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.
@Jason said:
The way we produce distribute goods and provide services is political. The creation and maintenance of infrastructure is political. The laws we have to help govern social life is political. The way we approach justice is political. The way we decide these things is political. Politics affects all of us, whether we engage in it or not. The question is, why should we turn our backs on that and let others make all of these decisions for us? Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
There is a lot of 'we'. Please accept that I am not part of that 'we'. I am not even 'I'.
Where are 'political duties' located? Not knowing.
If you live in society, then you are most definitely a part of that 'we.' And the very fact that you're using the internet to discuss your ideas with other people confirms this. Beyond that, I highly doubt that you're completely self-sufficient, that you don't engage other people in the context of work or in public, that you don't utilize public utilities and infrastructure, etc. Clever appeals to anatta don't negate that you're a social creature living in a social environment that requires social engagement, nor does it absolve you of the political implications and responsibilities which stem from that locally, nationally, etc.
How things are I am not living in society. And even if it appears I would be using the internet that isn't so.
That makes no sense. Unless you're living in a cave with no other human contact and no access and use of public utilities, such as water and electricity, and infrastructures such as roads, phone lines, and internet, and don't work, contribute taxes, or have voting rights, then you're a part of society. You're a citizen with political responsibilities, whether you choose to accept them or not. You contribute to society, and your decisions and actions have a ripple effect which feed into the political superstructure of your society, locally and beyond. All aspects of our lives are political. Even monastic sanghas have their own internal politics.
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
@Jason, I think @herbie is speaking of relatively living 'on another plane'... I think he means everything is illusory, so whatever you believe you're doing, you actually aren't...
This is pure speculation on my part though.
It really does warrant clarification...
@Jason said:
The way we produce distribute goods and provide services is political. The creation and maintenance of infrastructure is political. The laws we have to help govern social life is political. The way we approach justice is political. The way we decide these things is political. Politics affects all of us, whether we engage in it or not. The question is, why should we turn our backs on that and let others make all of these decisions for us? Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
There is a lot of 'we'. Please accept that I am not part of that 'we'. I am not even 'I'.
Where are 'political duties' located? Not knowing.
If you live in society, then you are most definitely a part of that 'we.' And the very fact that you're using the internet to discuss your ideas with other people confirms this. Beyond that, I highly doubt that you're completely self-sufficient, that you don't engage other people in the context of work or in public, that you don't utilize public utilities and infrastructure, etc. Clever appeals to anatta don't negate that you're a social creature living in a social environment that requires social engagement, nor does it absolve you of the political implications and responsibilities which stem from that locally, nationally, etc.
How things are I am not living in society. And even if it appears I would be using the internet that isn't so.
That makes no sense. Unless you're living in a cave with no other human contact and no access and use of public utilities, such as water and electricity, and infrastructures such as roads, phone lines, and internet, and don't work, contribute taxes, or have voting rights, then you're a part of society. You're a citizen with political responsibilities, whether you choose to accept them or not. You contribute to society, and your decisions and actions have a ripple effect which feed into the political superstructure of your society, locally and beyond. All aspects of our lives are political. Even monastic sanghas have their own internal politics.
Dear Dharma friend Jason,
being at a loss for appropriate words I feel like Kyogen's man hanging by his teeth in a tree over a precipice. I think I follow Mumon's advice: 'But if you cannot answer, you should wait for ages and ask Maitreya, the future Buddha.'
Nevertheless I would appreciate if you could accept that there are beings that are reluctant to identify with the reality that appears to the world because they have set out to on a path to overcome the world's mess for the benefit of all.
To benefit the 'we' it may be necessary initially - for eons or so - not to share with the world what the world considers to be true and valid.
Having said that like Chandrakirti I do accept what the world claims to be valid but I do not accept it as truth or as authoritative in the context of 'my' perception and conception although I have to apply it to be able to communicate with the world. Why do I do this that way? Because the goal of my path is to overcome my conditionings not to foster them.
That does not mean that there are no other paths that lead to the same goal but while these alternative paths may be perfectly suitable for others they are not suitable for me.
Now I have elaborated the issue but this appeared appropriate to me now because my former brief statements may have made an extreme impression and actually my practice aims at the sphere beyond extremes.
Thank you for your patience.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Jason said:
The way we produce distribute goods and provide services is political. The creation and maintenance of infrastructure is political. The laws we have to help govern social life is political. The way we approach justice is political. The way we decide these things is political. Politics affects all of us, whether we engage in it or not. The question is, why should we turn our backs on that and let others make all of these decisions for us? Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
There is a lot of 'we'. Please accept that I am not part of that 'we'. I am not even 'I'.
Where are 'political duties' located? Not knowing.
If you live in society, then you are most definitely a part of that 'we.' And the very fact that you're using the internet to discuss your ideas with other people confirms this. Beyond that, I highly doubt that you're completely self-sufficient, that you don't engage other people in the context of work or in public, that you don't utilize public utilities and infrastructure, etc. Clever appeals to anatta don't negate that you're a social creature living in a social environment that requires social engagement, nor does it absolve you of the political implications and responsibilities which stem from that locally, nationally, etc.
How things are I am not living in society. And even if it appears I would be using the internet that isn't so.
That makes no sense. Unless you're living in a cave with no other human contact and no access and use of public utilities, such as water and electricity, and infrastructures such as roads, phone lines, and internet, and don't work, contribute taxes, or have voting rights, then you're a part of society. You're a citizen with political responsibilities, whether you choose to accept them or not. You contribute to society, and your decisions and actions have a ripple effect which feed into the political superstructure of your society, locally and beyond. All aspects of our lives are political. Even monastic sanghas have their own internal politics.
That's what I was trying to say but I was saying it badly.
@herbie I think you may be trying to go at it from or to the absolute even knowing the conventional reality. I can't figure out why that will help ease the suffering as I see it the other way around but I do certainly think it is possible to find common ground in the Middle.
But even us just talking here helping each other on this forum is politics.
Even if it turns out we are all just really talking to ourself.
Some of us may never forget what you say to us here and we got it on record to boot.
@Jason said:
The way we produce distribute goods and provide services is political. The creation and maintenance of infrastructure is political. The laws we have to help govern social life is political. The way we approach justice is political. The way we decide these things is political. Politics affects all of us, whether we engage in it or not. The question is, why should we turn our backs on that and let others make all of these decisions for us? Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
There is a lot of 'we'. Please accept that I am not part of that 'we'. I am not even 'I'.
Where are 'political duties' located? Not knowing.
If you live in society, then you are most definitely a part of that 'we.' And the very fact that you're using the internet to discuss your ideas with other people confirms this. Beyond that, I highly doubt that you're completely self-sufficient, that you don't engage other people in the context of work or in public, that you don't utilize public utilities and infrastructure, etc. Clever appeals to anatta don't negate that you're a social creature living in a social environment that requires social engagement, nor does it absolve you of the political implications and responsibilities which stem from that locally, nationally, etc.
How things are I am not living in society. And even if it appears I would be using the internet that isn't so.
That makes no sense. Unless you're living in a cave with no other human contact and no access and use of public utilities, such as water and electricity, and infrastructures such as roads, phone lines, and internet, and don't work, contribute taxes, or have voting rights, then you're a part of society. You're a citizen with political responsibilities, whether you choose to accept them or not. You contribute to society, and your decisions and actions have a ripple effect which feed into the political superstructure of your society, locally and beyond. All aspects of our lives are political. Even monastic sanghas have their own internal politics.
Dear Dharma friend Jason,
being at a loss for appropriate words I feel like Kyogen's man hanging by his teeth in a tree over a precipice. I think I follow Mumon's advice: 'But if you cannot answer, you should wait for ages and ask Maitreya, the future Buddha.'
Nevertheless I would appreciate if you could accept that there are beings that are reluctant to identify with the reality that appears to the world because they have set out to on a path to overcome the world's mess for the benefit of all.
To benefit the 'we' it may be necessary initially - for eons or so - not to share with the world what the world considers to be true and valid.
Having said that like Chandrakirti I do accept what the world claims to be valid but I do not accept it as truth or as authoritative in the context of 'my' perception and conception although I have to apply it to be able to communicate with the world. Why do I do this that way? Because the goal of my path is to overcome my conditionings not to foster them.
That does not mean that there are no other paths that lead to the same goal but while these alternative paths may be perfectly suitable for others they are not suitable for me.
Now I have elaborated the issue but this appeared appropriate to me now because my former brief statements may have made an extreme impression and actually my practice aims at the sphere beyond extremes.
@Jason said:
Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
Yes, one need not be a political activist to be moral.
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
@Jason said:
Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
Yes, one need not be a political activist to be moral.
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
A more specific example. My government separates families and puts children in cages, all of which is damaging and harmful. Is it moral for me to not even do the bare minimum and vote for people who are against this? Or is it more moral to do as herbie suggests and not identify with that reality because I'm over here overcoming the world? Perhaps herbie is correct and I'm just not on the right level to understand it, but I'm currently under the opinion that I have some modicum of moral responsibility for others and the society I live in, as much as it depresses me and overwhelms me at times.
@David said: @herbie I think you may be trying to go at it from or to the absolute even knowing the conventional reality. I can't figure out why that will help ease the suffering as I see it the other way around but I do certainly think it is possible to find common ground in the Middle.
Dear Dharma friend David,
I have experienced it thus:
There are approaches with a bias towards affirmation of the conventional and there are approaches with a bias towards a negation of the conventional.
But these approaches are themselves only conventional because they are depending on conceptuality and language.
So regardless of how I put it, whether affirming the conventional or negating the conventional, it still belongs to the sphere of the conventional which is - according to Chandrakirti - true only for an obscuring consciousness. And if both, conceptual affirmation and conceptual negation of the conventional, are deceptive I take what I experience to be more conducive for my practice when expressing my perspective. Because the way I express my experience directly affects my experience. My experience is nothing but imputations.
Having said that there is no claim that this is true or valid for other individuals. It is just a metaphoric description of my individual innate experience which is subject to obscurations.
From my perspective 'the common ground in the Middle' - as you put it - is already present. It just has to be revealed. But it can't be revealed through affirmation or negation in the context of conventional language and conceptuality.
Here we have another characteristic of conventional approaches: there are those that teach that something has to be constructed newly and those that teach that what is already present just has to be revealed. And again every individual chooses what appears more appropriate in its current situation. Ultimately there is no difference.
It is a wonderful miracle that the variety of the Buddha Dharma covers the needs of countless individual beings.
@federica said: @Jason, I think @herbie is speaking of relatively living 'on another plane'... I think he means everything is illusory, so whatever you believe you're doing, you actually aren't...
This is pure speculation on my part though.
It really does warrant clarification...
Dear federica,
that may be covered by this response to David above.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I find generally politics and governance of nations to be too large a subject to tackle within the context of my buddhist path... in a way I would be happiest with nation states that were constructed in such a way as to minimalise power politics on both a personal and governmental level. But I suspect vested interests would fight tooth and nail, lie cheat and steal in order to keep private ownership, armies, oil and geopolitics.
That leaves me with no valid options to vote for on Election Day, and I tend to register my protest against the system by not voting, although I have in the past voted for the Greens, just in the interest of trying to get people to spend more time and effort on activism to maintain our planet.
@Jason said:
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
I would ultimately argue that as long as you are following the 10 wholesome actions and abstaining from the 10 unwholesome actions, then you are leading a moral life, regardless of what else you do or don't do. Of course it's good to do those things, they are good methods for practicing dana, but to say it's immoral to not become some kind of political activist, I think that takes it too far.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
In the Tibetan tradition, and I assume in many others, dharma practice is done with the intent to be of benefit to others more than it is to provide personal peace and happiness. So when we adopt Dharmic views of the world such as non attachment or equanimity these aren't just kept to oneself. When we develop our inner qualities we are then better able to set an example to others of how it may be possible to be in the world in a less suffering way.
I remember some research somewhere that looked into how attitudes and behaviors get spread among groups of friends and family, and they were able to trace certain behaviors out to three degrees of separation (your friend's, mother's, sister for example). So when we put effort into making ourselves calmer and kinder we do change the world.
@Jason said:
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
I would ultimately argue that as long as you are following the 10 wholesome actions and abstaining from the 10 unwholesome actions, then you are leading a moral life, regardless of what else you do or don't do. Of course it's good to do those things, they are good methods for practicing dana, but to say it's immoral to not become some kind of political activist, I think that takes it too far.
So you equate shared social responsibilities with generosity then? And to engage in any kind of citizenry duties is to become a political activist? Is your argument that one has no duties to others, only to one's self?
I'm sorry I jumped into this. I wanted to make a point, but I'm doing a bad job and I don't know if it's even worth it. I've spent a long time defending religion from people who don't see the benefit of it. But I find it more and more difficult to defend it from criticisms that it leads people to either do harmful things or to do nothing because they see no point in doing things in a world that isn't permanent or real.
One the one hand, I see so many Christians who are socially and politically engaged, whether through charity work or lobbying and voting, but they often do the wrong things, like use their religious beliefs to justify discrimination and oppression, not realizing the harm they're doing because they think they're actually doing good. On the other, I see so many Buddhists who have their hearts in the right place and know good from bad, skillful from unskillful, but who do nothing because they're either 'beyond this world,' don't realize the duties they share to/with others, or else see no point in doing anything because the world is conditioned and they're striving for nibbana or the buddharealm.
Despite the disagreements I have with Martin Hagglund about religion in general, I'm intrigued by some of the ideas in his new book, This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom, especially re: the need for a kind of 'secular faith'. In his words, "To have secular faith is to be devoted to a life that will end, to be dedicated to projects that can fail or break down." Or as he elaborates later in the same interview:
What I do think we should let go of are religious ideals of being liberated from finitude—whether in Christian eternal life or Buddhist nirvana or some other variant. Rather than try to become invulnerable, we should recognize that vulnerability is part of the good that we seek. In my book, this is a therapeutic argument as much as it is a philosophical one. The therapy will not exempt you from the risks of being committed to a finite life. You cannot bear life on your own and those on whom you depend can end up shattering your life. These are real dangers. But they are not reasons to try to transcend finitude altogether. They are reasons to take our mutual dependence seriously and develop better ways of living together.
Maybe it's because I getting older and less idealistic, but I'm getting tired of people who use religion to kick the can down the road, either because the can and road lack inherent existence or because they're focused on their own search for heaven or happiness. There's a lot of suffering in the world, and it's natural that we want to overcome that. But if your religion doesn't inspire and encourage you to be socially and politically engaged, to see and address the suffering of others in material, concrete ways, then I question the validity (and morality) of that religion, whatever it is.
@Jason said:
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
I would ultimately argue that as long as you are following the 10 wholesome actions and abstaining from the 10 unwholesome actions, then you are leading a moral life, regardless of what else you do or don't do. Of course it's good to do those things, they are good methods for practicing dana, but to say it's immoral to not become some kind of political activist, I think that takes it too far.
But when the notion of suffering and beings leads him to think:
‘Suffering I shall remove, the weal of the world I shall work!’
Beings are then imagined, a self is imagined, -
The practice of wisdom, the highest perfection, is lacking.
(Prajnaparamita-Ratnagunasamcayagatha)
So the perfection of generosity in this tradition means that there are neither giver, nor given, nor recipient. Otherwise it is merely worldly giving. This applies to the other perfections in analogy.
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
So what exactly do you do, @herbie, to integrate and cooperate with the social environment you live in? How do you interact and join with others on a social level?
Do you work?
Do you volunteer?
Do you live in a house, or an apartment?
On your own, or do you share?
Do you consume? Food? Clothing? Water? Electricity? Gas? Candles?
Do you use public transport or your own vehicle?
Do you inhabit a town or city?
@Jason said:
Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
Yes, one need not be a political activist to be moral.
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
A more specific example. My government separates families and puts children in cages, all of which is damaging and harmful. Is it moral for me to not even do the bare minimum and vote for people who are against this? Or is it more moral to do as herbie suggests and not identify with that reality because I'm over here overcoming the world? Perhaps herbie is correct and I'm just not on the right level to understand it, but I'm currently under the opinion that I have some modicum of moral responsibility for others and the society I live in, as much as it depresses me and overwhelms me at times.
I think you may have misunderstood my words. See the quote from the Prajnaparamita-Ratnagunasamcayagatha above.
Basically It is about the ideal of all activities and non-activities being without agent, activity and object acted upon.
But of course if one has not yet attained this capacity then activist 'engaged buddhism' may be more harmful for oneself and others than helpful.
@Jason said:
So you equate shared social responsibilities with generosity then? And to engage in any kind of citizenry duties is to become a political activist? Is your argument that one has no duties to others, only to one's self?
My argument is that if you are following the 10 wholesome actions, then you are living a moral life, as that is what the Buddha himself taught. Giving your time, energy, etc. in efforts helping others can surely be considered generosity. Selfish people don’t even consider doing such things.
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
Moderator note:
Ok, stop talking in riddles. We talked about this, ok?
Your method of communication...
Now you're just trying to be clever.
Answer my questions, use normal terminology, and quit being a smart ass.
We all practice.
Everyone is practicing.
Do you see anyone else on here talking in riddles and being obtuse and vague?
It would be more helpful if you just spoke to us the way you normally speak to people around you.
I'm sure you don't use this kind of language and terminology when buying a t-shirt, loaf of bread or underwear...
So let's drop this chess-game of needlessly hiding behind your practice, and try to engage in the way everyone else does.
Ok, stop talking in riddles. We talked about this, ok?
Your method of communication...
Now you're just trying to be clever.
Answer my questions, use normal terminology, and quit being a smart ass.
We all practice.
Everyone is practicing.
Do you see anyone else on here talking in riddles and being obtuse and vague?
It would be more helpful if you just spoke to us the way you normally speak to people around you.
I'm sure you don't use this kind of language and terminology when buying a t-shirt, loaf of bread or underwear...
So let's drop this chess-game of needlessly hiding behind your practice, and try to engage in the way everyone else does.
Dear federica
I am speechless, sorry ...
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
That's unusual for you.
Please just respond in a normal manner and everything will be fine.
Stop resorting to hiding behind high-brow terminology.
@federica said:
That's unusual for you.
Please just respond in a normal manner and everything will be fine.
Stop resorting to hiding behind high-brow terminology.
I am not hiding behind high-brow terminology if I refer via quote to an established buddhist tradition. After all this is a buddhist forum, right?
And since this is a public forum I am not going to publish private details here.
@Jason said:
So you equate shared social responsibilities with generosity then? And to engage in any kind of citizenry duties is to become a political activist? Is your argument that one has no duties to others, only to one's self?
My argument is that if you are following the 10 wholesome actions, then you are living a moral life, as that is what the Buddha himself taught. Giving your time, energy, etc. in efforts helping others can surely be considered generosity. Selfish people don’t even consider doing such things.
Nobody is saying that those who follow the 'ten wholesome actions' aren't moral. That's not the point of what I or anyone else is saying. The question is, do we have a moral obligation to others? And more specifically, if we, as citizens who help to create and maintain the socioeconomic and political frameworks of our respective societies, have a moral obligation to our fellow citizens as much as to ourselves? Some seem to be arguing that it's ok to renounce the world and those very responsibilities for religious-inspired reasons. Some do so on the grounds that samara is conditioned, impermanent, so why bother? Others do so because they say that they and other lack inherent existence; there is not us and them, nothing to give or get, so the practice is all that really matters. Still others do so because they're selfishly focused on their own salvation, or else too focused on the salvation of all other, future, neither existing nor non-existent beings by shooting for the buddharealm instead of doing anything in the here and now. And that is the type of religion I have no time or patience for.
@Jason said:
Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
Yes, one need not be a political activist to be moral.
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
A more specific example. My government separates families and puts children in cages, all of which is damaging and harmful. Is it moral for me to not even do the bare minimum and vote for people who are against this? Or is it more moral to do as herbie suggests and not identify with that reality because I'm over here overcoming the world? Perhaps herbie is correct and I'm just not on the right level to understand it, but I'm currently under the opinion that I have some modicum of moral responsibility for others and the society I live in, as much as it depresses me and overwhelms me at times.
I think you may have misunderstood my words. See the quote from the Prajnaparamita-Ratnagunasamcayagatha above.
Basically It is about the ideal of all activities and non-activities being without agent, activity and object acted upon.
But of course if one has not yet attained this capacity then activist 'engaged buddhism' may be more harmful for oneself and others than helpful.
So nobody should do anything at all in the world until they're enlightened and see the lack of inherent existence in all things? Doesn't seem possible or very practical, for that matter.
what i do not understand is your use of 'obligation'. What could establish such an obligation from your perspective?
I do not deny that individual reasoning can arive at the conclusion of individually felt responsibility but I feel that's not what you're aiming at.
@Jason said:
Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
Yes, one need not be a political activist to be moral.
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
A more specific example. My government separates families and puts children in cages, all of which is damaging and harmful. Is it moral for me to not even do the bare minimum and vote for people who are against this? Or is it more moral to do as herbie suggests and not identify with that reality because I'm over here overcoming the world? Perhaps herbie is correct and I'm just not on the right level to understand it, but I'm currently under the opinion that I have some modicum of moral responsibility for others and the society I live in, as much as it depresses me and overwhelms me at times.
I think you may have misunderstood my words. See the quote from the Prajnaparamita-Ratnagunasamcayagatha above.
Basically It is about the ideal of all activities and non-activities being without agent, activity and object acted upon.
But of course if one has not yet attained this capacity then activist 'engaged buddhism' may be more harmful for oneself and others than helpful.
So nobody should do anything at all in the world until they're enlightened and see the lack of inherent existence in all things? Doesn't seem possible or very practical, for that matter.
Dear Jason,
that is not what I have written. My use of 'may' was meant to indicate a possibility only. From my perspective it is not about 'should' or 'shouldn't'
@Jason said:
Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
Yes, one need not be a political activist to be moral.
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
A more specific example. My government separates families and puts children in cages, all of which is damaging and harmful. Is it moral for me to not even do the bare minimum and vote for people who are against this? Or is it more moral to do as herbie suggests and not identify with that reality because I'm over here overcoming the world? Perhaps herbie is correct and I'm just not on the right level to understand it, but I'm currently under the opinion that I have some modicum of moral responsibility for others and the society I live in, as much as it depresses me and overwhelms me at times.
I think you may have misunderstood my words. See the quote from the Prajnaparamita-Ratnagunasamcayagatha above.
Basically It is about the ideal of all activities and non-activities being without agent, activity and object acted upon.
But of course if one has not yet attained this capacity then activist 'engaged buddhism' may be more harmful for oneself and others than helpful.
So nobody should do anything at all in the world until they're enlightened and see the lack of inherent existence in all things? Doesn't seem possible or very practical, for that matter.
Dear Jason,
that is not what I have written. My use of 'may' was meant to indicate a possibility only. From my perspective it is not about 'should' or 'shouldn't'
It's directly implied from what you've written. And while speaking of yourself, you've advocated from such abstention explicitly, such as when you said, "Politics from my empirical perspective is one of the most toxic worldly matters. With every engagement the number of chains may again increase and passions are easily fostered as well. I will again engage in politics when buddhahood is attained." And the general idea is implied with the statement, "Basically It is about the ideal of all activities and non-activities being without agent, activity and object acted upon. But of course if one has not yet attained this capacity then activist 'engaged buddhism' may be more harmful for oneself and others than helpful." Yes, you may have some linguistic wriggle room by speaking subjectively and with qualifiers such as may, but the implications are clear, especially when take with statements like, "Please accept that I am not part of that 'we'. I am not even 'I'. Where are 'political duties' located?" Not only do you seem to be arguing for the renunciation of socio-political responsibilities, you seem to arguing against their very existence. To me, that borders on nihilism.
what i do not understand is your use of 'obligation'. What could establish such an obligation from your perspective?
By their being a part of a society. By being a social creature in a socially-constructed world. By their access to and use of public utilities, such as water and electricity, and infrastructures such as roads, phone lines, and internet. By legal obligations. By social contracts (i.e.. implicit agreements among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits). By any moral framework that takes the suffering and needs of others into consideration, whether it's the golden rule or the four brahmaviharas. By any number of aspects that make up our present reality, whether or not you deny that reality's existence.
@Jason said:
Nobody is saying that those who follow the 'ten wholesome actions' aren't moral. That's not the point of what I or anyone else is saying. The question is, do we have a moral obligation to others? And more specifically, if we, as citizens who help to create and maintain the socioeconomic and political frameworks of our respective societies, have a moral obligation to our fellow citizens as much as to ourselves?
I would say that by following the 10 wholesome actions, you are doing a lot of fulfilling of moral obligations to others, as 9 out of the 10 actions aren't only about yourself but directly related to how one interacts with others. We certainly do have moral obligations to others. For example, don't kill them, don't steal from them, don't lie to them, etc. All those things aren't just about oneself.
Some seem to be arguing that it's ok to renounce the world and those very responsibilities
I would say that entirely depends on what you consider those "responsibilities" to be. Although, if a person has a different version of those responsibilities than you do, that does not necessarily mean they are acting immorally or neglecting some kind of moral obligation.
For example, MLK felt it was a moral responsibility to champion the civil rights of black people. Does that mean if I don't become a champion of civil rights, then I'm somehow neglecting some kind of moral obligation? I don't think so.
@Jason said:
Nobody is saying that those who follow the 'ten wholesome actions' aren't moral. That's not the point of what I or anyone else is saying. The question is, do we have a moral obligation to others? And more specifically, if we, as citizens who help to create and maintain the socioeconomic and political frameworks of our respective societies, have a moral obligation to our fellow citizens as much as to ourselves?
I would say that by following the 10 wholesome actions, you are doing a lot of fulfilling of moral obligations to others, as 9 out of the 10 actions aren't only about yourself but directly related to how one interacts with others. We certainly do have moral obligations to others. For example, don't kill them, don't steal from them, don't lie to them, etc. All those things aren't just about oneself.
Some seem to be arguing that it's ok to renounce the world and those very responsibilities
I would say that entirely depends on what you consider those "responsibilities" to be. Although, if a person has a different version of those responsibilities than you do, that does not necessarily mean they are acting immorally or neglecting some kind of moral obligation.
On every level of social life we have responsibilities. And while everyone may not agree on what they are or how to best fulfill them, I think it's folly to ignore them or pretend that they don't exist.
I feel we have both tried to express our perspectives, misunderstandings have occured but we may just leave them as they are.
Certainly we both do not want to force our perspectives on others because that would be bad politics.
Thank you for explaining me your world view which is btw a view I've come across a few times already. Hopefully your view provides the support you need for successfully engaging in politics because that is what you want to do so I have understood.
On every level of social life we have responsibilities. And while everyone may not agree on what they are or how to best fulfill them, I think it's folly to ignore them or pretend that they don't exist.
I would agree in saying it’s folly to say they don’t exist. One of the biggest responsibilities there is is to not do harm and that is surely accomplished just with basic Buddhist practice, without any notions of political involvement etc. etc.
Do you not also understand that how we treat others in our society is also a form of political involvement? That's one of the main points I've been trying to get across.
@Jason said:
Do you not also understand that how we treat others in our society is also a form of political involvement? That's one of the main points I've been trying to get across
Sure you could say that. However, how I treat others and how society treats others, are two entirely different things. For example, I don’t discriminate against gay people or black people. I don’t cause harm to gay people or black people. Other people out there are doing harm to them. I don’t think it’s correct to say that if you don’t go out there and try to stop those people from harming them, then your shirking some kind of moral responsibility.
If that can be said then it can also be said about a hundred other things that are happening in society that cause harm. What are you supposed to do? Become a political champion of all those 100 things? And if you don’t you’re somehow shirking a moral responsibility? Who is to say how much is enough? Seems to me it’s up to the individual to determine that themselves, for themselves.
One the one hand, I see so many Christians who are socially and politically engaged, whether through charity work or lobbying and voting, but they often do the wrong things, like use their religious beliefs to justify discrimination and oppression, not realizing the harm they're doing because they think they're actually doing good. On the other, I see so many Buddhists who have their hearts in the right place and know good from bad, skillful from unskillful, but who do nothing because they're either 'beyond this world,' don't realize the duties they share to/with others, or else see no point in doing anything because the world is conditioned and they're striving for nibbana or the buddharealm.
I completely agree with you. This is why I now consider myself an Omnist.
Maybe it's because I getting older and less idealistic, but I'm getting tired of people who use religion to kick the can down the road, either because the can and road lack inherent existence or because they're focused on their own search for heaven or happiness. There's a lot of suffering in the world, and it's natural that we want to overcome that. But if your religion doesn't inspire and encourage you to be socially and politically engaged, to see and address the suffering of others in material, concrete ways, then I question the validity (and morality) of that religion, whatever it is.
Again I concur 100%. I’m just getting too old for that shit.
On every level of social life we have responsibilities. And while everyone may not agree on what they are or how to best fulfill them, I think it's folly to ignore them or pretend that they don't exist.
I would agree in saying it’s folly to say they don’t exist. One of the biggest responsibilities there is is to not do harm and that is surely accomplished just with basic Buddhist practice, without any notions of political involvement etc. etc.
I feel we have a totally different understanding of existence. That's funny and I guess that's the reason why @Jason accused me of nihilism.
Let me explain.
From my perspective - please accept that I am conditioned that way -
saying something exists is necessarily saying that is is there independent of imputation.
Now if you say there would be a responsibility and that it would be mine and that it is there independent of your imputation then I cannot accept that. Is it given by God or what?
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
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
Imputation has several nuances or interpretations.
Please clarify what you mean....?
The whole post is quite difficult to follow...
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
edited April 2019
@herbie said: .. From my perspective - please accept that I am conditioned that way -
Ah...
Once, a long time ago, there was a wise Zen master. People from far and near would seek his counsel and ask for his wisdom. Many would come and ask him to teach them, enlighten them in the way of Zen. He seldom turned any away.
One day an important man, a man used to command and obedience came to visit the master. “I have come today to ask you to teach me about Zen. Open my mind to enlightenment.” The tone of the important man’s voice was one used to getting his own way.
The Zen master smiled and said that they should discuss the matter over a cup of tea. When the tea was served the master poured his visitor a cup. He poured and he poured and the tea rose to the rim and began to spill over the table and finally onto the robes of the wealthy man. Finally the visitor shouted, “Enough. You are spilling the tea all over. Can’t you see the cup is full?”
The master stopped pouring and smiled at his guest. “You are like this tea cup, so full that nothing more can be added. Come back to me when the cup is empty. Come back to me with an empty mind.”
@federica said:
Imputation has several nuances or interpretations.
Please clarify what you mean....?
The whole post is quite difficult to follow...
Dear federica
1. the post is addressed to Jason
2. to keep things simple: the decisive paragraph is the last one:
_If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
_
So it's really only a question whether Jason considers his moral principles as given and thus all individuals to be subject to the moral principles he declares.
Actually he has already made clear that he takes his moral principles as given through the power of birth into a society. Nevertheless I would like to appeal to him to think this over by means of my post.
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
edited April 2019
Ok, well I will leave it to @Jason to see whether it's worth his while getting into it with you.
Incidentally, I never asked you any private questions.
Those kinds of questions are just they type of chit-chat one has with someone to get to know them better.
If you wish to remain in secretive isolation, that's up to you I guess.
But the less we know of you, the less we can engage...
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so. The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
@seeker242 said:
The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I think I see morality as being more true or more powerful if engaged in freely rather than out of obligation.
I can't really explain my reasoning directly but an analogy that I relate to it is that of religious conversion. If an individual converts to a particular religion because society dictates it or they feel they must or face social isolation, even if they try to engage seriously their efforts won't be as sincere or as powerful as an individual who has the freedom to choose whether to adopt any set of beliefs or practices.
Coerced faith or kindness isn't real, imo it must be freely given. I don't murder people not because of the laws and social norms that tell me not to, at least not directly, I don't murder people because I believe in my heart that just as I value my life and don't want to be murdered, others feel the same way about their own life. I happily pay my taxes and contribute my labor to society, I make efforts to improve my own mental well being and wisdom. I don't solely do those things for my own benefit, I do them because they benefit others and thus the world.
I do think there are better and worse ways to organize people. I think those ways aren't fixed and absolute, they change with the changing world, what worked for our ancestors won't always work the same for us. I also believe we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel every generation, there are more ways to order the world that can go wrong than there are that can go right. Previous generations have been able to figure out many valuable lessons that we can learn from, after all this is a forum dedicated to learning lessons that were laid out 2,500 years ago.
Having said that, the political world matters. Looking out at it though I see so much toxicity, I see tribalism and dehumanization nearly everywhere I look. I honestly don't think most people can closely engage with that without being affected by it. In this matter what comes to mind is my attitude towards the military. As good as it would be to live in a world without militaries, I don't think that is a good idea currently. As such some people will need to do that job, we don't all have to do it, it is also important to have people who teach children, who heal the sick, who build the homes and keep the streets clean. People can be involved in politics, it doesn't mean we all have to be. We also need people who can teach and show others about how we can change our inner conditions to remove the internal suffering of the world.
@Jason said:
Ok, well I will leave it to@Jason to see whether it's worth his while getting into it with you.
It's not. For one, responsibility ≠ principle. I don't think the kind of moral responsibilities I'm talking about are 'given' the way herbie implies, only that they exist because of the present circumstances and that it's better if we acknowledge and accept them, not that it even really matters.
The more we see our shared bond and reliance upon one another in our ever-growing and interconnected society, the more we'll work together and the better off we'll all be. And we share them not because they're independently existing, but because of our social nature as a species, the social nature of our societies, our reliance upon one another, and our capacity for empathy and compassion.
But let them pretend to be above the world and kamma and the responsibilities of being a human being and everything else if they want.
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
@seeker242 said:
The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
Interesting. So morality isn't objective in your opinion, and ethics are relative? Killing is only immoral because people agree it is so? Are you suggesting there's no deeper level in which killing is immoral? That killing is ok if people simply agree it's ok?
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so. The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
For my part, I'd say that there's a difference between moral consequences and responsibilities, but they're connected. There are moral consequence to killing, some of which are internal and some of which come from society. Responsibility is slightly different, but stems from this same moral foundation.
Say you're walking down the road and you see someone choking. Nobody else is around and they'll die if you don't help. Do you have a responsibility to help? I'd say yes, most definitely. Do you have to? No, of course not. You could simply keep walking for any number of reasons, e.g., you're late for an appointment; you're scared and not sure what to do; etc. But I'd argue that there's still a moral responsibility there because another living being is in danger, is suffering, and you have the ability to help (the active side of the first precept). Maybe you can't give them the Heimlich maneuver, but you can at least call 911.
And that's the basic nature of the moral responsibility I'm talking about here, although it gets more complicated the more people we add and the more complicated the circumstances. Politics are essentially the extension of these responsibilities to society as a whole.
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
@seeker242 said:
The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
Interesting. So morality isn't objective in your opinion, and ethics are relative? Killing is only immoral because people agree it is so? Are you suggesting there's no deeper level in which killing is immoral? That killing is ok if people simply agree it's ok?
as to question 1:
If morality/ethics were objective then there would be scientific evidence and no ethics committees would be required.
as to question 2:
If killing were absolutely and objectively immoral and that immorality independent of conventions there would be no wars and corresponding industries and politics, policemen had no guns, there would be no death penalty, etc etc etc
as to question 3:
Please specify 'deeper level'.
as to question 4:
As far as the world's view is concerned, obviously yes.
As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
@seeker242 said:
The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
Interesting. So morality isn't objective in your opinion, and ethics are relative? Killing is only immoral because people agree it is so? Are you suggesting there's no deeper level in which killing is immoral? That killing is ok if people simply agree it's ok?
as to question 1:
If morality/ethics were objective then there would be scientific evidence and no ethics committees would be required.
as to question 2:
If killing were absolutely and objectively immoral and that immorality independent of conventions there would be no wars and corresponding industries and politics, policemen had no guns, there would be no death penalty, etc etc etc
as to question 3:
Please specify 'deeper level'.
as to question 4:
As far as the world's view is concerned, obviously yes.
As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
I see. Well, I certainly can't expect someone to act morally or with any sense of shared responsibility if they do not believe either morality or moral responsibilities exist. And if there is no deeper level to morality, then I suppose kamma is meaningless and non-existent as well, and one should not fear the consequences of breaking any of the precepts from your POV except in terms of social punishment, since that is the only thing you seem to acknowledge the reality of. (Do the deed, just don't get caught!) Perhaps it's for the best that you're beyond the world and "not living in society," as you say.
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
@seeker242 said:
The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
Interesting. So morality isn't objective in your opinion, and ethics are relative? Killing is only immoral because people agree it is so? Are you suggesting there's no deeper level in which killing is immoral? That killing is ok if people simply agree it's ok?
as to question 1:
If morality/ethics were objective then there would be scientific evidence and no ethics committees would be required.
as to question 2:
If killing were absolutely and objectively immoral and that immorality independent of conventions there would be no wars and corresponding industries and politics, policemen had no guns, there would be no death penalty, etc etc etc
as to question 3:
Please specify 'deeper level'.
as to question 4:
As far as the world's view is concerned, obviously yes.
As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
I see. Well, I certainly can't expect someone to act morally or with any sense of shared responsibility if they do not believe either morality or moral responsibilities exist. And if there is no deeper level to morality, then I suppose kamma is meaningless and non-existent as well, and one should not fear the consequences of breaking any of the precepts from your POV except in terms of social punishment, since that is the only thing you seem to acknowledge the reality of. (Do the deed, just don't get caught!) Perhaps it's for the best that you're beyond the world and "not living in society," as you say.
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
This individual may understand - not necessarily does understand - in an inconceivable way the hidden meaning of actions/karma and its effects and even if it does not understand it but follows the Buddhas ethical guidelines based on pure faith in Buddha, this individual will reap corresponding benefit.
Thus is the extraordinary sphere of Buddha Dharma that only few individuals do meet and even fewer individuals stay with in the live they meet it.
How all this happens is utterly inconceivable therefore one speaks of actions/karma and its effects and of various degrees of obscurations.
Comments
That makes no sense. Unless you're living in a cave with no other human contact and no access and use of public utilities, such as water and electricity, and infrastructures such as roads, phone lines, and internet, and don't work, contribute taxes, or have voting rights, then you're a part of society. You're a citizen with political responsibilities, whether you choose to accept them or not. You contribute to society, and your decisions and actions have a ripple effect which feed into the political superstructure of your society, locally and beyond. All aspects of our lives are political. Even monastic sanghas have their own internal politics.
@Jason, I think @herbie is speaking of relatively living 'on another plane'... I think he means everything is illusory, so whatever you believe you're doing, you actually aren't...
This is pure speculation on my part though.
It really does warrant clarification...
Dear Dharma friend Jason,
being at a loss for appropriate words I feel like Kyogen's man hanging by his teeth in a tree over a precipice. I think I follow Mumon's advice: 'But if you cannot answer, you should wait for ages and ask Maitreya, the future Buddha.'
Nevertheless I would appreciate if you could accept that there are beings that are reluctant to identify with the reality that appears to the world because they have set out to on a path to overcome the world's mess for the benefit of all.
To benefit the 'we' it may be necessary initially - for eons or so - not to share with the world what the world considers to be true and valid.
Having said that like Chandrakirti I do accept what the world claims to be valid but I do not accept it as truth or as authoritative in the context of 'my' perception and conception although I have to apply it to be able to communicate with the world. Why do I do this that way? Because the goal of my path is to overcome my conditionings not to foster them.
That does not mean that there are no other paths that lead to the same goal but while these alternative paths may be perfectly suitable for others they are not suitable for me.
Now I have elaborated the issue but this appeared appropriate to me now because my former brief statements may have made an extreme impression and actually my practice aims at the sphere beyond extremes.
Thank you for your patience.
That's what I was trying to say but I was saying it badly.
@herbie I think you may be trying to go at it from or to the absolute even knowing the conventional reality. I can't figure out why that will help ease the suffering as I see it the other way around but I do certainly think it is possible to find common ground in the Middle.
But even us just talking here helping each other on this forum is politics.
Even if it turns out we are all just really talking to ourself.
Some of us may never forget what you say to us here and we got it on record to boot.
Yes, one need not be a political activist to be moral.
?
So would you ultimately argue, then, that neglecting the duties of citizenship is moral? That not voting is moral? Not going to jury duty, paying taxes, etc. is moral? That living in a society while not doing anything to steer it in what you believe to be a good direction is moral? Things of that nature?
A more specific example. My government separates families and puts children in cages, all of which is damaging and harmful. Is it moral for me to not even do the bare minimum and vote for people who are against this? Or is it more moral to do as herbie suggests and not identify with that reality because I'm over here overcoming the world? Perhaps herbie is correct and I'm just not on the right level to understand it, but I'm currently under the opinion that I have some modicum of moral responsibility for others and the society I live in, as much as it depresses me and overwhelms me at times.
Dear Dharma friend David,
I have experienced it thus:
There are approaches with a bias towards affirmation of the conventional and there are approaches with a bias towards a negation of the conventional.
But these approaches are themselves only conventional because they are depending on conceptuality and language.
So regardless of how I put it, whether affirming the conventional or negating the conventional, it still belongs to the sphere of the conventional which is - according to Chandrakirti - true only for an obscuring consciousness. And if both, conceptual affirmation and conceptual negation of the conventional, are deceptive I take what I experience to be more conducive for my practice when expressing my perspective. Because the way I express my experience directly affects my experience. My experience is nothing but imputations.
Having said that there is no claim that this is true or valid for other individuals. It is just a metaphoric description of my individual innate experience which is subject to obscurations.
From my perspective 'the common ground in the Middle' - as you put it - is already present. It just has to be revealed. But it can't be revealed through affirmation or negation in the context of conventional language and conceptuality.
Here we have another characteristic of conventional approaches: there are those that teach that something has to be constructed newly and those that teach that what is already present just has to be revealed. And again every individual chooses what appears more appropriate in its current situation. Ultimately there is no difference.
It is a wonderful miracle that the variety of the Buddha Dharma covers the needs of countless individual beings.
Dear federica,
that may be covered by this response to David above.
I find generally politics and governance of nations to be too large a subject to tackle within the context of my buddhist path... in a way I would be happiest with nation states that were constructed in such a way as to minimalise power politics on both a personal and governmental level. But I suspect vested interests would fight tooth and nail, lie cheat and steal in order to keep private ownership, armies, oil and geopolitics.
That leaves me with no valid options to vote for on Election Day, and I tend to register my protest against the system by not voting, although I have in the past voted for the Greens, just in the interest of trying to get people to spend more time and effort on activism to maintain our planet.
I would ultimately argue that as long as you are following the 10 wholesome actions and abstaining from the 10 unwholesome actions, then you are leading a moral life, regardless of what else you do or don't do. Of course it's good to do those things, they are good methods for practicing dana, but to say it's immoral to not become some kind of political activist, I think that takes it too far.
In the Tibetan tradition, and I assume in many others, dharma practice is done with the intent to be of benefit to others more than it is to provide personal peace and happiness. So when we adopt Dharmic views of the world such as non attachment or equanimity these aren't just kept to oneself. When we develop our inner qualities we are then better able to set an example to others of how it may be possible to be in the world in a less suffering way.
I remember some research somewhere that looked into how attitudes and behaviors get spread among groups of friends and family, and they were able to trace certain behaviors out to three degrees of separation (your friend's, mother's, sister for example). So when we put effort into making ourselves calmer and kinder we do change the world.
So you equate shared social responsibilities with generosity then? And to engage in any kind of citizenry duties is to become a political activist? Is your argument that one has no duties to others, only to one's self?
I'm sorry I jumped into this. I wanted to make a point, but I'm doing a bad job and I don't know if it's even worth it. I've spent a long time defending religion from people who don't see the benefit of it. But I find it more and more difficult to defend it from criticisms that it leads people to either do harmful things or to do nothing because they see no point in doing things in a world that isn't permanent or real.
One the one hand, I see so many Christians who are socially and politically engaged, whether through charity work or lobbying and voting, but they often do the wrong things, like use their religious beliefs to justify discrimination and oppression, not realizing the harm they're doing because they think they're actually doing good. On the other, I see so many Buddhists who have their hearts in the right place and know good from bad, skillful from unskillful, but who do nothing because they're either 'beyond this world,' don't realize the duties they share to/with others, or else see no point in doing anything because the world is conditioned and they're striving for nibbana or the buddharealm.
Despite the disagreements I have with Martin Hagglund about religion in general, I'm intrigued by some of the ideas in his new book, This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom, especially re: the need for a kind of 'secular faith'. In his words, "To have secular faith is to be devoted to a life that will end, to be dedicated to projects that can fail or break down." Or as he elaborates later in the same interview:
Maybe it's because I getting older and less idealistic, but I'm getting tired of people who use religion to kick the can down the road, either because the can and road lack inherent existence or because they're focused on their own search for heaven or happiness. There's a lot of suffering in the world, and it's natural that we want to overcome that. But if your religion doesn't inspire and encourage you to be socially and politically engaged, to see and address the suffering of others in material, concrete ways, then I question the validity (and morality) of that religion, whatever it is.
(Prajnaparamita-Ratnagunasamcayagatha)
So the perfection of generosity in this tradition means that there are neither giver, nor given, nor recipient. Otherwise it is merely worldly giving. This applies to the other perfections in analogy.
So what exactly do you do, @herbie, to integrate and cooperate with the social environment you live in? How do you interact and join with others on a social level?
Do you work?
Do you volunteer?
Do you live in a house, or an apartment?
On your own, or do you share?
Do you consume? Food? Clothing? Water? Electricity? Gas? Candles?
Do you use public transport or your own vehicle?
Do you inhabit a town or city?
I think you may have misunderstood my words. See the quote from the Prajnaparamita-Ratnagunasamcayagatha above.
Basically It is about the ideal of all activities and non-activities being without agent, activity and object acted upon.
But of course if one has not yet attained this capacity then activist 'engaged buddhism' may be more harmful for oneself and others than helpful.
I am practicing. Or trying to. But I am a bad practitioner. you're certainly better.
My argument is that if you are following the 10 wholesome actions, then you are living a moral life, as that is what the Buddha himself taught. Giving your time, energy, etc. in efforts helping others can surely be considered generosity. Selfish people don’t even consider doing such things.
Moderator note:
Ok, stop talking in riddles. We talked about this, ok?
Your method of communication...
Now you're just trying to be clever.
Answer my questions, use normal terminology, and quit being a smart ass.
We all practice.
Everyone is practicing.
Do you see anyone else on here talking in riddles and being obtuse and vague?
It would be more helpful if you just spoke to us the way you normally speak to people around you.
I'm sure you don't use this kind of language and terminology when buying a t-shirt, loaf of bread or underwear...
So let's drop this chess-game of needlessly hiding behind your practice, and try to engage in the way everyone else does.
Dear federica
I am speechless, sorry ...
That's unusual for you.
Please just respond in a normal manner and everything will be fine.
Stop resorting to hiding behind high-brow terminology.
I am not hiding behind high-brow terminology if I refer via quote to an established buddhist tradition. After all this is a buddhist forum, right?
And since this is a public forum I am not going to publish private details here.
Nobody is saying that those who follow the 'ten wholesome actions' aren't moral. That's not the point of what I or anyone else is saying. The question is, do we have a moral obligation to others? And more specifically, if we, as citizens who help to create and maintain the socioeconomic and political frameworks of our respective societies, have a moral obligation to our fellow citizens as much as to ourselves? Some seem to be arguing that it's ok to renounce the world and those very responsibilities for religious-inspired reasons. Some do so on the grounds that samara is conditioned, impermanent, so why bother? Others do so because they say that they and other lack inherent existence; there is not us and them, nothing to give or get, so the practice is all that really matters. Still others do so because they're selfishly focused on their own salvation, or else too focused on the salvation of all other, future, neither existing nor non-existent beings by shooting for the buddharealm instead of doing anything in the here and now. And that is the type of religion I have no time or patience for.
So nobody should do anything at all in the world until they're enlightened and see the lack of inherent existence in all things? Doesn't seem possible or very practical, for that matter.
Dear @Jason,
what i do not understand is your use of 'obligation'. What could establish such an obligation from your perspective?
I do not deny that individual reasoning can arive at the conclusion of individually felt responsibility but I feel that's not what you're aiming at.
Dear Jason,
that is not what I have written. My use of 'may' was meant to indicate a possibility only. From my perspective it is not about 'should' or 'shouldn't'
It's directly implied from what you've written. And while speaking of yourself, you've advocated from such abstention explicitly, such as when you said, "Politics from my empirical perspective is one of the most toxic worldly matters. With every engagement the number of chains may again increase and passions are easily fostered as well. I will again engage in politics when buddhahood is attained." And the general idea is implied with the statement, "Basically It is about the ideal of all activities and non-activities being without agent, activity and object acted upon. But of course if one has not yet attained this capacity then activist 'engaged buddhism' may be more harmful for oneself and others than helpful." Yes, you may have some linguistic wriggle room by speaking subjectively and with qualifiers such as may, but the implications are clear, especially when take with statements like, "Please accept that I am not part of that 'we'. I am not even 'I'. Where are 'political duties' located?" Not only do you seem to be arguing for the renunciation of socio-political responsibilities, you seem to arguing against their very existence. To me, that borders on nihilism.
By their being a part of a society. By being a social creature in a socially-constructed world. By their access to and use of public utilities, such as water and electricity, and infrastructures such as roads, phone lines, and internet. By legal obligations. By social contracts (i.e.. implicit agreements among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits). By any moral framework that takes the suffering and needs of others into consideration, whether it's the golden rule or the four brahmaviharas. By any number of aspects that make up our present reality, whether or not you deny that reality's existence.
I would say that by following the 10 wholesome actions, you are doing a lot of fulfilling of moral obligations to others, as 9 out of the 10 actions aren't only about yourself but directly related to how one interacts with others. We certainly do have moral obligations to others. For example, don't kill them, don't steal from them, don't lie to them, etc. All those things aren't just about oneself.
I would say that entirely depends on what you consider those "responsibilities" to be. Although, if a person has a different version of those responsibilities than you do, that does not necessarily mean they are acting immorally or neglecting some kind of moral obligation.
For example, MLK felt it was a moral responsibility to champion the civil rights of black people. Does that mean if I don't become a champion of civil rights, then I'm somehow neglecting some kind of moral obligation? I don't think so.
On every level of social life we have responsibilities. And while everyone may not agree on what they are or how to best fulfill them, I think it's folly to ignore them or pretend that they don't exist.
Dear @Jason,
I feel we have both tried to express our perspectives, misunderstandings have occured but we may just leave them as they are.
Certainly we both do not want to force our perspectives on others because that would be bad politics.
Thank you for explaining me your world view which is btw a view I've come across a few times already. Hopefully your view provides the support you need for successfully engaging in politics because that is what you want to do so I have understood.
All the best.
I would agree in saying it’s folly to say they don’t exist. One of the biggest responsibilities there is is to not do harm and that is surely accomplished just with basic Buddhist practice, without any notions of political involvement etc. etc.
Do you not also understand that how we treat others in our society is also a form of political involvement? That's one of the main points I've been trying to get across.
Sure you could say that. However, how I treat others and how society treats others, are two entirely different things. For example, I don’t discriminate against gay people or black people. I don’t cause harm to gay people or black people. Other people out there are doing harm to them. I don’t think it’s correct to say that if you don’t go out there and try to stop those people from harming them, then your shirking some kind of moral responsibility.
If that can be said then it can also be said about a hundred other things that are happening in society that cause harm. What are you supposed to do? Become a political champion of all those 100 things? And if you don’t you’re somehow shirking a moral responsibility? Who is to say how much is enough? Seems to me it’s up to the individual to determine that themselves, for themselves.
I completely agree with you. This is why I now consider myself an Omnist.
Again I concur 100%. I’m just getting too old for that shit.
I feel we have a totally different understanding of existence. That's funny and I guess that's the reason why @Jason accused me of nihilism.
Let me explain.
From my perspective - please accept that I am conditioned that way
-
saying something exists is necessarily saying that is is there independent of imputation.
Now if you say there would be a responsibility and that it would be mine and that it is there independent of your imputation then I cannot accept that. Is it given by God or what?
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
Imputation has several nuances or interpretations.
Please clarify what you mean....?
The whole post is quite difficult to follow...
Ah...
(source)
https://chopra.com/articles/5-ways-to-overcome-past-conditioning-and-form-a-new-mindset
Dear federica
1. the post is addressed to Jason
2. to keep things simple: the decisive paragraph is the last one:
_If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
_
So it's really only a question whether Jason considers his moral principles as given and thus all individuals to be subject to the moral principles he declares.
Actually he has already made clear that he takes his moral principles as given through the power of birth into a society. Nevertheless I would like to appeal to him to think this over by means of my post.
Ok, well I will leave it to @Jason to see whether it's worth his while getting into it with you.
Incidentally, I never asked you any private questions.
Those kinds of questions are just they type of chit-chat one has with someone to get to know them better.
If you wish to remain in secretive isolation, that's up to you I guess.
But the less we know of you, the less we can engage...
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so. The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
I think I see morality as being more true or more powerful if engaged in freely rather than out of obligation.
I can't really explain my reasoning directly but an analogy that I relate to it is that of religious conversion. If an individual converts to a particular religion because society dictates it or they feel they must or face social isolation, even if they try to engage seriously their efforts won't be as sincere or as powerful as an individual who has the freedom to choose whether to adopt any set of beliefs or practices.
Coerced faith or kindness isn't real, imo it must be freely given. I don't murder people not because of the laws and social norms that tell me not to, at least not directly, I don't murder people because I believe in my heart that just as I value my life and don't want to be murdered, others feel the same way about their own life. I happily pay my taxes and contribute my labor to society, I make efforts to improve my own mental well being and wisdom. I don't solely do those things for my own benefit, I do them because they benefit others and thus the world.
I do think there are better and worse ways to organize people. I think those ways aren't fixed and absolute, they change with the changing world, what worked for our ancestors won't always work the same for us. I also believe we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel every generation, there are more ways to order the world that can go wrong than there are that can go right. Previous generations have been able to figure out many valuable lessons that we can learn from, after all this is a forum dedicated to learning lessons that were laid out 2,500 years ago.
Having said that, the political world matters. Looking out at it though I see so much toxicity, I see tribalism and dehumanization nearly everywhere I look. I honestly don't think most people can closely engage with that without being affected by it. In this matter what comes to mind is my attitude towards the military. As good as it would be to live in a world without militaries, I don't think that is a good idea currently. As such some people will need to do that job, we don't all have to do it, it is also important to have people who teach children, who heal the sick, who build the homes and keep the streets clean. People can be involved in politics, it doesn't mean we all have to be. We also need people who can teach and show others about how we can change our inner conditions to remove the internal suffering of the world.
It's not. For one, responsibility ≠ principle. I don't think the kind of moral responsibilities I'm talking about are 'given' the way herbie implies, only that they exist because of the present circumstances and that it's better if we acknowledge and accept them, not that it even really matters.
The more we see our shared bond and reliance upon one another in our ever-growing and interconnected society, the more we'll work together and the better off we'll all be. And we share them not because they're independently existing, but because of our social nature as a species, the social nature of our societies, our reliance upon one another, and our capacity for empathy and compassion.
But let them pretend to be above the world and kamma and the responsibilities of being a human being and everything else if they want.
Interesting. So morality isn't objective in your opinion, and ethics are relative? Killing is only immoral because people agree it is so? Are you suggesting there's no deeper level in which killing is immoral? That killing is ok if people simply agree it's ok?
For my part, I'd say that there's a difference between moral consequences and responsibilities, but they're connected. There are moral consequence to killing, some of which are internal and some of which come from society. Responsibility is slightly different, but stems from this same moral foundation.
Say you're walking down the road and you see someone choking. Nobody else is around and they'll die if you don't help. Do you have a responsibility to help? I'd say yes, most definitely. Do you have to? No, of course not. You could simply keep walking for any number of reasons, e.g., you're late for an appointment; you're scared and not sure what to do; etc. But I'd argue that there's still a moral responsibility there because another living being is in danger, is suffering, and you have the ability to help (the active side of the first precept). Maybe you can't give them the Heimlich maneuver, but you can at least call 911.
And that's the basic nature of the moral responsibility I'm talking about here, although it gets more complicated the more people we add and the more complicated the circumstances. Politics are essentially the extension of these responsibilities to society as a whole.
as to question 1:
If morality/ethics were objective then there would be scientific evidence and no ethics committees would be required.
as to question 2:
If killing were absolutely and objectively immoral and that immorality independent of conventions there would be no wars and corresponding industries and politics, policemen had no guns, there would be no death penalty, etc etc etc
as to question 3:
Please specify 'deeper level'.
as to question 4:
As far as the world's view is concerned, obviously yes.
As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
I see. Well, I certainly can't expect someone to act morally or with any sense of shared responsibility if they do not believe either morality or moral responsibilities exist. And if there is no deeper level to morality, then I suppose kamma is meaningless and non-existent as well, and one should not fear the consequences of breaking any of the precepts from your POV except in terms of social punishment, since that is the only thing you seem to acknowledge the reality of. (Do the deed, just don't get caught!) Perhaps it's for the best that you're beyond the world and "not living in society," as you say.
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
This individual may understand - not necessarily does understand - in an inconceivable way the hidden meaning of actions/karma and its effects and even if it does not understand it but follows the Buddhas ethical guidelines based on pure faith in Buddha, this individual will reap corresponding benefit.
Thus is the extraordinary sphere of Buddha Dharma that only few individuals do meet and even fewer individuals stay with in the live they meet it.
How all this happens is utterly inconceivable therefore one speaks of actions/karma and its effects and of various degrees of obscurations.