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.
@federica said:
I most certainly don't believe in God but neither do I see morality in purely subjective terms.
Morality is a social process and a personal one as well. We are conditioned and influenced into certain habits and views by our social environment. Morality is not so easily defined.
That was the moral relativism I was speaking of. It is morality existing differently within groups and individuals. Individuals do share their subjective conclusions as they are formed in childhood and by society. Their views of these concepts are not exactly same as they exist perspectively different accross indivuals but they are similar. They are still subjective and independently measured by each viewer.
Our minds are already luminous clear and unimpeded.
But they are covered with assumptions that distort our view.
If we remove the ignorance the awakened citta radiates love and skill and tenderness and all of the qualities to be moral. Morality is like rays and the wisdom is the sun. If the sun is shining clear there are always the limitless Buddha qualities such as love. And therefore if there isn't love shining that means that the wisdom is unseen.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited May 2014
@Grayman Moral relativism isn't simply the acknowledgment of "morality existing differently within groups and individuals" though, because that's a no-brainer. What it's really saying is that anyone's morality is just as good as anyone else's... a stance that virtually no one takes. Moral relativism is generally used as a criticism of any moral viewpoint that isn't imposed from an outside source (such as God). It denies that human societies can use Reason to come up with moral standards, or that anyone (or any society) can find fault in another's morality.
Humans can use "objective" standards, but those standards are always based on what we value (hence "subjective"). If we value life, happiness and well-being, we can objectively ascertain which actions are beneficial or harmful (maybe not perfectly, but we do have the ability to judge). Morality is where objective and subjective meet, but just like the Middle Way it's difficult for people to see what lay between the extremes!
@AldrisTorvalds so that is like existentialism for a society?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited May 2014
@Jeffrey I don't know, since I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that the subjective part of morality is what we choose to value (the "basis" of our morality). Someone said earlier (maybe you) that morality is about harm (certainly true of Buddhism's "ahimso"). In this case "harm" is the subjective part, because we don't have to say morality should be about that. The objective part would be in discerning what actions are harmful and which are beneficial. It's a mix of subjective/objective.
The part we get snagged on is determining what "morality" means. For instance if you think morality means following God's will, then human well-being takes a second seat to that. It's no wonder it's so difficult to advance civil rights, with not only prejudice but also not having everyone on the same page about making life better for humans!
@Straight_Man said:
Um, Grayman has implied (intentionally or not) that internally he is somewhat asocial. Thus, he sees sociality as subjective, and all subjectivity as an either/or to objectivity. Pure objectivity can be seen as fact only.
There is no fact. There is no true or false. There only exists what is most likely and what is plausible.
I can see were you think I am asocial. Likely you think I cannot conform to the rules of society thinking I believe them to be arbitrary and unbending to reason. There is a measure of truth to this but who am I to judge. I have compassion so if it brings those around me comfort to conform to their standards, however pointless it might seem to me, I do it and I do it respectively. They need their bonding and security that derives from such things.
He seems to be groping for a way to handle his own subjectivity and attempts at objectivity. Ok (and wise to do), but all definitions are socially made, Grayman. That seems to be what federica is saying.
Definitions are relative to society but are understood individually. Definitions have a base for understanding but even the most basic word like apple is hardly viewed the same as I envisioned a large red one while you may have seen a little green one. Abstract concepts differ even more greatly lacking anything solid and concrete in reality to keep them grounded.
Social environments vary from family to family. Thus they are subjective. I myself am somewhat asocial, with a father who was internally asocial somewhat, so I can somewhat empathize with those who are so.
You may need to help me understand the context in which you are using this word, asocial. I am slightly introverted in that I don't need a lot of companionship. My desire in others is more to be understood by them than about getting time and attention from them. You can say I am asocial but I do not avoid society to any degree. It is important to integrate and understand them and be compassionate to their needs.
The danger that lurks in considering self thought as either subjective or objective purely, Grayman, is to try to be judge and jury of yourself because it leads to being judge and jury of others if carried too far. Forums, all forums, are wary of arrogance.
That is a common occurrence but not defining of all individuals.
If you utilize the phrase judge with the connotation of being better than others on a whole it really makes no sense to my subjective belief system. People are more efficient in things than others but a person is not greater. I do come off as arrogant. I have strong opinions and I state them as facts falsely expecting others to do as I would and disregard the conclusions I make except in defining my reality and use the ideas concepts and information I might provide to come to thier own conclusions. I am working on changing the over sure way I phrase things but it has become habitual.
I have a mix of lots of vocabulary, but this place is not endowed with lots of folks that do have this.
If we are stating perspective and not judgments then... It is endowed with those who believe thinking is a burden because they leave thier emotions attached to most thoughts instead of leaving their emotions up for determination upon fully considering an outcome after much reasoning and careful consideration.
Grayman, look up monkey mind on the web. Some buddhists take the idea that this realm is of monkeys in essence, because man came from monkey like creatures here in past time. Buddha left this aspect alone, basicly, though some folks seem to have seen that he implied that monkeys have monkey minds and cannot think for themselves in a truely objective fashion. If you want to see how another intellectual who is becoming Buddhist and is not a guru reconciles this, message me directly here. I can offer some intellectual insight, personal, rahter than purely evidenve based.
Thank you I will surely take your offer it is still welcome after reading this.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Grayman Moral relativism isn't simply the acknowledgment of "morality existing differently within groups and individuals" though, because that's a no-brainer. What it's really saying is that anyone's morality is just as good as anyone else's... a stance that virtually no one takes. Moral relativism is generally used as a criticism of any moral viewpoint that isn't imposed from an outside source (such as God). It denies that human societies can use Reason to come up with moral standards, or that anyone (or any society) can find fault in another's morality.
They are good as any others on a value scale system. Some are more efficient at achieving societal progress in growth strenght and a greater happiness. The only objective system we share is life, happiness, and health that is inherent in each of us. It is best to create a system that contributes to such basic needs.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Jeffrey I don't know, since I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that the subjective part of morality is what we choose to value. Someone said earlier (maybe you) that morality is about harm. In this case "harm" is the subjective part, because we don't have to say morality should be about that. Sam Harris says "well-being" is a good term, but even then people can disagree. Some people think following God's will is what morality is about, hence the problem.
However if we can agree that morality is about "harm", then we can objectively measure (to a degree) which actions are harmful or beneficial. Buddhism's ahimso and precepts are really centered around the idea of non-harm, AFAIK, and I agree with it. I think secular humanism agrees with it. Just not everyone else does!
Existentialism as you may know means that you choose for yourself what is worthwhile. And a societal existentialism might be that a society is united in what they consider immoral. But of course a society is made of individuals so there is a dynamic between the values at the center and the beings who are somehow trying to align with the values at the center. Also beings are trying to take over the values and subvert them. That action of subversion causes a reaction of mandala guardians protecting what the values in the center are. This happens in sanghas too... or any group. My teacher calls it 'mandala principle'. I hope I am doing those teachings justice.
But you have heard of an existential crisis. That is where someone is trying to find meaning and they may find a cruel cold world. This ties in with existentialism in that you make your meaning. You could temporarily believe the world was meaningless! And then you become a Buddhist and find out that belief is false.
So there is some issue of making our own rules and also an issue of discovering truth. The Buddhist teaching is that we already have a loving heart, but that we need to find the truth. The truth is not necessarily existential because existential it sounds kind of static whereas we have a luminous clear open mind that is there before truth (as a decision even) is found in a living way.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited May 2014
@Grayman If you think one moral system is as good as any other, you've got some 'splainin' to do Lucy. Clearly not every system is centered around human well-being and happiness! It would be nice if they were, surely. Just look at the Middle East. Are the people there happy and free? How about North Korea? Now I may be classified as a liberal myself, but when uber-liberals say "it's their culture, they want it that way", it might as well be condoning slavery. After all, that was "our" culture in America a couple hundred years ago. If we can't judge, then we're just apathetic. If we can judge even within our own culture, we can surely judge other cultures and call them out on inhumanities.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited May 2014
@Jeffrey I started to phase out when you started talking about mandala guardians. Maybe this isn't the conversation for me.
In fact I think I've said enough in this thread for everyone, and we've really derailed it too! So I'm out.
To be responsible for one's thoughts, words and deeds certainly requires maturity, as does questioning one's assumptions and beliefs. One can do this under several "isms" mine happens to be Buddhism.
@anataman said:
Now to say that Buddhism requires morality would be a cool subject to discuss as well... My opinion is that - it doesn't just require it, it invokes it - but let's not go there now eh!
Buddhism is predicated on moral and ethical conduct. One could strip this away to mindfulness and having a sharp focus and be a wonderful sniper.
@Grayman said:
One needs to be careful when saying to take responsibility for your life. Responsibility through an establishment of morality inevitably leads to guild and pain for it is impossible to met with many of these expectations. Responsibility must simply be the knowledge that I have the control unless I let circumstance define me. It must be the acknowledgement that I can choose my direction in will if not in reality. And it is allowing yourself to be aware and to acknowledge who you are in fault and blessings with acceptance.
A little guilt here and there never hurt anyone...and is good for society.
I think it depends what you mean by guilt. In Buddhism they say that guilt disempowers you via self agression. Remorse on the other hand is a moment of clarity that you will no longer make a break with what is right and what is wrong.
So as vinlyn says a LITTLE guilt is good, but don't let it trip you up.
We have visitors here who are snipers, soldiers, fish killers [lobster raises guilty claw] and other lesser types. Oh the humanity.
I say from experience everyone is a Buddha. Been there, done that, got the t shirt (and matching cushion).
. . . maybe I will just gibber and yabber immaturely in the 'naughty corner' for a while . . .
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@vinlyn said:
A little guilt here and there never hurt anyone...and is good for society.
Definitely. Problems with guilt arise due to guilt's locality Idiot compassion has lots of locations for guilt where 'here and there' has gone beyond it's usefulness. But definitely, I'm glad to feel guilty for littering or not recycling, or for the idea of sleeping with someone else's partner, that sort of thing. That's the kind of guilts, among many others, I/we can use.
@Jeffrey said:
AldrisTorvalds so that is like existentialism for a society?
Existentialism, as Sartre understood it, makes man responsible for his own life. Essence precedes existence. We are thrown into the world, we begin by existing, but it is up to us to give a meaning to our life, to create our existence.
Existentialism does not preclude moral relativism nor shirk of individual responsibility. On the contrary. Sartre said that at a given moment in your life, you can no longer blame your parents nor your past for what you are, rather, your life is what you make it.
@Jeffrey said:
I think it depends what you mean by guilt. In Buddhism they say that guilt disempowers you via self agression. Remorse on the other hand is a moment of clarity that you will no longer make a break with what is right and what is wrong.
So as vinlyn says a LITTLE guilt is good, but don't let it trip you up.
And that's a good way to see the balance needed.
Trouble is, in my view, in today's society so many people want to be guilt-free, and as a result, a sense of morality is ignored.
@anataman said:
To understand the real freedom or liberation that buddhism provides requires a maturity of thought and action, and an undertaking that you take responsibility for your actions.
I think it's more so wisdom than maturity, but the two is often tied together.
@Jeffrey said:
I think it depends what you mean by guilt. In Buddhism they say that guilt disempowers you via self agression. Remorse on the other hand is a moment of clarity that you will no longer make a break with what is right and what is wrong.
So as vinlyn says a LITTLE guilt is good, but don't let it trip you up.
Guilt usually comes after carrying out what might be viewed as a wrong action (or unskillful action, to use a more Buddhist term).
If we are guided by an inner moral compass that makes us aware of the consequences of our actions before carrying them out, we don't need guilt. This simple awareness will stop us before actions take place.
Too literal? Maturity I feel has layers. The Buddha layer or underlying Buddha Nature is always mature, in essence or lack of essential essence if you prefer is distorted through our immature being, our persona if you like. So we are a variety of people.
Maturity is not about becoming a seasoned wine but changing whine into the purity of water.
There was a thread here about a very young monk, maybe 8 years old, attaining enlightenment in the Buddha's time.
I think I am immature in that I can be out of touch with the realities of my life even at my age nearly 3 times that. But I can still meditate and keep trying.
@Citta said:
The Buddha, who presumably knew quite a lot about Buddhism ( joke ) said that Sila ( morality ) was a vital part of his teaching.
Along with Samadhi ( meditative absorption ) and Panna ( wisdom ).
And that Sila was described in no relative terms:
"My disciples make an effort to live simply and in consciousness and undertake to apply the Five Precepts, which are: do not kill, do not steal, do not commit violent acts, speak the truth and abstain from taking substances that obscure the mind."
(Vinayapitaka, Mahavagga Sutta)
@Hamsaka said:
Definitely. Problems with guilt arise due to guilt's locality Idiot compassion has lots of locations for guilt where 'here and there' has gone beyond it's usefulness. But definitely, I'm glad to feel guilty for littering or not recycling, or for the idea of sleeping with someone else's partner, that sort of thing. That's the kind of guilts, among many others, I/we can use.
Some people might feel a greater success in doing the right thing without needing guilt to force them to do it. Doing things to rid yourself of guilt is not doing it for the other person but instead doing it to absolve yourself of negative feelings.
@Grayman said:
Some people might feel a greater success in doing the right thing without needing guilt to force them to do it. Doing things to rid yourself of guilt is not doing it for the other person but instead doing it to absolve yourself of negative feelings.
What makes you think it has to be one OR the other?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@vinlyn said:
What makes you think it has to be one OR the other?
>
I think this may be something you might like to consider, @Grayman; you have on more than one occasion deemed some situations to be a choice of either one thing or the other, when in fact several options would, could and do exist. Might I suggest, with sincere intention to assist, that you broaden your approach to perceived situations and be more free with your evaluation of matters?
The format of speach is usually indicative of the primary reason and not stating it to be the only reason. Other reasons exist beyond even the two and many at the same time but I format my speach that way because others often find the strongest one and place it as the reason for their choice.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
You cannot presume to make that choice on behalf of others.
That's a form of manipulation.
I will give you an example.
Here in the UK it is every pregnant woman's right by law to have her baby at home if she so chooses.
I decided that this is what I wanted.
However, when I attended my first appointment with the midwife at my Doctor's clinic, and she confirmed that I was pregnant, she then asked me :
Would you like to have your baby in hospital or at the Maternity Clinic?
Choices, sure.
Loaded question? Definitely.
You can't make an arbitrary decision on what options to give people because that already carries your slant on the matter....
@federica said:
You cannot presume to make that choice on behalf of others.
That's a form of manipulation.
I will give you an example.
Here in the UK it is every pregnant woman's right by law to have her baby at home if she so chooses.
I decided that this is what I wanted.
However, when I attended my first appointment with the midwife at my Doctor's clinic, and she confirmed that I was pregnant, she then asked me :
Would you like to have your baby in hospital or at the Maternity Clinic?
Choices, sure.
Loaded question? Definitely.
You can't make an arbitrary decision on what options to give people because that already carries your slant on the matter....
Perhaps your right that his question was loaded but I do not see how mine was.
Guilt is too often used as a control mechanism for others. I find this to be a negative way to establish their own desires on others even if they are for the better. People who think that they will not do right unless they have guilt driving them often push this limitation on others believing the same thing. Or at least this has been my personal experience.
In the end I hold to my original idea but perhaps stating as "I find doing it with compassion as your primary goal is much more rewarding and makes guilt an unnecessary distraction and pain."
This would be more adequate in hiding the manipulation from plain site as the only way to not manipulate is to say nothing and never speak to anyone again and to ensure I am repulsive so that no one may fear that my beauty would manipulate their thoughts and eyes. Manipulation is life. I choose to accept it instead of fear it and because I do not fear it I do not expect that others would also until a time comes that they show their fears.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Many Buddhists don't prescribe to Guilt.
It is considered an unnecessary fetter and surplus to requirement.
It is inhibiting and self-defeating....
Remorse is admirable but beating yourself up over something past is pointless...
Most Buddhists worry about feeling good about being compassionate, believing that such a feeling feeds the Ego...
@federica said:>
Remorse is admirable but beating yourself up over something past is pointless...
re·morse [ri-mawrs] Show IPA
noun
1.
deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction.
2.
[Obsolete ]. pity; compassion.
Part 2 is what I perscribe to in remorse. Do you mean 1?
The dictionary states 2 as an obsolete term...now what word do I use. My remorse is only through the pain I cause them. Nothing is directed at me.
Most Buddhists worry about feeling good about being compassionate, believing that such a feeling feeds the Ego...
What do you mean by feeling good? Which feelings are dangerous? Isn't the greater benefit of the other recieving through compassion instead of your guilt and obligation more important than any benefit of self or negative impact on ego? Whatever that may be...this isn't about being better than others but of compassion for the benefit of others.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction.
>
[Obsolete ]. pity; compassion.
>
Part 2 is what I perscribe to in remorse. Do you mean 1?
>
**The dictionary states 2 as an obsolete term...now what word do I use. **
>
My remorse is only through the pain I cause them. Nothing is directed at me.
>
'pity' and 'compassion' are not obsolete and if that's what you mean, they're as good as any...
What do you mean by feeling good? Which feelings are dangerous? Isn't the greater benefit of the other recieving through compassion instead of your guilt and obligation more important than any benefit of self or negative impact on ego? Whatever that may be...this isn't about being better than others but of compassion for the benefit of others.
>
Pride in one's own actions can sometimes seem more rewarding than the compassionate act itself and that is what we must guard against.
In striving to practise Compassion, it is essential that we ensure it is Wise Compassion, not Idiot Compassion.
3
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Grayman said:
Some people might feel a greater success in doing the right thing without needing guilt to force them to do it. Doing things to rid yourself of guilt is not doing it for the other person but instead doing it to absolve yourself of negative feelings.
Well of course. But most of us grew up through the stages of moral maturity and guilt (a sense of wrongdoing and regret) was vital as a 'teaching' in younger years.
Feeling badly about doing something is a foundation for making better choices in the future.
I've known people who were very outspoken "Oh, I feel so guilty blahblahblah", and they say that a lot. It's like a mantra of constant . . . whatever. When I talk about guilt, I'm definitely not using the word in the same way. I'm using it interchangeably with 'a sense of wrongdoing and regret'.
"Doing things to rid yourself of guilt' is definitely a self-centered behavior, I totally agree.
Again, using a word, like "guilt" can have different connotations for people past the basic meaning. Guilt, as I've seen it used, is a totally self-centered process, but any useful thing can be perverted by ego and self preoccupation.
Trungpa Rinpoche gave an illustration of 'idiot compassion' ( he coined the phrase )
A kindly monkey, seeing a fish in a pool, was overcome with compassion and lifted it gently from the water and lodged it in the branches of a tree to save it from drowning.
Its good intention which is devoid of wisdom.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2014
idiot compassion cripples the receiver because it unwittingly enables their dependence on others. It is well-intentioned but unskilled, because the one manifesting Compassion has an agenda, be it unconscious or unintentional.
They desire an outcome which serves not only the receiver but also renders the giver satisfied, because things have gone according to their own plan: a plan that may not really be to the advantage of the receiver, or may not be the same one.
Wise Compassion supports but bestows independence and responsibility while it loves and cares unconditionally. It permits the receiver to benefit from kindness, equanimity and support but gives the liberty of personal choice and decision, allowing consequences to evolve without manipulation.
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited May 2014
@federica Idiot compassion would be basically giving a man a fish when you could teach him to fish? Circumstances allowing, of course!
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yeah. Thanks, that's far more succinct! LOL!
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@federica Yay, I got something right! You are welcome.
Teach a man to fish and he needs to buy bamboo rods, graphite reals, monofilament lines, neoprene waders, creels, tackle boxes, lures, flies, spinners, worm rigs, slip sinkers, off set hooks, gortex hats, 20 pocket vest, fish finders, depth sounders, radar, boats, trailers, global positioning systems, coolers, and six packs.
^^^ that my friends is the need for capital to do anything competitively ie capitalism
I think Buddhism rather requires some degree of fearlessness. Anybody who is seriously intending to follow the path will have to shed illusions, see their true nature, let go of attachment, etc in order to advance. It's not simple, nor easy. Maturity is a consequence of practice, rather than the pre-requisite in my view...
Comments
That was the moral relativism I was speaking of. It is morality existing differently within groups and individuals. Individuals do share their subjective conclusions as they are formed in childhood and by society. Their views of these concepts are not exactly same as they exist perspectively different accross indivuals but they are similar. They are still subjective and independently measured by each viewer.
Our minds are already luminous clear and unimpeded.
But they are covered with assumptions that distort our view.
If we remove the ignorance the awakened citta radiates love and skill and tenderness and all of the qualities to be moral. Morality is like rays and the wisdom is the sun. If the sun is shining clear there are always the limitless Buddha qualities such as love. And therefore if there isn't love shining that means that the wisdom is unseen.
@Grayman Moral relativism isn't simply the acknowledgment of "morality existing differently within groups and individuals" though, because that's a no-brainer. What it's really saying is that anyone's morality is just as good as anyone else's... a stance that virtually no one takes. Moral relativism is generally used as a criticism of any moral viewpoint that isn't imposed from an outside source (such as God). It denies that human societies can use Reason to come up with moral standards, or that anyone (or any society) can find fault in another's morality.
Humans can use "objective" standards, but those standards are always based on what we value (hence "subjective"). If we value life, happiness and well-being, we can objectively ascertain which actions are beneficial or harmful (maybe not perfectly, but we do have the ability to judge). Morality is where objective and subjective meet, but just like the Middle Way it's difficult for people to see what lay between the extremes!
@AldrisTorvalds so that is like existentialism for a society?
@Jeffrey I don't know, since I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm saying that the subjective part of morality is what we choose to value (the "basis" of our morality). Someone said earlier (maybe you) that morality is about harm (certainly true of Buddhism's "ahimso"). In this case "harm" is the subjective part, because we don't have to say morality should be about that. The objective part would be in discerning what actions are harmful and which are beneficial. It's a mix of subjective/objective.
The part we get snagged on is determining what "morality" means. For instance if you think morality means following God's will, then human well-being takes a second seat to that. It's no wonder it's so difficult to advance civil rights, with not only prejudice but also not having everyone on the same page about making life better for humans!
There is no fact. There is no true or false. There only exists what is most likely and what is plausible.
I can see were you think I am asocial. Likely you think I cannot conform to the rules of society thinking I believe them to be arbitrary and unbending to reason. There is a measure of truth to this but who am I to judge. I have compassion so if it brings those around me comfort to conform to their standards, however pointless it might seem to me, I do it and I do it respectively. They need their bonding and security that derives from such things.
Definitions are relative to society but are understood individually. Definitions have a base for understanding but even the most basic word like apple is hardly viewed the same as I envisioned a large red one while you may have seen a little green one. Abstract concepts differ even more greatly lacking anything solid and concrete in reality to keep them grounded.
You may need to help me understand the context in which you are using this word, asocial. I am slightly introverted in that I don't need a lot of companionship. My desire in others is more to be understood by them than about getting time and attention from them. You can say I am asocial but I do not avoid society to any degree. It is important to integrate and understand them and be compassionate to their needs.
That is a common occurrence but not defining of all individuals.
If you utilize the phrase judge with the connotation of being better than others on a whole it really makes no sense to my subjective belief system. People are more efficient in things than others but a person is not greater. I do come off as arrogant. I have strong opinions and I state them as facts falsely expecting others to do as I would and disregard the conclusions I make except in defining my reality and use the ideas concepts and information I might provide to come to thier own conclusions. I am working on changing the over sure way I phrase things but it has become habitual.
If we are stating perspective and not judgments then... It is endowed with those who believe thinking is a burden because they leave thier emotions attached to most thoughts instead of leaving their emotions up for determination upon fully considering an outcome after much reasoning and careful consideration.
Thank you I will surely take your offer it is still welcome after reading this.
They are good as any others on a value scale system. Some are more efficient at achieving societal progress in growth strenght and a greater happiness. The only objective system we share is life, happiness, and health that is inherent in each of us. It is best to create a system that contributes to such basic needs.
Existentialism as you may know means that you choose for yourself what is worthwhile. And a societal existentialism might be that a society is united in what they consider immoral. But of course a society is made of individuals so there is a dynamic between the values at the center and the beings who are somehow trying to align with the values at the center. Also beings are trying to take over the values and subvert them. That action of subversion causes a reaction of mandala guardians protecting what the values in the center are. This happens in sanghas too... or any group. My teacher calls it 'mandala principle'. I hope I am doing those teachings justice.
But you have heard of an existential crisis. That is where someone is trying to find meaning and they may find a cruel cold world. This ties in with existentialism in that you make your meaning. You could temporarily believe the world was meaningless! And then you become a Buddhist and find out that belief is false.
So there is some issue of making our own rules and also an issue of discovering truth. The Buddhist teaching is that we already have a loving heart, but that we need to find the truth. The truth is not necessarily existential because existential it sounds kind of static whereas we have a luminous clear open mind that is there before truth (as a decision even) is found in a living way.
@Grayman If you think one moral system is as good as any other, you've got some 'splainin' to do Lucy. Clearly not every system is centered around human well-being and happiness! It would be nice if they were, surely. Just look at the Middle East. Are the people there happy and free? How about North Korea? Now I may be classified as a liberal myself, but when uber-liberals say "it's their culture, they want it that way", it might as well be condoning slavery. After all, that was "our" culture in America a couple hundred years ago. If we can't judge, then we're just apathetic. If we can judge even within our own culture, we can surely judge other cultures and call them out on inhumanities.
@Jeffrey I started to phase out when you started talking about mandala guardians. Maybe this isn't the conversation for me.
In fact I think I've said enough in this thread for everyone, and we've really derailed it too! So I'm out.
Yeah I know that feeling
Quite a wall of text. tldr
Thank you I will surely take your offer it is still welcome after reading this.
>
It is still welcome, because in a way, perhaps more than one, we are kindred I think.
To be responsible for one's thoughts, words and deeds certainly requires maturity, as does questioning one's assumptions and beliefs. One can do this under several "isms" mine happens to be Buddhism.
Buddhism is predicated on moral and ethical conduct. One could strip this away to mindfulness and having a sharp focus and be a wonderful sniper.
A little guilt here and there never hurt anyone...and is good for society.
I think it depends what you mean by guilt. In Buddhism they say that guilt disempowers you via self agression. Remorse on the other hand is a moment of clarity that you will no longer make a break with what is right and what is wrong.
So as vinlyn says a LITTLE guilt is good, but don't let it trip you up.
We have visitors here who are snipers, soldiers, fish killers [lobster raises guilty claw] and other lesser types. Oh the humanity.
I say from experience everyone is a Buddha. Been there, done that, got the t shirt (and matching cushion).
. . . maybe I will just gibber and yabber immaturely in the 'naughty corner' for a while . . .
Definitely. Problems with guilt arise due to guilt's locality
Idiot compassion has lots of locations for guilt where 'here and there' has gone beyond it's usefulness. But definitely, I'm glad to feel guilty for littering or not recycling, or for the idea of sleeping with someone else's partner, that sort of thing. That's the kind of guilts, among many others, I/we can use.
Existentialism, as Sartre understood it, makes man responsible for his own life. Essence precedes existence. We are thrown into the world, we begin by existing, but it is up to us to give a meaning to our life, to create our existence.
Existentialism does not preclude moral relativism nor shirk of individual responsibility. On the contrary. Sartre said that at a given moment in your life, you can no longer blame your parents nor your past for what you are, rather, your life is what you make it.
And that's a good way to see the balance needed.
Trouble is, in my view, in today's society so many people want to be guilt-free, and as a result, a sense of morality is ignored.
I think it's more so wisdom than maturity, but the two is often tied together.
In all the definitions of maturity, I was really looking to see something along the lines of:
Being able to come to a Buddhist forum and playing nice - even when others beg you not to. Can I get a Namaste?
Guilt usually comes after carrying out what might be viewed as a wrong action (or unskillful action, to use a more Buddhist term).
If we are guided by an inner moral compass that makes us aware of the consequences of our actions before carrying them out, we don't need guilt. This simple awareness will stop us before actions take place.
Can I get a Namaste?
Namaste
:om:
Too literal? Maturity I feel has layers. The Buddha layer or underlying Buddha Nature is always mature, in essence or lack of essential essence if you prefer is distorted through our immature being, our persona if you like. So we are a variety of people.
Maturity is not about becoming a seasoned wine but changing whine into the purity of water.
There was a thread here about a very young monk, maybe 8 years old, attaining enlightenment in the Buddha's time.
I think I am immature in that I can be out of touch with the realities of my life even at my age nearly 3 times that. But I can still meditate and keep trying.
The Buddha, who presumably knew quite a lot about Buddhism ( joke ) said that Sila ( morality ) was a vital part of his teaching.
Along with Samadhi ( meditative absorption ) and Panna ( wisdom ).
And that Sila was described in no relative terms:
"My disciples make an effort to live simply and in consciousness and undertake to apply the Five Precepts, which are: do not kill, do not steal, do not commit violent acts, speak the truth and abstain from taking substances that obscure the mind."
(Vinayapitaka, Mahavagga Sutta)
Yup.
Some people might feel a greater success in doing the right thing without needing guilt to force them to do it. Doing things to rid yourself of guilt is not doing it for the other person but instead doing it to absolve yourself of negative feelings.
What makes you think it has to be one OR the other?
>
I think this may be something you might like to consider, @Grayman; you have on more than one occasion deemed some situations to be a choice of either one thing or the other, when in fact several options would, could and do exist. Might I suggest, with sincere intention to assist, that you broaden your approach to perceived situations and be more free with your evaluation of matters?
The format of speach is usually indicative of the primary reason and not stating it to be the only reason. Other reasons exist beyond even the two and many at the same time but I format my speach that way because others often find the strongest one and place it as the reason for their choice.
You cannot presume to make that choice on behalf of others.
That's a form of manipulation.
I will give you an example.
Here in the UK it is every pregnant woman's right by law to have her baby at home if she so chooses.
I decided that this is what I wanted.
However, when I attended my first appointment with the midwife at my Doctor's clinic, and she confirmed that I was pregnant, she then asked me :
Would you like to have your baby in hospital or at the Maternity Clinic?
Choices, sure.
Loaded question? Definitely.
You can't make an arbitrary decision on what options to give people because that already carries your slant on the matter....
Perhaps your right that his question was loaded but I do not see how mine was.
Guilt is too often used as a control mechanism for others. I find this to be a negative way to establish their own desires on others even if they are for the better. People who think that they will not do right unless they have guilt driving them often push this limitation on others believing the same thing. Or at least this has been my personal experience.
In the end I hold to my original idea but perhaps stating as "I find doing it with compassion as your primary goal is much more rewarding and makes guilt an unnecessary distraction and pain."
This would be more adequate in hiding the manipulation from plain site as the only way to not manipulate is to say nothing and never speak to anyone again and to ensure I am repulsive so that no one may fear that my beauty would manipulate their thoughts and eyes. Manipulation is life. I choose to accept it instead of fear it and because I do not fear it I do not expect that others would also until a time comes that they show their fears.
Many Buddhists don't prescribe to Guilt.
It is considered an unnecessary fetter and surplus to requirement.
It is inhibiting and self-defeating....
Remorse is admirable but beating yourself up over something past is pointless...
Most Buddhists worry about feeling good about being compassionate, believing that such a feeling feeds the Ego...
re·morse [ri-mawrs] Show IPA
noun
1.
deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction.
2.
[Obsolete ]. pity; compassion.
Part 2 is what I perscribe to in remorse. Do you mean 1?
The dictionary states 2 as an obsolete term...now what word do I use. My remorse is only through the pain I cause them. Nothing is directed at me.
What do you mean by feeling good? Which feelings are dangerous? Isn't the greater benefit of the other recieving through compassion instead of your guilt and obligation more important than any benefit of self or negative impact on ego? Whatever that may be...this isn't about being better than others but of compassion for the benefit of others.
>
>
>
>
My remorse is only through the pain I cause them. Nothing is directed at me.
>
'pity' and 'compassion' are not obsolete and if that's what you mean, they're as good as any...
>
Pride in one's own actions can sometimes seem more rewarding than the compassionate act itself and that is what we must guard against.
In striving to practise Compassion, it is essential that we ensure it is Wise Compassion, not Idiot Compassion.
Well of course. But most of us grew up through the stages of moral maturity and guilt (a sense of wrongdoing and regret) was vital as a 'teaching' in younger years.
Feeling badly about doing something is a foundation for making better choices in the future.
I've known people who were very outspoken "Oh, I feel so guilty blahblahblah", and they say that a lot. It's like a mantra of constant . . . whatever. When I talk about guilt, I'm definitely not using the word in the same way. I'm using it interchangeably with 'a sense of wrongdoing and regret'.
"Doing things to rid yourself of guilt' is definitely a self-centered behavior, I totally agree.
Again, using a word, like "guilt" can have different connotations for people past the basic meaning. Guilt, as I've seen it used, is a totally self-centered process, but any useful thing can be perverted by ego and self preoccupation.
Idiot compassion....? You mean one derived of arrogance and judgement...or something more?
Trungpa Rinpoche gave an illustration of 'idiot compassion' ( he coined the phrase )
A kindly monkey, seeing a fish in a pool, was overcome with compassion and lifted it gently from the water and lodged it in the branches of a tree to save it from drowning.
Its good intention which is devoid of wisdom.
idiot compassion cripples the receiver because it unwittingly enables their dependence on others. It is well-intentioned but unskilled, because the one manifesting Compassion has an agenda, be it unconscious or unintentional.
They desire an outcome which serves not only the receiver but also renders the giver satisfied, because things have gone according to their own plan: a plan that may not really be to the advantage of the receiver, or may not be the same one.
Wise Compassion supports but bestows independence and responsibility while it loves and cares unconditionally. It permits the receiver to benefit from kindness, equanimity and support but gives the liberty of personal choice and decision, allowing consequences to evolve without manipulation.
@federica Idiot compassion would be basically giving a man a fish when you could teach him to fish?
Circumstances allowing, of course!
Yeah. Thanks, that's far more succinct! LOL!
@federica Yay, I got something right! You are welcome.
Teach a man to fish and he needs to buy bamboo rods, graphite reals, monofilament lines, neoprene waders, creels, tackle boxes, lures, flies, spinners, worm rigs, slip sinkers, off set hooks, gortex hats, 20 pocket vest, fish finders, depth sounders, radar, boats, trailers, global positioning systems, coolers, and six packs.
^^^ that my friends is the need for capital to do anything competitively ie capitalism
I think Buddhism rather requires some degree of fearlessness. Anybody who is seriously intending to follow the path will have to shed illusions, see their true nature, let go of attachment, etc in order to advance. It's not simple, nor easy. Maturity is a consequence of practice, rather than the pre-requisite in my view...