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.
Equality Despite Reason
It's a simple Buddhist teaching: one shouldn't have an ego. One shouldn't say, 'I am superior to this person', nor should they say, 'this person is superior to me', or even 'this person is my equal'. The Buddha spoke this.
This seems to start an interesting predicament. The Buddha says: live by these eight paths, discipline yourself to act according to these precepts.
So if we acknowledge that the 'proper' way to act is by these precepts, according to this path, then someone who lives by these teachings must, of course, be living a superior life than someone who doesn't.
To make a drastic example: The Dalai Lama, according to the Buddha, lives a more skillful life than Omar al-Bashir. Yet we are told that neither of them should be spoken of as superior to the other.
If we accept that one way of living is the most skillful way, and it is the way we choose to live, how are we expected not to find other ways of life inferior? A conventional example might be a vegetarian finding a non-vegetarian to be living a less skillful life.
How might we prevent ourselves, do you think, from making judgements of people depending on how they live, and how we believe one should live?
This seems to start an interesting predicament. The Buddha says: live by these eight paths, discipline yourself to act according to these precepts.
So if we acknowledge that the 'proper' way to act is by these precepts, according to this path, then someone who lives by these teachings must, of course, be living a superior life than someone who doesn't.
To make a drastic example: The Dalai Lama, according to the Buddha, lives a more skillful life than Omar al-Bashir. Yet we are told that neither of them should be spoken of as superior to the other.
If we accept that one way of living is the most skillful way, and it is the way we choose to live, how are we expected not to find other ways of life inferior? A conventional example might be a vegetarian finding a non-vegetarian to be living a less skillful life.
How might we prevent ourselves, do you think, from making judgements of people depending on how they live, and how we believe one should live?
0
Comments
An answer perhaps too simple for its own good. We may say that all things are empty, and that all things have the buddha nature...
... but we still must acknowledge that the Buddha prescribed a certain way to live most skillfully. And that someone who does that and someone who does not do that are easily judged in our minds.
We go to a monk, who lives a skillful life, and ask him for advice on how to skillfully live -- we do not ask the same as someone who lives a life not in line with the Buddha's teachings. Even as simple of an act as this, when examined, will show that we judge one person as a superior teacher than the other.
Is the concept of 'not judging', then, sometimes taken too strictly? Must we, in some cases, judge at least subtly?
If they are not suffering enough to need to seek out this path, then their lives are probably filled with joy and love. If we believe in rebirth, they'll eventually come to a life that is not-so-great and gives rise for the conditions for them to seek release. If we don't believe in rebirth, then it doesn't matter anyway.
Bottom line: It's all good.
The Dalai Lama has ample and infinite compassion for the Chinese Government.... but he won't be taking tea with them any time soon...
"Hate the thought not the thinker, hate the word, not the speaker, hate the Deed, not the do-er..."
develop equanimity for every single being as if they were you yourself - but it doesn't mean you have to condone what they think/say/do....
Condemning, criticising or commenting on what they do, is no bad thing in itself - providing it is done non-judgementally and with compassion, kindness and skill.
But the "inner person" for want of a better term, is neither better nor worse than you.
They're just doing stuff differently to the way you would.....
So you wouldn't say to a person, "You're an evil person and I hate you!" but it would be more skilful to say "The things you have done would be considered evil, and we do not admire your actions, as they seem hateful".
My two cents into the ring.....
What is quoted above is the 8th fetter (mana) or one of the last group of three.
There is plenty of work to do before one reaches that stage.
If this fetter is broken with other two, the mind is fully enlightened.
It may still 'speak' of differences but does not 'believe' in those differences.
The fully enlightened understands all things are the same, merely elements of nature.
At the same time, that enlightened mind can advise a small child what is 'good' and what is 'harmful'.
I cannot speak for the other Buddhist traditions, but the compassion techniques used in Tibetan Buddhism retrain our attitudes towards others, which changes how we look at them.
On the other hand if we speak out with our self in mind. If we disapprove while saying to others that they should be living differently, making one feel guilty about some form of behaviour, I believe it tends to lead to more neurosis.
At the end of the day we can try and set an example. If others are concerned about their ways perhaps they will come around at some point and encouraged to find the same peace of mind that most truly strive for.