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.
Seeing the whole picture... Right View
I have been reading "Buddhism: Plain And Simple" by Steve Hagen. The book is very well written and I am getting quite a bit out of it. I saw part of it that I would like to get people's opinions on. I have determined what mine is but am curious to read your's. Here's a section of the book...
"Right view is seeing reality in all its fullness and fluidity. Yet there's nothing in particular to be seen.
In the world of our common ordinary mind, everything is divided up: left and right, good and bad, above and below.
For example, we see the puma stalking the deer and we want to call out to the deer to help him escape. And when the puma pounces on the deer, our heart goes out to the deer.
So we look for a way to protect the deer. We put bells on the puma so the deer knows when she's around. As a result, the puma suffers. Eventually, she starves.
With no more puma to keep the deer population in check, the number of deer increases. Before long there are more deer than the local environment can support. The deer overgraze the land and strip the trees and shrubs bare of leaves. And eventually, due to overpopulation, the deer, too, begin to starve.
We believe we're expressing compassion. But compassion must be balanced with wisdom. To the extent we don't see, we waste our compassion.
If you see Reality in its fluidity and fullness, then you see the puma as well as the deer. You see how the two fit together as part of a seam Whole."
There are many more metaphors I could come up with from reading this. Interpret it however you like. But what do you take away from this little section of text??
I have a small thing to admit. A "phobia" for lack of a better description. I can't stand spiders! Because of my practice of compassion I try not to kill them or do anything harmful to them. But sometimes... I know, the conversation could veer off to a precept from that statement but, we're talking right view here. Maybe by killing the spider I am screwing up the whole "balance" of things. I mean, that spider might have eaten tons of other little bugs that roam around. Maybe eventually I will have to many bugs because I was killing the spiders. In this circumstance though I guess I would be "seeing" the fact that I should just deal with the darned spiders. Let them do their thing. But then... what if it is a harmful spider and it's bite could kill (I have 2 children). For example, a Black Widow maybe or a Brown Recluse. What then??
Sorry for the babble...
"Right view is seeing reality in all its fullness and fluidity. Yet there's nothing in particular to be seen.
In the world of our common ordinary mind, everything is divided up: left and right, good and bad, above and below.
For example, we see the puma stalking the deer and we want to call out to the deer to help him escape. And when the puma pounces on the deer, our heart goes out to the deer.
So we look for a way to protect the deer. We put bells on the puma so the deer knows when she's around. As a result, the puma suffers. Eventually, she starves.
With no more puma to keep the deer population in check, the number of deer increases. Before long there are more deer than the local environment can support. The deer overgraze the land and strip the trees and shrubs bare of leaves. And eventually, due to overpopulation, the deer, too, begin to starve.
We believe we're expressing compassion. But compassion must be balanced with wisdom. To the extent we don't see, we waste our compassion.
If you see Reality in its fluidity and fullness, then you see the puma as well as the deer. You see how the two fit together as part of a seam Whole."
There are many more metaphors I could come up with from reading this. Interpret it however you like. But what do you take away from this little section of text??
I have a small thing to admit. A "phobia" for lack of a better description. I can't stand spiders! Because of my practice of compassion I try not to kill them or do anything harmful to them. But sometimes... I know, the conversation could veer off to a precept from that statement but, we're talking right view here. Maybe by killing the spider I am screwing up the whole "balance" of things. I mean, that spider might have eaten tons of other little bugs that roam around. Maybe eventually I will have to many bugs because I was killing the spiders. In this circumstance though I guess I would be "seeing" the fact that I should just deal with the darned spiders. Let them do their thing. But then... what if it is a harmful spider and it's bite could kill (I have 2 children). For example, a Black Widow maybe or a Brown Recluse. What then??
Sorry for the babble...
0
Comments
I read the book quite a while ago, I must say I was not a fan of it.
Regarding the excerpt you gave. I think one could put it simpler. Wisdom involes to recognize that things are dependend, it is not neccessary to talk of fluidity imo. It is just if A happens, B follows, if A does not happen, B does not follow.
I think if one has compassion for other`s suffering, it does not imply one automatically wants to change it. Sometimes we can`t. Sometimes, a greater evil will follow.
Basically it is much about intention. Does the puma want to kill because it is bored and bloodthirsty? no. because it is its nature and he needs to eat? yes. So, there is a difference in a puma eating for survinging, or let`s say, a man that just kills for fun, as a hobby for instance, just so he doesn`t get bored. One can have compassion for both, one that is killed and one that kills because it must survive. On the other hand, one should tell a man uch as in my example that he is doing wrong.
for the spider, it is basically also your intention that matters much. do you kill the spider because you enjoy it? Or out of fear? the latter is still sad, but not as unwholesome as enjoying killing imo. So if we detect the motives for other`s actions, we will beable to judge more sober and eventually even overcome one`s own fears.
A central teaching of the buddha is kamma, imo it cannot be stressed often enough. I think you should not worry about destryoing the whole balance with killing one spider. Wouldn`t that lift you into a sort of god position, isolating yourself from the rest of the system?
Instead imo you should look what creates the unhealthy state and focus on that. I wish you success.
Anyway, I do agree with him that compassion has to have a component of wisdom otherwise it can be 'idiot compassion'. So when you see this spider, before you kill it observe what your mind is doing. What is it that really scares you about the spider? Once you observe your mind, you will be equipped to make decisions.
Oh and unless it is about the size of your hand and black with a little red in the body, it's not a black widow.
And I'll keep an eye out for the book you mentioned.
I haven't read the original Pali texts, but the books I have read all state that the killing of any sentient being is bad karma.
Now I am not saying that is what I believe, just my interpretation of what I have read. My guess as to why this is so is that all sentient beings are equally valuable. It is our attachment to our loved ones that makes us want to protect them. Attachment is what we are supposed to avoid. How could this be a good thing, to let a killer being exist and jeopardize another? At the risk of sounding flip, and simplifying things, I will invoke the Hitler argument. Maybe Hitler's life was saved as a child by a well meaning person who killed a being of some sort to protect him...
Please forgive me if I have said anything out of line...I am new to this.
Not out of line at all, I am still very new to it all too. I've read similar things to what you've said. Thanks for the input, I'm sure it will spur quite a discussion. Welcome to the forum bikerfry!
I too have what I would call my 'protect list'. It can only be seen as a good and compassionate thing to want to protect your loved ones. There are certain people in my life that I will always love more than others and it is an unconditional love. These people are the kind of people, that if in jeopardy at the hands of another person, I would not think twice about killing that person.
I know it sounds harsh, but all of you with children young and old know that you would do the same and probably for other family members as well.
Good questions Bikefry!
I was in a chatroom and someone quoted this from the Platform Sutra...
"Good friends, the Way should be fluid, free-flowing. Why then do you stagnate? When the mind does not dwell on things, then the Way is fluid. If the mind dwells on things, that is called self-binding"--Platform Sutra
I googled the sutra and found a ton of sites. Researching the sutra more...
I consider it that you should not be stuck on particular things too much. The mind should be trained to be flexible, for me it is a hint not to be attached to things. Anyways, what I was trying to say is that understanding causation (if a then b) should be emphazized. Mind realizes then that things are interdependent and this act will have this consequence.
I see now... What you said makes total sense, thanks!
on the term wisdom (pañña) itself, you can find a small elaboration here
paññā: 'understanding, knowledge, wisdom, insight', comprises a very wide field. The specific Buddhist knowledge or wisdom, however, as part of the Noble Eightfold Path (magga, q.v.) to deliverance, is insight (vipassanā, q.v.), i.e. that intuitive knowledge which brings about the 4 stages of holiness and the realization of Nibbāna (s. ariyapuggala), and which consists in the penetration of the impermanency (anicca, q.v.), misery (dukkha, s. sacca) and impersonality (anattā) of all forms of existence. Further details, s. under tilakkhaṇa.
With regard to the condition of its arising one distinguishes 3 kinds of knowledge knowledge based on thinking (cintā-mayā-paññā), knowledge based on learning (suta-mayā-paññā), knowledge based on mental development (bhāvanā-mayā-paññā) (D. 33).
" 'Based on thinking' is that knowledge which one has accquired through one's own thinking, without having learnt it from others. 'Based on learning' is that knowledge which one has heard from others and thus acquired through learning. 'Based on mental development' is that knowledge which one has acquired through mental development in this or that way, and which has reached the stage of full concentration" (appanā, q.v.) (Vis.M. XIV).
Wisdom is one of the 5 mental faculties (s. bala), one of the 3 kinds of training (sikkhā, q.v.), and one of the perfections (s. pāramī) For further details, s. vipassanā, and the detailed exposition in Vis.M. XIV, 1-32.
Eat slow and enjoy
As we become more aware of our actions and intentions, we realise that human beings are killing machines, like all other animals in samsara. Much of the killing is carried out at an organic, unconscious level, within the body. At the moment, for exmple, my own immune system is being assisted by antibiotics which I take knowing that they are intended to slaughter the hordes of Staph. Aur.
Those who eat meat are castigated by the Smiths who tell us that "meat is murder" and many a new Buddhist has made themselves ill as a result. Even HHDL did so when he fled to India and went on a spare, vegan diet.
The "straw man" argument of self-defence or defence of loved ones is always raised in the debate, as if it alters the precept, which it doesn't. If anything, it challenges us to understand that killing, for whatever 'reason', will attract negative kamma. We can choose, and we have to. This is the tragedy and the victory of being born as a human being.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya." The heart of the Buddha's teachings can be summarized in this one statement. "Nothing whatsoever should be clung to."
'Nothing whatsoever' seems pretty conclusive to me. I guess the questionable part would be what is the meaning of attachment or clinging.
This is one of the thorniest of issues for me, the issue of attachment or non-attachment, of desire. I read many people who say this means an unnatural, or overwhelming, attachment. I read it as meaning any attachment. If you value something, you have an attachment to it. If you value one thing more than another, you are attached to it more than the other. Probably the greatest attachment one could have would be to one's own life. I'm not sure what the Dharma says about defending one's life.
My feeling is that my attachment to my wife and child, and to my own life, are what is keeping me from enlightment. I can't bring myself to cherish a snake or a steer (read steak), as much.
I do however, try not to kill spiders in my house. I even have a rule....if they are down stairs in the basement, noone is allowed to kill them, or centipedes. Upstairs in the house my wife kills them, but I remind her that it is bad karma... I still try to carry them outside.
As I see it, one of the meanings of dukka in the First Noble Truth is the pain that we experience each time we have to compromise or 'trim'. And yet, day by day, we do so. The very acts that keep us alive include processes that challenge us every day.
Ch'ui the draftsman
Could draw more perfect circles freehand
Than with a compass.
His fingers brought forth
Spontaneous forms from nowhere. His mind
Was meanwhile free and without concern
With what he was doing.
No application was needed
His mind was perfectly simple
And knew no obstacle.
So, when the shoe fits
The foot is forgotten.
When the heart is right
"For" and "against" are forgotten.
No drives, no compulsions,
No needs, no attractions:
Then your affairs
Are under control.
You are a free man.
Easy is right. Begin right
And you are easy.
Continue easy and you are right.
The right way to go easy
Is to forget the right way
And forget that the going is easy.
Chuang Tzu, "When the Shoe Fits" (translated by Thomas Merton)
Palzang
Thank you & back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
_/\_
The point that they miss is that the Buddha, as an enlightened being, can see the results of his actions and, being free of desire, is also free of karma. He is completely free to act in the best interests of sentient beings. Ignorant sentient beings, such as ourselves, do not have this power, so we cannot forsee the results of our actions, no matter how well intentioned. Therefore we have the precepts laid down by the Buddha to help guide us and protect us from accumulating negative karma. While it is important to remember that we cannot continue to live without killing other beings, whether for food or to protect our health or just as part of the natural day-to-day existence of a large mammal, we should abstain from killing whenever possible. Indeed, to carry it further, we should do everything we can to promote and sustain life wherever and whenever we can, such as feeding birds during the winter or rescuing pets waiting to be euthanized in shelters. It's not really about morality; it's about creating the causes that will lead to happiness for both ourselves and all sentient beings in the future.
Palzang
When I lived down south we had quite a few of them around. You're right, they are small. About 1/4 of an inch sometimes...
Very well said.
metta
_/\_
We frequently read in the canon that our mental state matters for kamma. That deeds done with hate will have that result, deeds without hate this. Even if we are not fully enlightend to forsee our fruits, we can look at our states, question the motive for our deeds and that of others. While I am not advocating killing in any sense, I insist that there is a finer distinction of deeds than just good and bad. Sorry if you all feel I do unceccessarly complicate the topic.
edit: anyone interested can read Bhikkhu Bodhi`s view here, under Right Action (samma kammanta) and Right View (Samma Ditthi)
Regards,
Jason
"When one sees awareness rather than other violence ceases."
I used to be severely arachnophobic as a result of a bad experience as a child and it plagued me my whole life. I'd get so upset I'd be unable to sleep in a house that had a spider in it. I'd throw up and cry and it was just ridiculous. I finally got over it by using strong reason and generating lovingkindness, compassion, empathy and equanimity for the spider. It took a little while but I forced myself and when I got over my fear I realized that I had created the fear in my mind for no logical reason, I'd made myself suffer for all those years for nothing. A spider is no different than an ant or a mosquito or any other living thing. No living thing is bad. Practice by using your reasoning thought process, strengthening the reasoning part of your brain. Say things to yourself like "This spider is about half an inch big and I'm almost 6 feet tall. The spider has much more to fear from me than I from it" and so on. Once you've got the reasoning strengthened, start on the lovingkindness, the compassion and empathy and equanimity. Pretty soon you'll be able to apply this to any living creature that you find hard to like. Remember, you get to Nirvana the same way you get to Carnegie Hall; practice, practice, practice.
but as far as bugs are concerned I smack 'em if the kids and wife are screaming to keep the peace.