, because there's always someone in need.
I don't think I posed my question well. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that some people are very good and are admired by others in the community, but they can turn around and be vindictive and harm someone they don't like. The bad they do is excused or even supported because they are accepted and admired.
I guess my concern, on the subject, is how this affects society. It's becoming more evident that acceptance of negative behaviour has coarsened and hardened people to the suffering of others. The concept of virtues, in some cases, is becoming conditional or diminished. Not sure if I'm describing it properly.
I do appreciate everyone's responses - good food for thought!
I do see your point.
What was once just being a decent person has been transformed into a commodity. Nothing wrong with people being recognised for their good works to spread the word- but I've observed too many people who get involved for their own gain. Plus it allows some to hide their darker nature behind that of a do-gooder. I've seen a few of these and I'm amazed! And I keep my distance!
Well said. Other points to consider:
If you are an open and kind person, what virtue is there in being a bird that sings the song it knows? In other words we have the idea of making more or special effort as others mentioned. Virtue is not something done for gain or preening. @Hamsaka is not trying to impress us with virtue but giving an experiential example.
In a sense the joy of virtuous behaviour is its own reward. We are not generous because of the potential karmic reaping but because generosity makes us generous. Kindness makes us kind. Compassion makes us compassionate and so on.
Hypocrisy is the hardening around bad traits masked by 'show behaviour'. So real virtue is about integrity. A hypocrite displays. A spiritually virtuous person is more likely to hide their inner nature. This really is a result of humility.
@Jeffrey has described action or practice that changes our usual song. In a sense we are all hypocrites/deluded to a lesser or greater degree. Our real nature, free of obscuring traits, is virtuous . . .Why . . . we could almost be Buddhas . . .
@lobster said
"If you are an open and kind person, what virtue is there in being a bird that sings the song it knows?
Quote of the week.
I think virtues is the thread that ties virtuous people together, but to practice virtues for the sole purpose of self gain...well that's not seeing the big picture, and thus not fully gaining the greater benefit of virtues.
Admiration is basically worthless. One can be admired for really foul behavior, depending on who's doing the admiring. I know we have some deep instinctual programming alerting us to how beneficial it is to be admired (as opposed to the alternative), and it is lovely to have warm fuzzies all around us, especially considering the alternative
I think there's a lot of instinctual stuff that jerks us around by our shorthairs until we identify it (and then for quite some time after), and one of those unquestioned things is craving admiration.
To me, this underscores how worthless admiration is as something to crave. That 'undeserving' people somehow get tons of admiration is inevitable.
Admiration is not an indicator of virtue at all. Perhaps it was designed to be that way, if evolutionary psychology has it right. We elevate such a person and emulate them, thus bring greater success to our offspring's survival, or something like that. But we elevate and emulate all kinds of disgustingly behaved people.
Society has been wrought with this illusion for always, I'm thinking. There will always be the tension between the seduction of 'coarseness' for all it's power and glory and . . . um, us truly defect-free types
. It's probably another one of those damned dualities where neither true virtue or false virtue would exist without the other.
Exactly so.
Part of the reason the sangha ideally is one of the three jewels is because it is the precept dependent enactment of realised virtue. Monks and nuns are not perfect, they are perfecting virtuous form.
If we parade our virtues, charity giving, kindness, compassion etc with the vice of pride and inflation, it is almost as if we are expecting payment or other rewards such as admiration or repute.
Vice and virtue is perhaps the wrong wording. Skilful and unskilled is more helpful.
Very skilled practitioners in Sufism are known as Malamatiyya or blameworthy. They basically hide their piety behind a veneer of ordinariness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamatiya
We can't do anything about society as a whole. Obviously, we can vote and do othersuch civil duties, which are important, but I mean on a more direct, immediately impactful level, there isn't a lot we can do as individuals. All we can do is observe it, investigate it, determine what part we can and/or should play in it, and then do it. We can help improve things in our little corner of the world, and then as time goes on, that little corner gets bigger.
Whenever I start questioning why people are the way they are, why society has to be this way, why can't people understand X instead...I remember this quote in one of Chogyam Trungpa's books (the book is compiled by Judith Leif so it's probably not a direct quote from him):
"In a dharmic environment, you feel free, but when you go back to everyday life, you are back in prison. The idea of dealing with such confused people and such a confused world is so unpleasant at first glance, you don't want anything to do with it. But at the same time, that is where you come from-you have to do something about it."
The quote reminds me to consider what I can truly do, and what I need to let go of. My time is better spent practicing more rather than worrying about society.
@lobster said: "If you are an open and kind person, what virtue is there in being a bird that sings the song it knows."
I'd like to make a pun with both comments and say that virtue does not sing its own song. I feel that virtue is in the eyes of the beholder. Other people can decide something we have just done is virtuous, but as soon as we tell ourselves "I have just done a virtuous action," the merit somehow vanishes.
Anyway, life is too short to stoop and reflect on other people's motivations behind their actions. I don't feel it is for us to judge or condone other people's behaviour, rather to see to our own garden and attend to our own karma ourselves.
And whatever the motivation behind someone else's action, if someone has benefitted from it and the world is a better place by it, it's perfectly fine with me.
I really don't see why..particularly if it describes the actions of another.
This fear of "better and best "and " virtue " and " more skilled " or "more advanced " is I think , very strange.
The Buddha never hesitated to describe things in that way.
He was no advocate of " tall poppy syndrome."
And a knee-jerk egalitarianism is found nowhere in his teachings.
His verbal currency was very much to do with 'good' and 'bad' actions...even 'wickedness' as well as virtue.
But he applied it to an examination of our own actions..not that of others.
I suspect that many modern Buddhists would find him outrageously judgemental.
@ citta -- Your virtue, as always, is commendable.
No mine isn't .
I am fully aware of my limitations....but I know people whose virtue is commendable. It happens.
No matter how inconvenient that is for those who would be levellers.
Incidentally I find straightforward aggression far more palatable than its passive cousin.
Wow- many well thought out responses with deep, philosophical thoughts on virtue.
I didn't mean for this tread to go too deep into the subject- it was just an idle thought on some observations that I've made recently. I thought I'd throw it out into General Banter to see what came up.
I try not to judge others because that can become a burdensome habit and, more importantly, could cause harm.
The thought cropped up after I witnessed an incident or two. Here's an example - A woman, who has great influence and advantage, posted pictures of her very nice home, several large outbuildings, land, man made pond, etc., and then commented- "I'm so grateful for all that I have!" I'm not going to go into the whole speech, but I have to admit I did snicker a bit. I'm ashamed about that- oh well, something that I need to work on more. My first thought after I had my chuckle was- "It's very easy to be grateful when you have so much." I also heard someone of wealthy means say that "money isn't everything" but was someone I knew who put a great deal of stock in status and material goods. I realize that we all can be unaware of our inconsistencies and wondered if it was all the same- the poor being grateful for what little they had to get them through another day and the more privileged expressing thanks for gaining yet more for their comfort. Of course the poor can be ungrateful and the rich grateful. A silly thought, maybe, but that's how my mind works. I probably should have used a better approach- virtue may not be the right term.
@citta -- As for example ...?