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.
deep down, am i good or bad? neither?
zombiegirl
beating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wasteland Veteran
hello all,
i've been pondering over this topic ever since i read "The Way of Zen" by Alan Watts. he talks a lot about the influence of taoism on buddhism to create zen. my understanding is that taoism's basic belief is that we are naturally good. we don't need to distrust our basic/natural thoughts because we are actually good deep down and we should just, "go with the flow" as it were.
again, beginners understanding here, but it seems to me that the mahayana teachings seem to reflect this in some way with their belief in "buddha nature". the idea that we are all inherently buddhas. this seems to be apparent in the way that most mahayana schools seem to direct their practice. when you contrast this with the teachings of therevada schools, they seem to emphasize more upon "the dos and don'ts" with lists of what you need to avoid to keep yourself pure and good. i think most traditions seem to have a healthy balance of the two, but from my beginners mind, this does seem to be the major differences. correct me if i'm wrong.
so my real question is... deep down... can i trust my basic instincts? i have this discussion with my girlfriend all of the time. she believes that deep down, we are all good and we all know what is right/wrong. this is the reason she doesn't feel the need for religion. she thinks we all just inherently know what is wrong and therefore religion is unnecessary. and honestly, i do feel that her first instinct is always that of the good and just. i, on the other hand, feel like without constant practice, i am a complete selfish jerk lol. i truly do feel that deep down, my basic instinct, is that of some sort of war monger or something haha.
in times when my practice fluctuates, i feel that the "self" i refer to... really doesn't give a darn about others. i feel that i am in constant need of direction and elaboration and metaphors for the effects i create from my actions to keep me in check. i put "self" in quotations there because i know that there is really no "self" and i could just as easily say that it's just my learned behavior or something. i'm not really sure, but whatever it is, i think it's a real jerk lol.
i've been pondering over this topic ever since i read "The Way of Zen" by Alan Watts. he talks a lot about the influence of taoism on buddhism to create zen. my understanding is that taoism's basic belief is that we are naturally good. we don't need to distrust our basic/natural thoughts because we are actually good deep down and we should just, "go with the flow" as it were.
again, beginners understanding here, but it seems to me that the mahayana teachings seem to reflect this in some way with their belief in "buddha nature". the idea that we are all inherently buddhas. this seems to be apparent in the way that most mahayana schools seem to direct their practice. when you contrast this with the teachings of therevada schools, they seem to emphasize more upon "the dos and don'ts" with lists of what you need to avoid to keep yourself pure and good. i think most traditions seem to have a healthy balance of the two, but from my beginners mind, this does seem to be the major differences. correct me if i'm wrong.
so my real question is... deep down... can i trust my basic instincts? i have this discussion with my girlfriend all of the time. she believes that deep down, we are all good and we all know what is right/wrong. this is the reason she doesn't feel the need for religion. she thinks we all just inherently know what is wrong and therefore religion is unnecessary. and honestly, i do feel that her first instinct is always that of the good and just. i, on the other hand, feel like without constant practice, i am a complete selfish jerk lol. i truly do feel that deep down, my basic instinct, is that of some sort of war monger or something haha.
in times when my practice fluctuates, i feel that the "self" i refer to... really doesn't give a darn about others. i feel that i am in constant need of direction and elaboration and metaphors for the effects i create from my actions to keep me in check. i put "self" in quotations there because i know that there is really no "self" and i could just as easily say that it's just my learned behavior or something. i'm not really sure, but whatever it is, i think it's a real jerk lol.
0
Comments
Anyway, I personally think that "good" is the natural state of being. It's circumstance, delusion, suffering, grasping, etc that cover that up in some people. I agree that every sentient being has a "Buddha nature" somewhere, whether close to the surface for all to see (like my dogs) or deeper down, buried under all the ego, clinging, self-created suffering, etc. It's a continuum, with fully enlightened beings at one end and, well, other beings at the other end. I suppose the "bad" end is sort of open-ended, since there isn't really a set point at which "bad" becomes "bad", nor is there an absolute "bad". I think Hitler and his like would be toward the lower end of that scale though.
If you aren't a monk (or a monkette in your case), the fact that your practice waxes and wanes seems to be pretty much ops normal for most 'practicing' Buddhists I know. Sometimes life intervenes and there's nothing you can do about it except pick up where you left off and keep on keepin' on.
So, deep down, can you trust your basic instincts? Are your basic instincts to do what's right (if you reeeeeeally listen to the little voice)? Or are your basic instincts telling you to scratch someone's eyes out just to get one car length ahead of them in a traffic jam? I suspect it's not the latter, so I'd say you're probably good trusting in them. I don't think you'd be asking the question if you couldn't.
Peace out...
Mtns
PS: All that "do's" and "don'ts" stuff you were talking about - all man-made window dressing on top of the Buddha's basic teaching. The triple gem, four noble truths, eightfold path, five precepts. Stick with that and you're good!
Time, meaning that the longer you continue your practice, the more the changes you are making in your self and your responses to life and the world around you will solidify and become the natural default answers.
Trust, in two ways: trust yourself (meaning not your initial flash of selfishness or anger but that still small voice inside as Mountains said); and trust others. Trust others on one condition: Trust anyone to be exactly as they are, not as you want them to be, or wish they were, or think they should be.
Well, what do you mean by "good" here? I mean, if you don't define "good" when you say "just be a generally good person", isn't it still abstract?
Beyond that, your response must be taken as personal opinion because it just generally does not fit with Buddhism in the final analysis, Mahayana at least. In Mahayana, we all have "primordial wisdom", which I think it's fair to characterize as "good", as in something to be worked toward.
That is the fundamental goodness.
But it can be distorted into all the these nasty things. At the heart of cruelty is a wish to be happy. Likewise the wish to be happy and that clarity I described (or sensitivity) can be distorted into cruelty, greed, and all of the things which we find to be 'not good'.
We start out with a very basic view of what is right and wrong: whatever results in us getting good results is good, whatever results in us being hurt in some way is bad. This approach allows for lying, cheating and stealing as long as we get our way so that's not very "ethical". As you would know these actions are normally the results of greed and desire.
If I reflect on my childhood I can see I had plenty of desire and greed despite being brought up in an environment which by no means encouraged it. However I grew past that in an environment that did encourage desire and greed. That's a personal experience though, so perhaps you can see what negative traits you've had and where they came from.
The punishment/reward based childish ethics seem to be quite reasonable to me and are not inherently good or bad in intention, it's just self interest and survival. It's important to have correct guidance during this stage to ensure that you're not rewarded for the wrong behaviors.
People don't stop at the reward/punishment approach though. Moral understanding tends to mature and can be in different stages under different environments. We tend to be less ethical in the workplace. Zimbardo has shown how easy it is to get an individual to act unethically. If you want to get into the whole thing you should read Immanuel Kant (makes your brain hurt) and Lawrence Kohlberg.
So, I think I'll just conclude by saying "neither". We are not inherently good and we are not inherently bad, we are what we are. We start the ability to develop 'good' morals but we also have room for corruption. If you don't look within yourself and strive to be kind/good/ethical, it's left up to the environment.
</personal>
Good and bad, even 'neither' are concepts, words, that are used merely to give the 'self' a handle on its projected wants and needs. Whatever actions/thoughts/dance moves you have are a result of previous ones that have been used more often. If you take the experiences that reduced suffering for your 'self' (not including the experiences that just pretend to reduce suffering, like chocgasming on 70% dark chocolate with essences of mandarin and cinnamon), and apply them to include the best interests of everything, that is 'good'...
I'm likely wrong - don't listen to me! I'm going to have more chocolate instead.
When meditating it is great to see what the social constructs are and to look at the true nature of our own minds, but when you communicate with someone you can just say "Nuh, there you go using words again!"
I definitely wasn't clear - I'm still trying muddle my own understanding from it all. I didn't mean to give the impression that words are meaningless - just more the fact that on an extreme end, a person with a severely distorted view can have a radically different opinion on 'good' and 'bad'.
I think I was thinking (?!) that we're more a product of our past actions and thoughts at the moment, and as a result, we can steer our present actions and thoughts into ones that are more conducive to balance.
Er, or we're basically all decent people and get carried away sometimes.
Personally I've been thinking about it this way: you are what you do.
lmao. when you put it that way, i suppose my basic instincts aren't all that bad. it's more of an impulse thing anyways. for example, driving like a jerk and not letting people over because I'M running late (even though that is entirely my fault). if i'm more present and actually have time to think about my actions, of course i would let them over. but when i'm in a rush and woke up on the wrong side of the bed... meh, selfish. i suppose i can say at least that due to buddhism, i can now notice what an jerk i am lol.
this is probably true. i suppose, if there was a way of measuring such a thing, i have probably grown by leaps and bounds from where i used to be on the selfish scale. i am still disappointed in myself frequently though.
hah. this is exactly the same as my argument when i was discussing this with my girlfriend. in regards to me though, i don't really see how my upbringing would have had a bad effect. but perhaps some things are unknowable.
can you elaborate on this?
Hm, is the urge to eat brains naturally good or bad? The Buddha ate brains, right? No, wait, I'm thinking of Zombie Jesus.
Seriously, though, it's called a gradual path for a reason (Ud 5.5). Until we achieve moral perfection (i.e., the ending of kamma and the elimination of the skillful/unskillful dichotomy altogether), I'm pretty sure that we all have the potential do both skillful and unskillful things; that's why it's so important to be as mindful of our actions and the intentions behind them as we can. As the Buddha said, "all skillful qualities are rooted in heedfulness, converge in heedfulness, and heedfulness is reckoned the foremost among them" (AN 10.15).
I like this.
If I may elaborate on that:
You are what you do, and you do what is what you see.
I'm a proponent of degrees of environmental shaping as it regards to a person's morals, ethics, and view of 'right behavior'. Essentially, if you are raised seeing a certain set of behaviors as being acceptable, then you too stand a very good chance of adopting that same mindset. It fits in with humans being social creatures - if you don't think the same as your group, then there's either intersocial conflict, or outright expulsion. And that's fair. It's how the social creature is wired.
But we as individuals have the choice to examine those behaviors, determine whether or not they are correct for us as opposed to whether or not they are correct for the group. I think that most of us truly do want to act skillfully / practice 'right behavior'. We've all been hurt, we understand what it feels like, and given the right setting, I believe that most people would avoid hurting another person. But attachments to social constructs and values interferes.
I'm sorry, I totally forgot where I was going with that, but yeah.
Jali
What a beautiful thread, and what inspiring honesty, zombiegirl.
Knowing you can be a jerk is a beautiful thing, it's the real jerks that think they are far from that.
Keep practicing.
Many blessings to you and yours,
Abu
Someday your true nature will open to you. We are told this will not be a disappointment. In the meantime, do your practice and wait for life to slowly show itself to you. It will.
Good thread zombina, made me think.
thank you for your encouragement.
actually, it wasn't until several months ago that i realized what a jerk i was. i ended up getting in a huge fight with my best friend which almost ended our friendship and in the same few weeks i also got in a fight with my girlfriend. they both said the same thing, "you're so selfish!" and i thought, "nuh uh... i'm a buddhist!" lol, just kidding. but it did cross my mind. basically, having studied buddhism for years and receiving a blow like this one really crushed me. the two people i felt the closest to, my best friend of 5 years and my girlfriend of 3 years, gave me information about myself that shook me to my core and made me reexamine every action i made. i thought i had grown and was doing well in my journey to be more compassionate, but then i realized that clearly, i was delusional and the idea i had about myself was just a construct of my own mind. clearly, you can consider yourself a buddhist and still go out and wreak havoc on the world, haha.
this was the event that spurred my interest in separating from the Soka Gakkai International and searching out another tradition of buddhism. after the e-sangha crash, i knew i needed to find a new buddhist forum and i ended up here. i am extremely thankful for this forum and the people on it. as i have said before, i didn't learn any of the traditional foundation of buddhism from the SGI. i think the real kicker that allowed me to let go of some of my jerk status was when i began to learn about no-self. it floored me to learn how much i clung to and cherished myself. when i suddenly realized that there was no me, i felt very sheepish about always putting this imaginary me first.
thank you all for your replies in this topic. it is very interesting and i like what FoibleFull said about it being another attachment. probably so, when you really think about it.
No. You can't trust your 'instincts' - at least not at first, not before you have calibrated them against the benchmark of the Dharma. And it is not surprising that reflecting on this brings up the question of "right" and "wrong", "good" and "bad", because it brings us close to a fundamental unity, and we withdraw because it is a really scary place. This is where we encounter anatta (no-I-ness).
This is where we are confronted by what Ramana Maharshi called the only useful question: "Who am I?"
I am not, here, suggesting that we have a 'soul' or an atman, spark of the Brahman. I am referring to what Longchenpa calls kun byed rgyal po (the Supreme Ordering Principle in the Universe), which Namkhai Norbu describes as "the state of pure presence that is the actual basis of any given individual" [Textual Introduction to You Are The Eyes Of The Universe - Longchenpa (Snow Lion. 2000)]
It seems to me that this Supreme Principle, which Longchenpa addresses as 'universal creativity', manifests in each individual as the potential for 'buddhahood' - awakening.
As I unwrap the 'I' that I think I am, peeling away the illusions and delusions, there is a 'place' which is no place where all the dualities fade away, the centre or ground out of which all continually phenomena arise. This is the garden, beyond right and wrong, that Rumi says he will meet the Beloved.
In the early times that I 'returned' from this placeless place, I wondered why I imagined that there was reason to be 'good' rather than 'bad'. Why not just do what I feel like doing and say what I feel like saying, screw whom I feel like screwing? I am grateful that I continued to practise and search for that unexperienced experience because, over time, I came to understand that Universal Creativity, whilst beyond categories and conditions, is also Universal Benevolence, the Great Compassion, Hagia Sophia. As I said, in the thread on what we learned in meditation, Mother Julian hit the nail on the head:
At bottom, we arise out of this Universal Creativity which appears to us as the Abyss (Abzu to the Sumerians and Egyptians), Sunyatta. Because it 'contains' the seeds of awakened buddhahood, we are all, at the primal level awake, aware, enlightened.
You can also find examples of love and compassion within people that have been described as the most evil of all beings. Ajahn Brahm has mentioned many times about a poem written about a mother, how you should help them when they, and when they cry once more go to them. Rush to them when they cry again, wait on them and ease their suffering as there will be a time when they are gone from your life. The poem is obviously more profound than my quick explanation, but at the bottom of this beautiful poem there is a name signed, 'adolf hitler'
I am personally divided on the subject, yes I think people have done horrible dark things and have acted under delusion, but some of them have surely known what they are doing will cause suffering and is ultimately wrong....
Tom,
What we can observe is that one action leads to another, step by step. Consider the French Revolution (I am just reading Hilary Mantel's A Place of Greater Safety): over a period of 5 years, someone like Robespierre moved from being humanitarian and anti-capital punishment to the sanguinary, regicidal supporter of the Terreur as the logical outcome of his ideals. A first murder leads to a second and so on.
Conversely, generous action leads to more generosity.
This is what we call "watering the seeds" and why even our smallest actions and thoughts are of importance. It is vital that we remain aware of what we are doing (thoughts being taken as actions of the mind) and where we are going. Real evil, like real good, takes practice. Even Mao or Hitler were not born murderers.