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.
Why do good? Why care about life?
These questions have reared their head a few times in my practise. I feel I have resolved them, or at least become more comfortable with not having THE ANSWER that my consistency craving, undergrad philosophy brain wants. But i'm still very curious about it, and what everyone else is thinking.
<O:p</O:p
But anyway, i'll try to explain the mental breakdown as it happened.
<O:p</O:p
So I was thinking about the idea in Buddhism of the essential emptiness of all things. The way I understand it, this means that my judgements and feelings about an object are not the object itself, the true nature of which is not necessarily good or bad at all. And I feel I had some small insight into this. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
(If it had been a larger insight, I may not have thrown myself into such a melodrama of embittered nihilism and existential angst. Who knows? Hehe.) <O:p></O:p>
<O:p</O:p
So I got a very frightened and out-of-control feeling: "Waaahhh the meaningless void!!! In objective reality my actions have no moral value - oh noes! Where is the order in this chaos? Why should I try to achieve anything in my life?" etc. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
And then there was the apparent conflict I saw within Buddhism, which I felt was telling me to accept emptiness, and at the same time telling me that I should cultivate virtue and compassion. But why do good when there is no Good?<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
It was a fairly intense collision between my subjective feelings about reality and how i had intuited that it actually was (or wasn't, i.e. it wasn’t meaningful in some ego satisfying way). And this idea of duality between the mind and reality was what lead me further. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Suzuki-roshi wrote "That we do not care for weeds is also Buddha's activity". I took this as meaning that our subjective feelings about the world are not actually at odds with it – they are actually a part of this greater reality. We may see the emptiness of all things on one hand, and still appreciate life as a human being on the other. There are many different levels of existence, and many of them appear to contradict each other but none of them actually do. Subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive. <O:p
<O:p
The task is to accept and work with what there is. <O:p
<O:p
It so happens that what exists for us is the propensity and the will to come to contentness and acceptance of things as they are, through compassion for others and the breaking down of the barrier between our self and the world. It would exist without a rational and sound philosophical justification, or any attempts to motivate it through fear of punishment or desire for salvation. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
So that’s my brain dump. It’s all lies, damn lies, but if you can make any sense of it, I would most dearly love to hear your thoughts! Or even plees for clarification. Or forceful dissagreement. Or general indifference. Or the pointing out of my wrong understanding. It’s all welcome to various degrees. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Questions for ponderance:
Have you struggled the struggle mentioned above?
How did you struggle through your struggle? Did you resolve that apparent conflict between subjective and objective reality? <O:p</O:p
What do you think is the basis for morality in Buddhism?
Does it vary in different traditions? <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
But anyway, i'll try to explain the mental breakdown as it happened.
<O:p</O:p
So I was thinking about the idea in Buddhism of the essential emptiness of all things. The way I understand it, this means that my judgements and feelings about an object are not the object itself, the true nature of which is not necessarily good or bad at all. And I feel I had some small insight into this. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
(If it had been a larger insight, I may not have thrown myself into such a melodrama of embittered nihilism and existential angst. Who knows? Hehe.) <O:p></O:p>
<O:p</O:p
So I got a very frightened and out-of-control feeling: "Waaahhh the meaningless void!!! In objective reality my actions have no moral value - oh noes! Where is the order in this chaos? Why should I try to achieve anything in my life?" etc. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
And then there was the apparent conflict I saw within Buddhism, which I felt was telling me to accept emptiness, and at the same time telling me that I should cultivate virtue and compassion. But why do good when there is no Good?<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
It was a fairly intense collision between my subjective feelings about reality and how i had intuited that it actually was (or wasn't, i.e. it wasn’t meaningful in some ego satisfying way). And this idea of duality between the mind and reality was what lead me further. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Suzuki-roshi wrote "That we do not care for weeds is also Buddha's activity". I took this as meaning that our subjective feelings about the world are not actually at odds with it – they are actually a part of this greater reality. We may see the emptiness of all things on one hand, and still appreciate life as a human being on the other. There are many different levels of existence, and many of them appear to contradict each other but none of them actually do. Subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive. <O:p
<O:p
The task is to accept and work with what there is. <O:p
<O:p
It so happens that what exists for us is the propensity and the will to come to contentness and acceptance of things as they are, through compassion for others and the breaking down of the barrier between our self and the world. It would exist without a rational and sound philosophical justification, or any attempts to motivate it through fear of punishment or desire for salvation. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
So that’s my brain dump. It’s all lies, damn lies, but if you can make any sense of it, I would most dearly love to hear your thoughts! Or even plees for clarification. Or forceful dissagreement. Or general indifference. Or the pointing out of my wrong understanding. It’s all welcome to various degrees. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Questions for ponderance:
Have you struggled the struggle mentioned above?
How did you struggle through your struggle? Did you resolve that apparent conflict between subjective and objective reality? <O:p</O:p
What do you think is the basis for morality in Buddhism?
Does it vary in different traditions? <O:p</O:p
0
Comments
Yep. I think everyone does. I occassionaly still do from from time to time. :P
If you look around the forum you'll find a lot of discussions on this sort of issue- a couple that come to mind are:
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3693
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3751
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3594
(and this is just on the first page :P)
I didn't really struggle through it. Just through talking to other Buddhists, looking deeper into the scriptures, reading proper books (i.e. not "The Idiots Guide to Buddhism" or the like :P - if I were to suggest a book it would probably be "What the Buddha taught"), meditating, practice etc... it all starts to come together...
<O:p
Btw, your posts are formatted really weird, with ">>" throughout them - it makes it hard to read. Are you writing your posts in another program?
Yeah I think copying from word messed it up. It should be ok now.
Cheers for the links... I had a look around but i'm new to the forum so it helps to get some direction.
Yes "What the buddha taught" is probably one of my main resources, although "Zen mind, beginners mind" was probably a turning point. But I think you're on to something... the apparent realisation probably threw me so much because I didn't have the firm foundation that comes from balanced and well integrated practice.
Just because your mental imaging of an object is not findable in the outer object, does not mean that things don't work. The mind that is doing the mental imaging, for example, works. The outer object made up of its physical parts, also. In fact the single reason why you even have a sophisticated mind as opposed to an animal mind for example is karma.. the ripening of virtuous past deeds.
Hello, thanks for your reply.
I'd like your help clarifying some things.
Firstly, where can I gain a bit more knowledge about how the understanding of emptiness can be negated too far? And I don't really understand how cause and effect comes into it.
Secondly, the second part of your answer was really hard for me to understand. Are you talking about interdependence? Sorry, I know i have a lot to learn here. Perhaps you could recommend me some reading?
Practice and patience lead to understanding. And you will be continually experiencing new dawns ... it's that onion analogy, where you keep on peeling off layers. Oh yes, patience is a plus! Besides, what else are we going to do with our endless rebirths?
Try this.
Thanks, FoibleFull for such poetic insight
Lately, I've observed that my desire to "make sense of things" is partly rooted in a genuine wish to understand and be fully open to the world, but also present is a neurotic need to understand how things work so I can protect myself from all the chaos inherent in living.
I feel the second approach probably obstructs the maturation of that other sort of understanding (of which i think you spoke), which is not obsessed with finding the answers, and is far more open to accepting the world as its teacher. The value of this approach is becoming more apparent... Thanks again!
Thanks for the confidence boost, Brigid!
Yes.
As you mentioned, subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive.
I interpret “emptiness” to mean that all things are inherently amoral. There is no “right” or “wrong”. Even a person killing another person does not have any inherent meaning attached to it. However, as people, we are a subjective race. With our knowledge and understanding, we attach meaning to the situation. We attach names and values to people and physical things and so we've attached morality to an essentially amoral situation. In the above scenario, we would consider the murder immoral because we understand that, in general, everyone values their own life and so to deprive another person of life is “wrong”.
The above example is probably a little extreme. Consider a more benign case of a table. I may own a table which I attach great sentimental value and so will take great care in looking after the table. However, you may attach no sentimental value to the same table and only consider it a heap of wood shaped into the form of a table and so will treat the table very roughly.
“Emptiness” here is a useful concept here because it can remind me that I have essentially attached a sentimental value to something that is inherently devoid of any meaning. If the table were to become damaged, I may become very upset – however, if I were to understand “emptiness”, it would help me overcome my attachment to the table and move on with my life.
Morality is about fairness. In the same way as we would not want to be physically or emotionally harmed by the choices and actions of other people, we should be careful with our own choices so that we do not physically or emotionally harm others in our own choices and actions.
I think the concept of morality remains the same in all Buddhist traditions (and possibly in all other religions and philosophies). However, the motivation for why we should be moral people can differ quite significantly.
The main reason for the difference comes down to which belief system is adopted to explain the origins of the universe.
Those who believe in perpetual reincarnation will be highly motivated by karmic rebirths. That is, leading a good, moral life will help contribute to a better rebirth in the next life.
Those who believe in a creator god (or gods) will believe that it is part of the divine law or commandment to lead a good, moral life because the creator god(s) wanted it so.
Those who are atheist may not believe in any “supernatural” claims and just wish to do good for the sake of doing good. This is probably the most difficult belief system to defend for morality. Some people may ask why bother? If there is no “supernatural” aspects to life, why bother doing good? Why not steal and cheat if we can get away with it? Two reasons why I can think of here is the sustainability of society and compassion.
As an example, consider driving in a modern city. One of the reasons why many people can drive from place to place is simply because the vast majority of road users abide by the road rules. Now imagine if everyone ignored the road rules. No one stopped at traffic lights, stop signs or pedestrian crossings. People drove on the wrong lanes... speeding, drunk, under the influence of drugs. You can probably imagine that the road toll will be quite significant. Driving is simply no longer safe. With everyone looking after themselves and doing what they want on the roads, the very possibility of driving safely vanishes.
Similarly, if we now imagine we were living in a society where everyone acted immorally - a place where people would often lie, steal, cheat and murder each other. No one would want to have anything to do with anyone else. People wouldn't feel safe to leave their house where anyone anywhere could hurt them. Thus, such a society would also collapse.
Thus, an atheist should still believe people should behave morally to ensure that the society we live in is sustainable.
Of course, the above is a rather extreme case. In our daily lives, there are many occasions where people simply can commit immoral acts which don't affect the overall sustainability picture. Hence, almost daily there are news reports of murder, theft and sexual assaults. But the reason why we shouldn't commit immoral acts – even on a smaller scale – is quite simply based on compassionate grounds, we understand that immoral acts will most likely lead to someone, somewhere suffering a negative consequence for our actions. Thus, we should refrain from doing it.
Finally, those who are agnostic will choose to be moral people for all of the reasons above. The agnostic will find the question of how the universe came about an impossible question to answer and so they reserve judgement. However, they would usually be open to all of the above possibilities and so should also accept all of the above reasonings.
That's my two cents worth!
Regards,
V
At three in the morning, after long hours of talking, this is where we get to, these are the questions whose answers are satirised by Douglas Adams ("42") but just because it's a good satire doesn't mean they are not important. Each of us can tell you where we have reached in the long working out. Consider the blackboard (below): it shows, according to Einstein, whose writing this is, preserved in Oxford, "The first three lines establish an equation for D, the measure of expansion in the universe. The lower four lines provide numerical values for the expansion, density, radius and age of the universe." Good to have the answer but it leaves a few questions, doesn't it? Old Albert had got there, we may still be sweating over quadratic equations.
My life became more fun, less stressed, freer from suffering when I stopped wanting to know the answer(s) and realised that there was joy in finding out, the journey, the process.
I often, from love of the Sufi poets, use the image of a great desert. Have you noticed how much desert imagery there is in philosophy and spirituality? I think it is one of our deepest archetypes common to the species. To be in a place where there is nothing to sustain us and everything to destroy, to shrivel as the water is drawn from our bodies - can you imaging a bleaker image for life. Nietzsche uses it as does the Bible and the Q'ran, although we can laugh at it too - just look at Mike Palin's "And now for something completely different" at the start of Monty Python. In my own imagery, there are oases in the desert, some bigger than others. Sometimes I imagine I have reached my destination but, till now, however lush and comfortable the oasis for a time, it becomes like Turkish Delight for Eustace in The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe - nauseating and insubstantial. And I am forced to chose between dying of terminal nausea or venturing out into the desert again.
My purpose, in using this image in reflection, in the focused calmness that is part of my practice, is to check for the signs of satiation, the E. coli of dogmatism and deceitful 'certainty'. Yours are some of the questions that test the state of my digestion.
Woah Simonthepilgrim - I thoroughly enjoyed your response!
The character of the desert venturer seems so fiercly honest, and somehow brave, in a very subtle way. The turkish delight is tempting, but no! The traveler is compelled toward the reality of the desert... ahhh what great imagery. I love it. May I store it away in my mental picture bank for art inspiration? I promise not to get idealistic over it :P
This is certainly how my line of thought progressed. I went from emptiness, to amorality, (and then on to nihilism). It's funny when you look at these concepts on their own because if you imagine what it might be like to believe in them totally and completely, it would be impossible to have a preference about them, one way or another. For example, if you were truly a nihilist (in the way I understand nihilism, anyway), nihilism itself would hold no special meaning for you... you could not hold it or be averse to it. Meaninglessness is meaningless. Maybe, you couldn't even believe in it, at least not in the way that belief is commonly understood. At that point you are back at square one, not knowing anything, staring into space, wondering what it all is. Am I making any sense?
I'm can't say that I never work from the same assumptions or that your approach isn't useful.. but isn't it an assumption to say something is inherently devoid of meaning? I suppose that even if something did objectively possess value, we couldn't know anyway- so what's the difference? However, maybe the value of not firmly believing one way of other about any value inherent in objective reality is that it protects you from fundamentalism (i.e. This is how things are, and if you say otherwise then you are a deluded fool!).
Sounds good to me
Honestly, I have a fairly muddy understanding of the role karma and rebirth plays in Buddhism. It seems what it means for practice varies wildly between individuals. Rebirth has always seemed pretty irrelevant to me (and i call myself a Buddhist! Bah!), and I suspect the idea of a karmic boogie man, ready to condemn me to a future life as an aphid for my misdemeanors is a poor charicature compared to what most folk actually believe. If I think about karma, I tend to equate it with the conditioning of the mind. What camp are you in when it comes to this sort of thing? I can imagine views about rebirth/ karma may influence views about morality etc.
Anyway, cheers again!
Is this not just doublethink as expressed in 1984. Question everything it is the way to enlightenment
Heh seriously though... You may be misinterpreting Brigid. There is a difference between holding two opposing thoughts in the mind concurrently, and actually actively believing in and acting on them in some twisted "War is Peace" insanity. In some cases, when two ideas appear to contradict, they can both be true if viewed from alternate perspectives. So I say to you, "Because the table is just a table, it is not actually a table at all'. And you say "Oh right. Because on one hand, of course it is a "table"! But on the other hand, I see that my ideas about tableness, and my calling it "table", is not actually the table itself". I feel that way actually decreases certainty, rather than fuel pathalogical delusion as in 1984. This is because this way recognises the tendency of the mind to believe its thoughts about the world ARE the world, and shocks you out of it. I'm reasonably sure this is what we've been trying to get at. Doublethink, however, solidifies your belief that your thoughts about the world are true, whilst muddying up the water enough so that you cant rationally grasp what they imply.
Sorry i dunno if that made sense, i'm a tad sleep deprived.
I do not reach the same conclusion that amorality leads to nihilism. I consider them separate issues.
The way I see it, the universe itself is amoral. That is, most of the natural phenomena in the universe happens without choice. For example, stars and planets did not choose to be created. The Earth did not choose to have a blue sky. The Earth did not choose to sustain life. Rather these things happened simply as the result of natural processes which occur in the universe.
Depending on the viewpoint, some people may argue that even animals do not make conscious choices - but rather only react to their environment according to their survival instincts. For example, a hungry frog that sees a fly fly past will not hesitate to eat it. It only acts out of instinct - it was hungry and saw a source of food became available so it ate the fly. The frog does not have access to alternative food sources and so cannot make choices about its situation. It cannot afford to question whether or not eating the fly would be moral or not.
Humans, on the other hand, are different. For some reason, humans have managed to evolve empathy and the capability to choose.
Over time, human intellect and ingenuity has allowed us to come up with many alternative methods to address a certain problem. For example, in order to produce food, we can hunt for animals, or gather fruits and vegetables, or we can grow our own crops and or farm our own animals. Each alternative has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Some alternatives are better than others - and so, with alternatives comes choice.
Furthermore, our ability to understand complex situtions and our ability to empathise with others allows us to consider the effects our actions may have on others. Thus, this understanding and empathy, combined with our capability to make choices, gives rise to our concept of morality. Of course, depending on the level of understanding, the level of empathy and the conditioning of each individual person, which choices are "moral' and which choices are "immoral" is a very subjective matter.
When I previously said: "subjectivity and objectivity are not always mutually exclusive", what I meant to say is that I believe the natural processes of the universe is inherently amoral (objective). However, I believe that human actions are subjective.
The reason why I no longer see a conflict betwen objectivity and subjectivity is because I no longer try to understand human actions in an absolutely objective sense. Rather, I accept that the very concept of choice (and hence morality) can only exist as a subjective human notion.
As you have mentioned, karma and rebirth can mean different things to different people. Loosely speaking, you can probably classify them into two main groups.
Some people believe in physical reincarnation in an afterlife. That is, after you die some part of you gets reborn into another physical body. Whether the next life is a good one, or a bad one, or even whether you get reborn as a human, is determined by your karma. Thus, they are motivated to do good to cultivate good karma to get a better rebirth in the afterlife. This was what I classed as the "believers of perpertual reincarnation" in my earlier post.
Then there are others who do not believe in physical reincarnation or an afterlife but rather believes that it is the legacy of our actions and choices and their consequences which get reborn. That is, an action can have many consequences and each consequences can themselves give rise to further actions and subsequently further consequences. The latter actions and consequences can be considered a "rebirth" of the former action. This interpretation of karma and rebirth can probably be applied to any of the camps I suggested in my earlier post.
Personally I am agnostic. I believe that the question on origin of the universe is an impossible question to answer. Based on the current evidence (or lack of), no one can claim with any certainty that one set of beliefs is absolutely correct and another set of beliefs is absolutely wrong. Thus, my take on this is: why bother trying to answer a question that cannot be answered?
Furthermore, the answer to the origins of the universe has no bearing on morality and the choices people should make. We should make moral choices simply because it's the right thing to do (see my reasoning under the atheist camp in my last post).
Regards,
V
It's all about choice and the fact that we create our own ethical path, just as we assign a value (or lack thereof) to life itself.
What is fascinating is watching and learning how, and on what bases, we make those elections.
Maybe you'll find this useful, plus there are many other articles to give context for beginners:Introduction to Meditation on Voidness (Emptiness)
The problem with this is it annihilates cause and effect of the mind. A person may subjectively enjoy a negative action, but this does not change the "objective" effect impressed upon the mind (karma) and how this impression will ripen the mind in the future, in this case negatively.
In this way, the definition of a negative act is that [karmic seed/legacy, at the time of its ripening,] which will bring about future suffering.
An ultimate cosmic purpose, no matter how glorious, is a nightmare scenario where everything is bound, subordinated, and ultimately reduced to that purpose.
All that can be seen is endless free-play. This free-play has pattern and rhythm that in human experience has a basic feeling tone of ever-rising, or Joy. It is superabundant.
........oh doing good. In non-dual recognition there is automatic, transconventional good action, without the notion of goodness.
There is not just one Buddhism. Buddhism is different for every single person that looks at it, because they are looking at it through their own personal mind, which filters Buddhism through opinion.
So, let me share a view of my Buddhism with you.
When the Buddha became 100% enlightened, he said "I Am Awake." This points out in my way of seeing it, that up until that very moment he had been asleep. The life he was living previously was a dream, or said differently, the mind is a dream machine and this world as viewed through our mind is closer to virtual reality than actual reality.
In other words, there is something more fundamental, more ultimately true, than the mind and her concepts. What is this, you might well ask? And how do I find it?
Unless it is right here and right now, all is lost. So, we must find it right where we are. We must disrobe from our present ignorance, through close attention, and not actually by simply juggling concepts. We must look directly at what we think we are seeing and what we imagine that we know, and in this way, of persistent penetration, it will reveal its secrets to us.
Since what is unreal is temporary, we can watch it come and go, and with a keen eye reveal that which isn’t changing.
S9
Hi Aaki,
I'm not sure I understand you post entirely. A person may enjoy a negative action - but that doesn't change the karma or consequences of those actions.
Let's say a person enjoys smoking. He knows that smoking is bad for his health - but he reasons that since he enjoys it so much, he doesn't care about the consequences that smoking has on his health. His choice to smoke is subjective, but the consequences on his health is objective.
Humans have the means and capability to choose between alternative possibilities (subjectivity). Each possibility will lead to consequences which may be positive or negative (objectivity).
If I have misunderstood you (and I think I may have), please correct me.
Regards,
V
Thanks for your kind concern. I know why you are warning me, but I have been on this path for many decades now.
At one time, I did have, perhaps needed, a guru/teacher. But now I listen closely to the guru within, and I am not forcing anything.
S9
Morality therefore is not defined by a creator god nor through conceptual elaboration (our application of our meanings) but rather the connection between action, formation [of the karmic seed], and the way by which karmic seeds ripen at some later point.
Negative seeds are responsible for mental suffering, negative meanings, negative habits, even the very way outer objects appear to the mental consciousness. A subtler topic is that they are the very things which ripen at the time of death as hell realm minds. The point of karma is not physical consequence or cause and effect in that sense.
A very cool article on this is Basic Questions on Karma and Rebirth
Hi Aaki,
My apologies - I have been away for a few days and so didn't have time to respond to your post earlier.
I understand what you mean - but I think we are really just approaching the same topic from different viewpoints.
I still hold that actions are inherently devoid of any meaning - even the murder is inherently amoral. However, it is people, with their ability to choose between actions, that apply their subjective and conditioned views to their choices and hence apply morality to it.
We should not forget that people do not live in isolation with one another. People are very social creatures and hence our every action, every choice, and every decision in life will most likely affect other people in our lives (and even our future selves). Thus, a person's subjective choices leads to actions and consequences which affect other subjective people. I would argue that it is the combination of our own subjectiveness and those of the people we affect which leads to morality.
In your murder example, a person may enjoy killing others. In his mind, he may not find it immoral to kill others for pleasure. But the argument does not stop there. Other people have other opinions. Obviously those who were murdered would disagree that being killed for someone's pleasure is okay. The rest of society would also disagree that murder is okay because it undermines their own safety. Thus, they employ the police to arrest the murderer and bring him to justice. This is one example of a negative consequence to the action of the murderer.
Thus, although I have labelled the murder action as amoral (i.e. ultimately the universe itself doesn't really care that one person killed another person), it is the people who are affected which care and their reactions and choices would ultimately lead to the negative consequences for the murderer.
Regards,
V
I think it might be better to approach this as: Kamma simply is. There is no positive or negative Kamma. Positive and negative are subjective. It's simply cause-and-effect, not reward-and-punishment. However, when we perceive these Kammic consequences, we interpret them, according to our personal beliefs and perspectives, to be either negative or positive.
If nothing has any inherent meaning, then perception is that much more important. To say that murder is inherently amoral, and that the negative consequences (which you seem to be using synonymously with negative Kamma?) depend entirely on others' perceptions and reactions, is a bit dangerous. I understand what you're getting at, though. But there is more to Kamma than that. There is a mental Kammic consequence for every thought and action, and this does not depend on anything outside of us.
I agree.
Yes - I can appreciate how this needs to be interpreted very carefully. I am not suggesting that since the universe is amoral, everyone can go out and make "bad" choices. I am only suggesting, as you have summarised, that the karmic consequences is subjective. Furthermore, since people interact with each other on a daily basis, we cannot consider our actions in isolation of others - rather everyone's choices, actions and consequences are deeply integrated with each other in a web of karma.
Although I have only used physical examples, my interpretation also applies to mental karmic consequences. Our choices, knowledge and conditioning will always affect our lives - even the way we think. Thus, even our mental processes are bounded by karma.
I did not use mental processes in the posts because the original post was about morality - which I intepret to be a result of interaction between people and their choices.
Regards,
V
You are focusing on the extremes of "good" and "bad", but not at all on the middle path of "correct". The eightfold path does not say "good" speech, or "good actions", it says "right speech" and "right actions". There is much confusion in this, because in western languages these words are practically synonymous.
But they are not. Correct action does not come from a rigourous philosophical system explaining what is "correct". It comes with seeing. That is why following the eightfold path can be both excruciatingly hard and at once completely effortless. If you see, it will come effortlessly. If you are obsessed with finding a system to set out a list of all the actions you can do and can't do... that is duality, and it is an illusion.
See?
I understand what you are saying about good and bad. But Buddhism must understand the two extremes of good and bad in order to mention the concept of the middle, as in the “Middle Way.”
I believe, however, that you are on to something here, because we are trying to live in such a way that either decreases our suffering, or even, “Thank you Jesus!” : ^ ) ends suffering.
Therefore, it is in examining these two extremes that we come to see; holding on to them only causes us endless suffering. We take on the Middle Way not because someone said to do so, but rather because we ourselves see the practicality of doing so.
You are quite correct in this as well. Any improvement in our psychological circumstances comes directly through our seeing more clearly, what exactly is going on with us, or what hurts and what doesn’t hurt. So in the end, right or correct isn’t so much a rule; it is a practicality of life.
Buddhism is effortless in this sense. Once you see that your hand is in the fire, and that fire burns; it takes no real effort to pull your hand out of the fire. In fact, it would take GREAT effort to leave your hand in, after that.
S9
In your post, you said, "I understand what you are saying...", and right there you failed to see. Don't try to understand, just look.
In the beginning, I believe that when we are drawn to the idea of stopping suffering, we think that we should be perfecting our acts and thoughts in order to do so. Only later, do we begin to even understand the whole concept of clinging. Or at least, that is how I began/saw it.
I am willing to give your ideas a listen to, about why someone would choose the middle way. Go ahead, you have center stage. : ^ )
T: Seeing is the reason for following the eightfold path, and the eightfold path is simply seeing.
S9: Seeing what? And please, don’t say the 8-fold path. That would not be helpful to me or anyone I don't believe. It is circular.
I see lots of things, and do not take them as a way of life. For instance, today, I saw a movie. So obviously, there is seeing, and there is SEEING.
T: In your post, you said, "I understand what you are saying...", and right there you failed to see.
S9: What are you talking about? I meant, I saw your words and believe I understood your message, or your intention. Would it be better to say, I didn’t understand your words?
T: Don't try to understand, just look.
S9: This is a little game you are playing, and only including me as an extra bit player.
I fully understand what Lin Chi meant when he said, “Look, Look.”
But looking at your words isn't the same thing, That kind of looking is done with my mind. In the case of wordy information, the mind is the correct instrument for understanding words.
Looking directly is another activity all/together. Looking directly would be a way of checking, after the fact, if your words actually discribed what is seen directly.
So can we stop playing this little game, please, if you don't mind, and just speak respectfully with each other?
Kind regards,
S9
__________________
Sure, I can stop playing this little game, though I can't guarantee that I'll be able to explain what I mean by "seeing." The very idea of "explaining" it is kind of anathema to it, really.
For example, if someone were to read a statement, any statement, they might first see what the statement entails. That is, they may simply look and understand the meaning of the statement. Then, once they've seen the meaning of the statement, things go wrong: They look at it, and they want to keep it, or they want to destroy it, or, they want to extract some deeper meaning that it doesn't actually have.
Many, and I do mean many, listen to a buddhist teacher when he/she says, "you must see." And of those many, many people think that there is some deeper meaning to the word see, as if to "see" is code for some esoteric mind magic.
But really, it's simply this: When you see a tree, see a tree. When you hear a thunderbolt, hear a thunderbolt. When you smell a flower, smell a flower. When you feel the sand between your toes, feel the sand between your toes. To the many who think there is a difference between seeing and SEEING, they are missing the point. There is no difference. You must "see", but not see anything in particular. Rather, simply see what you see right now, and you are awake.
What this means is simply that the eightfold path is fulfilled the second you step on it. It is not a long path, that stretches into infinity or goes anywhere. The eightfold path is fulfilled simply by being on it, and you are on the eightfold path when you are paying attention to the immediate, the near, the now, and the present.
The following the eightfold path is simply that you must do this for every moment. You can awaken into this moment right now, but in the next moment, you must awaken again. And that is the following of the eightfold path.
I know it might not be very good explanation. But that's because any explanation gets away from the heart of what needs to be said. What needs to be said, is, quite literally, that there is nothing that needs to be said.
What I meant by this is that, if you with to understand something, there is no need for it to be explained. This is because it is, exactly what it is. Conceptualizing, and trying to understand something, or extract a hidden meaning, is not wrong. It's perfectly fine to do so, and even buddhas do this. But a buddha understands that those conceptualizations are simply frozen views, and do not actually contain the whole.
For example, if you are walking along a garden path, and you see a leaf fall to the ground, you do not ask yourself, "what does that mean?", you simply see the leaf fall to the ground, and know that that is reality: A leaf has fallen to the ground.
Understanding reality is much the same. People see reality, and they wonder, "what does it all mean?", but they are missing the point. It "means", exactly what it is. And everyone sees it, exactly as it is, already. They just choose to ignore that reality in favor of extracting some conceptual information from it. But you can't extract conceptual information from what is seen. You can only see it. And I don't mean any esoteric magical "third sight" or anything like that. I mean the plain, practical, regular eyesight that you percieve through the eyeballs in your head. They see, and all you have to do is see with them, and you will be awake.
So often, however, we see something, and we try to grasp it's meaning. Right there, is when we step off the eightfold path.
The quote above is an example: You saw what I wrote. Read it yourself. But you did not stop there. Instead, you thought about what it meant, and, coming to no answer, you figured I was playing a game with you. But I wasn't. When you read what I wrote, if you had simply seen what I wrote, you would have seen that I meant exactly what I wrote.
Instead, you tried to understand it, and that lead to confusion. It really is super simple. But it's so simple that people fail to see it. What's more, I'm trying my best to explain this to you, but ultimately, there's nothing I can say that can perfectly convey what I mean.
If you want to wake up, simply wake up. But you're going to have to do it. No amount of reading or meditating or being taught will make you wake up. You simply have to wake up.
I hope you don't still think I'm playing games with you. I'm not. But Alas, I can't really say much more than I already have.:-/
I still often fall short of this ideal but the main difference between now and in the past is that I am now aware that suffering will be inevitable when in the past I deluded myself or was completely unaware of the consequences.
I am very grateful that you have listened to me, and are willing to reach out in friendship.
I agree that saying this truth is difficult, as you so rightly have said. Why do you think that my tongue is tied in so many knots? Ouch! ; ^ )
If it is any consolation to you, I have found that trying to say the ‘un-say-able’ is a wonderful practice, which concentrates one’s own personal efforts towards looking closer and clarifying. Very often, if we are not careful, without motivation, we will have a tendency to drift.
Any statement made is certainly a trap of sorts, no doubt.
I guess we could all show up at a forum and just not write anything at/all. Why take the chance of confusion? ; ^ )
But, I believe that as we progress, we certainly come to see that words are merely the finger pointing. So, we begin to look at where the words/finger is pointing.
Perhaps, this is why there are so many books written by the masters. Not because we won’t stumble over statements. We will. But, after we fall, we will also get up again and re-visit that statement a little wiser.
I certainly try to save some of the falling of my brothers and sisters on the path by choosing my words carefully. But they will fall, and I will fall, again and again. I just believe that it is worth ever scab on my knees to keep on going.
You and I may not agree on this “seeing/Seeing” thing. I would say that rather than just seeing a tree, seeing who is looking at that tree is more important, or “Who am I?”
I also notice that you are saying that seeing must also include paying attention to what you are seeing, aren’t you? We cannot simply be lackadaisical in our seeing, can we?
We have to examine our own thinking to see where we are contradicting ourselves. If we do not, someone on these forums will certainly do it for us. Ego won’t appreciate it. Ouch! But even that is good for us in the long run.
I do see that paying attention to “the Immediate” is a great way to see directly, simply because “the Immediate” is the only thing that actually is “Real, and “Unchanging.”
Everything else, past, future, etc. is in concept land. (AKA, a dream.) There is no next moment. There is always only “Now/Here/this Immediate Moment.” That is where we live.
Granted our language is not an immediate language. But, it is all we have, and so we must make due, that is if we wish to reach out to each other. Otherwise, all we are left with is sitting in smug solitude.
I am personally grateful that all of the past masters have broken their butts trying to say what was impossible to say, and that the Buddha didn’t just lock himself in his room and refuse to speak to anyone after ‘Waking Up.” Saying the impossible was an act of compassion on his part.
Very young children, living like little animals, simply see a leaf fall and accept it. Perhaps, this is why people make the mistake of saying that we should be like little children. But, that is really very surface, don’t you think, being like a child? Perhaps our brains develop and begin to question for a reason. Perhaps, that reason is a need for depth of understanding on our part. We are not allowed to stay living on the surface. We are forced to dive deeper.
Meaning is certainly a purview of the mind, but it is also a ‘rights of passage’ into something far deeper than just meaning. This need for meaning is the fire that burns away all that is unnecessary, in order to clarify us, in the end. This need for meaning is one of the first forms of suffering to shout out, “Wake Up!”
Thank you again.
You are very kind to take this time 4 me, and the others,
S9
In the first, when you look at a mountain, you see a mountain.
In the second, when you look at mountain, you do not see mountain.
In the third, when you look at a mountain, you see a mountain.