Buhddist principles vs. Competitive nature in humans

ChupaChup · October 2010

Hello everyone!

As a relative newbie to the world of Buddhism and its principles etc. I would like to hear peoples views on how the competitive nature of humans and capitalist societies can co-exist with our goals of helping and having compassion for our fellow human beings.

I have read some of the Dalai Lama's teachings and find that they sound great and make a lot of sense but when trying to apply them in reality i am met with much confusion and difficulty. Obviously I am not the only one!

I have no doubt that we would all like to live in an environment where we are appreciated for our skills and what we do, get along famously with everyone around us and live and work in a peaceful and tranquil environment conducive to desirable results, and perhaps some people do, but I'm sure for many of us, at least at one time or another, this is not the case.

As a non-confrontational and generally peaceful person by nature it disturbs me when i am met (as everyone does in life) with people troubled by afflictive emotion (and sometimes it seems not) who feel it necessary to deliberately and consciously strike out at people verbally or otherwise in an effort to make themselves feel better, further their career, just plain sport or whatever their individual reason may be.

I guess what I am really talking about mainly is bullies or people with such natures that gain satisfaction from disrupting other peoples balances.

I have found (rightly or wrongly) that while it is all very well having compassion for these people (taking the 'they are ignorant and don't truly realise the damage they are doing to themselves and others line) what actually works best in achieving the desired result (being left in peace and respected) is to strike them as forcefully as possible (hopefully without having to use actual physical violence but sometimes this is necessary!). This also seems to ensure that others think twice about trying something similar.

While I do not wish to encourage conflict (which is a naturally occurring and essential element in life) or achieving results through fear, sometimes this seems to be the only effective solution. Peaceful resistance is admirable but sometimes, it seems to me, forceful action is required to put an end to something that you truly know to be wrong and cannot allow to continue. This argument could perhaps also be extended to some of the larger more serious conflicts occurring in the world today and from the past.

Any views or comments on this issue would be greatly appreciated. I know that this is a complex issue and I'm not sure that this will ever be resolved in my head but like so many other people I am just trying to find the best path to follow in life, preferably as peacefully as possible!

ShiftPlusOne · October 2010

How does someone else competitive nature prevent you from helping others? Buddhism isn't about what society is doing, it's about what you are doing. You don't need someone else's appreciation to be compassionate, it comes from within.

Other people don't disrupt your balance, you do. People weren't perfect in Buddha's time and they are not going to be perfect now.

taking the 'they are ignorant and don't truly realise the damage they are doing to themselves and others line

That's the opposite of compassion... that's judgement and pity. Compassion is about equality. See your own flaws and see the flaws of others within yourself. When you start mediating you learn about the nature of your own mind and it can be very humbling. Being honest with yourself is an important aspect of understanding others.

Again, Buddhism is about your mind and your actions and how they relate to other people. It is not about other people's mind, actions and how they relate to you. It's about bettering yourself and helping others. You don't need to strike out against anything.

I hope this makes sense.

AllbuddhaBound · October 2010

Just how far are you willing to go?

A recent article in the news quotes a situation where four children in one school have committed suicide after being taunted and teased for a number of different reasons ranging from homosexuality, to being from a foreign country, for having a learning disability and a male for wanting to wear pink.

Do you suggest we crack down on the children that taunted these children? Replace blaming and criticism by children with blaming, criticism and force by adults?

Ignorance and intolerance can never be countered with more of the same. It needs to be met with tolerance, patience and kindness.

Kundo · October 2010

Allbuddha Bound wrote: »

Just how far are you willing to go?

A recent article in the news quotes a situation where four children in one school have committed suicide after being taunted and teased for a number of different reasons ranging from homosexuality, to being from a foreign country, for having a learning disability and a male for wanting to wear pink.

Do you suggest we crack down on the children that taunted these children? Replace blaming and criticism by children with blaming, criticism and force by adults?

Ignorance and intolerance can never be countered with more of the same. It needs to be met with tolerance, patience and kindness.

You are absolutely right Allbuddha :thumbsup:

In Metta,
Raven

pineblossom · October 2010

Chupa Chup wrote: »

Hello everyone!

Hello.

What don't you understand? In what way is the issue 'complex'?

On one hand you claim you are non-confrontational but then advocate violence to get your own way. I don't understand. How is this behaviour benefiting you, or anyone else?

Subjectivity9 · October 2010

Hi back at/ya, Chupa,

C: I would like to hear people’s views on how the competitive nature of humans and capitalist societies can co-exist with our goals of helping and having compassion for our fellow human beings.

S9: I am a big lover of Utopian ideals. (I just adore the stories about Atlantis, being a Golden Age), and I must admit to starting out in my young life as a full-blown Idealist.

However, having looked at history over time, and lived through a good deal of history in my own right, I have come to believe that if Utopia exists, at all, it most certainly be within each individual at some point of his/her Spiritual and/or psychological maturity.

Looking back through history we can see the best of concepts turn really bad, when a group of people tried to put them into practice, but without any clear idea on how to do this.

See: the French Revolution with a kindly (irony) guy named Robes Pierre cutting off the heads of the royals with a guillotine, while the crowd cheered.

Or see the Russian revolution go bad when her people were forced to say, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

In more recent history, when my generation marched in the streets and took personal casualties as our very own soldiers and police hands turned against us for wanting to stop the Vietnam war.

Than ask yourself, if you will, "Did this heroism on the part of young Americans go forward in our more recent history in order to stop all of our useless wars?

It is my thinking that our biggest and perhaps most dangerous enemy in this world, has to be our grand plans set in motion for our great ideals without first giving a good deal of investigation and thought into all of the components parts of the problem itself. Many problems consist of a substantial matrix of complications and possible outcomes.

My thinking is that, it may be reasonable and even best to always start small, move along in small baby steps, only building as we go, and to in this way keep it both manageable and workable.

There is no social system that is ALL good.

And:

Let’s face it. The only Utopia right now on this earth, today, is probably Walt Disney’s Magic Kingdom. Smile!

The problem with 'Bullying' is a whole n’other can of worms.

Let me just say: it is said one of the biggest reasons for becoming a bully is a feeling of being powerless, which you hope to rectify. (A quick fix.) Unfortunately, I believe such acting out brings very little happiness your way. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the bully him/herself is also a victim of his own behavior, feeling isolated and unloved.

Did you know that many of the bully’s start out on this self-defeating road by being bullied them selves, often by parents and siblings not to mention peer groups and teachers?

I do not believe that allowing your self to be bullied is any kind of answer, however. So by all means protect yourself first. But do give this some thought as to how this can best be managed before simply adding a mountain of trouble by over-reacting.

I daresay, when the bully finally gets around to you, you probably won’t be very surprised that he is a bully. He probably has been picking on others all around you. So start your plan early. It is not the better part of wisdom to wait until trouble is at your door.

I would like to point out one more thing, and then I will stop “flapping my lips.” Grin!

The Buddha was a highborn noble. If he was interested in social remedies, than I believe he would have stayed where he was, and wielded his inherited power in order to bring about a social change and a movement of some kind. But in the contrary, his tossed this earthly power off and traveled away in order to find a more intimate and a more mystical solution to suffering. He saw that his earthly power could not sheild him from the inevitability of suffering as sickness/old age/ and death.

Only after finding what he needed, personally in this area, did he set about sharing his solution with others, a more interior solution to be found by one individual at a time.

Obviously this was not as selfish as some of his distracters may have said. After all, how many others do we know, who have had so much influence for the good?

Peace and love,
S9/Leslie

questionful · October 2010

Sorry didn't read everything. I just want to say this. The world is f'd up. People don't do the right things. Many of our own natural reactions cause problems and are actually retarded if they are analyzed logically. So what do we do with this mess? I think we should patiently seek wisdom, and try very hard to have the spirit of humility with us. Good luck!

Jeffrey · October 2010

If you strike them that creates a karma that in time will ripen.

ChupaChup · October 2010

Thank you people for all your posts/suggestions - they have been very thought provoking!

EricD · October 2010

ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
Hello all,
<O:p></O:p>
I think the struggle to answer questions related to the nature of conflict and Buddhist-peace principles is a worthy one indeed J In my view, Dharmic ethical psychology has at least two basic parts: (a) the attitudinal or introspective aspect of ‘how’ one deals within the environment of conflict and (b) championing causes that would, in accordance with our best available knowledge, reduce damage and suffering in the world. I would contend (no sort of pun intended J) that these two principles are not in conflict with one another by any logical or psychological necessity. (a) Is simply asking us how we experience others/events that are at least perceptibly the immediate causal agents of some specified suffering. Our interconnectivity with all being and the realization of our dependence on others, and, thus, our ethical responsibility, reveals that we are obliged to view those causal agents of suffering in a wider context: what causes them to act in this way or that way etc. I think the purpose for doing this is to bring us around to the ultimate realization that we see that we’re all part of the same causal chain of causing and being victimized by suffering. None of us are free in this respect, and, as a result, we should watch this ego ascension in such circumstances that would assert itself as having some ‘right’ to exact ‘justice’ by severing from itself the realities of interconnectivity and interdependence.
<O:p></O:p>
In connection with this, however, (b) reminds us that if we do care and realize our connections to all else in this ethical sense, that we, each in our own way-of course, will wish to arrest such suffering in the world and see to it, as best we may, that such and such suffering doesn’t happen again. We struggle when we feel that our cause is part of ourselves and we identify with it through forgetting our place in the cycle of suffering as both being effected by and by being causal agents of suffering.
<O:p></O:p>
I think a middle way is reached here when we attempt to address suffering in some way approximating this manner. As those who see suffering and its multifaceted manifestations, we do not turn a blind--self interested only-- eye. Yet, by seeing the wider context in which specific forms of suffering occur (companies manipulating the market, global warming, homophobia etc) we can comprehend that the similar illusions that afflict those agents of suffering also afflict us. Therefore, compassion can assure that we may act to defend and promote good causes without the need for a self that wishes primarily to promote its own ends instead of the ends of others.

Subjectivity9 · October 2010

Eric D,

E: Therefore, compassion can assure that we may act to defend and promote good causes without the need for a self that wishes primarily to promote its own ends instead of the ends of others.

S9: I do not think that self interest and the interest of others comes down to an either or choice, like a constant ongoing battle.

In fact, there is a philosophical understanding called ‘Enlightened Self Interest,’ which posits that when you finally come to see the big picture, or your own Ultimate good (aka self-interest), than you will also realize the Ultimate good for others (as well) is indeed your Ultimate good, as in “No man is an island.”

It is my understanding of Buddhist Ethics that they are saying pretty much the same thing. Buddhism is saying that, we being co-dependent as a species, and as individuals, will Never be truly happy without looking deeply enough into this world and ourselves in order to see this basic interconnectedness.

So one could actually say that, compassion seen correctly is simply a very high form of being selfish, (aka seeking your own highest good). This method of living or wisdom, in turn, also seeks (through understanding our Ultimate connection or unity) to seek out also the highest good of ALL others.

Peace and love,
S9/Leslie

EricD · October 2010

Hello, Subjectivity 9,
ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
After reading your reply, I think I may be able to outline where I agree with you and where I may part ways. First, I do agree that we may say that once one comes to a certain level of enlightened thought, that the realization of one’s own well being/happiness depends on the well being/happiness of others. Two, as a consequence of this, there need not be a conflict between one’s own happiness and that of others in this kind of loose generic sense of ‘self’ and ‘others.’ As long as we’re not technical with our terminology or our philosophical details, I think this approach is fine.
<O:p></O:p>
However, and in my view, Dharmic philosophy reveals a far more nuanced understanding of “self” and its relation to suffering. The simple consequence of contingent arising-interconnectivity is that such concepts reveal that there’s no such thing as ‘self.’ Naturally, since there’s no ‘self,’ there would be no ‘self interest’ that follows. Enlightened self interest accepts the ego-psychology of selfhood and makes the rather dubious assertion that when one accepts oneself as such-that happiness with others is possible through the realization that ‘self’ survives best by altruistic means. This sounds fine at first; however, were this concept of self is applied to everyday life, conflict with others and their interests seems likely. This may not be a logical necessity but it is a practical reality of what appears to occur whenever we accept self-interest as a central feature of our existential definition. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the presence of ego, with its eye on its own desires, will not conflict with others who’s goal(s) are equally set on the fulfillment of their own self interest. The Dharmic view, at least one version of it, would contend that a better or more rational view of our route to happiness is surrendering the idea of self-altogether. Western civilization has argued that self-interest ought to play a fundamental role in our definition of rationality. A dharmic view would assert that since there is not only no reliable basis for a conception of self but also there’s an existential interconnectivity revealing that any categorical identity of a thing(s) is but semantically constructed use of our languages and psychology, acceptance of the Western view of rationality, which is essential to ethics and political discourse, seems severely flawed.
<O:p></O:p>
Therefore, compassion, as I argued above, is but a mere consequence of this dharmic insight. As long as one holds tenaciously to self etc.. he/she will face conflict and problems within himself/herself and others. For me, genuine enlightened “self” interest reveals to one the utter absence for the need of a self, and its attendant consequences, altogether in order to achieve happiness.
<O:p></O:p>
Thanks for the interaction,
<O:p></O:p>
Eric D.

:)

Subjectivity9 · October 2010

Hi Eric,

E: I do agree that we may say that once one comes to a certain level of enlightened thought, that the realization of one’s own well being/happiness depends on the well being/happiness of others.

S9:I think you may find if we pursue this is any detail that our disagreements on these issues, may not be as great as you may first imagine them to be.

Please let me explain:

When I speak of “Enlightened Self Interest,” I am not speaking about the same ‘Enlightenment’ that Buddha spoke of when He said, “I Woke Up.” I am speaking rather of clarity, or a wisdom mind, (the operative word being mind) found in a more limited sense within our dreaming mind, or egoic world, (aka finitude). After all, why would a no-self even need an ethic?

Now, when I say it may be in your self-interest to be kind to your wife and/or children, because their happiness is tied up and intertwined with your own happiness, I doubt that you would come back with, “Why be kind to my wife, as I have no-self, and she has no-self.” So obviously we live and breathe within an ongoing dream “as if” this were all real, and taking place and we wishing things to go smoothly, while at the same time having an overview that we are in fact dreaming.

E: There need not be a conflict between one’s own happiness and that of others in this kind of loose generic sense of ‘self’ and ‘others.’

S9: Perhaps all of our battles come directly out of this mistaken view, of self and other, and may require closer investigation on our part.

How much of our problem with life comes directly out of a fear that there isn’t enough abundance in this world to serve all of us well, and that we must fight over scraps?

E: In my view, Dharmic philosophy reveals a far more nuanced understanding of “self” and its relation to suffering.

S9: Indeed it does, its understanding is deeper or more evolved. Yet at the same time there seems to be a multi-leveled events taking place. The dreaming mind continues its dream journey, even after one is 100% Enlightened, as the Buddha himself continued to teach for decade post-“Waking Up.” In other words, He was “Awake within the dream.”

Do you think the Buddha post-‘Waking up” could go out and kick an old lady hard, simply because he thought she had no real-self or consequent pain? Of course not!

I don’t even think that you do believe this to be the case or give this room in your ethic. So what is this, if not living “as/if” this whole world and its dance were real in a more limited sense?

E: This sounds fine at first; however, were this concept of self is applied to everyday life, conflict with others and their interests seems likely. This may not be a logical necessity but it is a practical reality of what appears to occur whenever we accept self-interest as a central feature of our existential definition.

S9: Yes, but just perhaps we are stopping short of deep investigation and using little or no foresight on these very issues. We see this every day. A man may throw trash into the very water supply that his family will end up drinking from. Even if he figured out in won’t be his family drinking and getting sick, his tax dollars may be needed to pay for the medical bills of the family down stream, and so on. Not to mention that living in a world where people throw trash with disregard in water supplies, he has no real idea who is out there throwing poisons into his water and so on.

“What goes around comes around.”

Enlightened Self Interest would say it might be to everyone’s self-interest or benefit to teach the masses why, it is in their own personal interest/benefit to stop everyone from being so very short sighted. After all, how difficult (on a limit level) is it to be happy while at the same time dying with cancer?

E: The Dharmic view, at least one version of it, would contend that a better or more rational view of our route to happiness is surrendering the idea of self-altogether.

S9: Ultimate happiness, of course, would need to transcend change, and co-dependence altogether. How can one step out of this dualistic dream of time and space (aka suffering), while at the same time maintaining (embracing) an egoic self (aka personality)?

Do you agree to there being multiple levels of existence (aka multiple perspectives)?

E: Compassion is but a mere consequence of this dharmic insight.

S9: When we see suffering in others, and if it is very similar to our own suffering, we are then able to extend ourselves in order to help remove said suffering. The closer we look at suffering, and investigate it more deeply with time, we are able to see that ‘All suffering’ has a basic root, and that the type or coloration of suffering only comes much later, (almost like an afterthought). At this point, we begin to have compassion for All suffering. In other words, “All suffering is my suffering.” At this point we require Ultimate answers.

E: For me, genuine enlightened “self” interest reveals to one the utter absence for the need of a self, and its attendant consequences, altogether in order to achieve happiness.

S9: I quite agree. Unless one at some point is able to transcend the egoic self and her accompanying dreams of the pleasure pain continuum, you are quite trapped in going up and down with every wave or event that crashes on your shore.

E: Thanks for the interaction.

S9: You are quite welcome. Thank you for sharing your thoughts in depth.

Peace and love,
S9/Leslie

EricD · October 2010

ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
Hello Subjectivity9,
<O:p></O:p>
Thanks for your input. I hope to address your points seriatim,
<O:p></O:p>
"S9:I think you may find if we pursue this is any detail that our disagreements on these issues, may not be as great as you may first imagine them to be.

Please let me explain:

When I speak of “Enlightened Self Interest,” I am not speaking about the same ‘Enlightenment’ that Buddha spoke of when He said, “I Woke Up.” I am speaking rather of clarity, or a wisdom mind, (the operative word being mind) found in a more limited sense within our dreaming mind, or egoic world, (aka finitude). After all, why would a no-self even need an ethic?

Now, when I say it may be in your self-interest to be kind to your wife and/or children, because their happiness is tied up and intertwined with your own happiness, I doubt that you would come back with, “Why be kind to my wife, as I have no-self, and she has no-self.” So obviously we live and breathe within an ongoing dream “as if” this were all real, and taking place and we wishing things to go smoothly, while at the same time having an overview that we are in fact dreaming."
<O:p></O:p>
I don’t see the ethical implications of the ‘no-self’ as you seem to think I have here. I agree with you that there are multi-layers of realization of one’s self in the world. I further agree with you that certain states of affairs pertain to how we may, or arguably must, function in the “dream” as you so well stated. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Nonetheless, why I think the dream analogy is interesting, I think it has numerous problems if we carry the analogy too far. Certainly when egoic thought operates by providing us with a functionalistic illusion, it serves our survival and reproductive (among other) interests, something dreaming does not. Hence, we could say that ego-psychology serves a few functions, and, furthermore, these functions are useful functions at that. However, for me, dharmic insight reveals (1) that we may function without adherence to the ego, and (2) as a result of abandoning the ego over time, we gain a more full understanding of reality or ultimate truth. Later schools of Buddhism made that very distinction between conventional and ultimate truth. By doing this, we can see that just because there’s no self we need not assume that there’s ‘nothingness.’ We live, feel pain, have desires, love and so on. The key here is once we give up the ego we can appreciate all the many things that we are (many feelings, thoughts, experiences, even persons over our life-time), and by seeing that our definition of the self within the “dream” is the very problem of our suffering, by letting go of it we see our more accurate definition is wrapped up in others and other being. This obviously expands our compassion and insight into how we are interdependent on otherness for our very being and definition. Quite the contrary, no-self is the beginning of a positive ethics for all. <O:p></O:p>
Again, to say that there’s no self is to say that there is numerous organic components to us—many selves you might say. So, I’m hardly arguing for a strange nihilism of sorts or a nothingness that is affected by no action. Rather, I’m arguing for a freedom to love, live, and laugh by honoring the reality that faces us at the beginning of the journey. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
"S9: Indeed it does, its understanding is deeper or more evolved. Yet at the same time there seems to be a multi-leveled events taking place. The dreaming mind continues its dream journey, even after one is 100% Enlightened, as the Buddha himself continued to teach for decade post-“Waking Up.” In other words, He was “Awake within the dream.”

Do you think the Buddha post-‘Waking up” could go out and kick an old lady hard, simply because he thought she had no real-self or consequent pain? Of course not!

I don’t even think that you do believe this to be the case or give this room in your ethic. So what is this, if not living “as/if” this whole world and its dance were real in a more limited sense?"

<O:p></O:p>
I think my above answer shows that the first part of this section of your reply is the exact opposite meaning of what I had written or intended, and since I addressed it above, I’ll leave that here for now. As to the second part, I think you and I do agree that we can distinguish between different contexts and points of realization. Perhaps it may be the way we are distinguishing these different layers—or what have you—that may be at issue. I think we can make two broad and useful categories of realization of self and ethics: (1) Ultimate truth, and (2) conventional truth. (1) Lays out what is. The Buddha and his intellectual descendants were all about the nature of reality (e.g. suffering-for an obvious example). There is no self and thus no dream! That is the point. To dream means someone is dreaming! What then do we make of desire, love, dislike, making choices etc? Is there this bifurcated reality in which we are living two lives in some way? Given the dharmic view, I suspect not. Love, desire, the “I” and so on serves real functions: to be with someone who cares for us is real; to want things to go well for us is real, and there is a bundle of things going on within us that focuses us through our evolved psychology to refer to that focus of our intentional stance as an “I”—this too is a real experience. The issue, however, is in what ‘sense’ are these things real? I would contend that these things are so because of their functions. In other words, pain and love are really felt because they serve a function. We create a language and numerous philosophies to explain these phenomena precisely because we experience their effects on our very being. The mistake in our thinking comes in when we think that these functions have some sort of independent existence from all else. In other words, there exists in our heads some unmoved mover that is separated from these events and is the experiencer of these things. It does well enough to have our conventional way of explaining these things as happening to us, being in love, making choices and so on. On the other hand, ultimate truth reveals the numerous mistakes in confusing the conventional truths with that which is ultimate. Our ethics and general philosophy of life should aim for an ultimate orientation of experience. Hence, there is suffering in the world, pain, and death! These things have real effects (karmic effects) to others and our world. By saying there is no-self is actually saying that we are many things connected to one another and dependent on one another. There is simply no singular locution of ‘you’ or ‘me’ ultimately. Hopefully this clears up more my view on this matter. Perhaps I made it more confusing..LOL! Awareness of our individual experience exists! However, the onus would be upon one to demonstrate that because of this awareness there must be someone who is aware or that it is better to think that way over the dharmic way even if it is only “as if.” <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
"S9: Ultimate happiness, of course, would need to transcend change, and co-dependence altogether. How can one step out of this dualistic dream of time and space (aka suffering), while at the same time maintaining (embracing) an egoic self (aka personality)?

Do you agree to there being multiple levels of existence (aka multiple perspectives)?"

<O:p></O:p>
Perhaps I simply take a different view of the existential situation. Here’s an outline: Ultimate happiness is, for me, a realization and practicing-cultivation of dharmic philosophical spirituality. It is not escaping change or co-dependence and the like that will bring us to this state of mind. Instead, happiness as a continuous way of being in the world is having oneself experientially and thus broadened to realize that there’s more to us than just me and the immediate suffering that “I” am currently undergoing. To transcend these things doesn’t mean to be without them! Of course we will experience disappointment and pain and so on. The key, however, is to realize that this current pain or what have you dances in a much bigger space. The problem with egoistic psychology is that when the assertion of the “I” takes place in a given circumstance of suffering, it reduces our thoughts and awareness to just what’s happening now. A more cultivated awareness in dharmic spirituality would suggest that seeing that I am spread out across many experiences over time and that just as I changed before and just as I’ve experienced suffering before, I know that this too shall pass (lessons of impermanence). While I will be aware of my current emotion now and how it is affecting all the various parts of “me” in the now, I know that I am more than this current state of suffering, I am more than all my states of suffering combined, and I have, in that very real sense, transcended this or that suffering at point X. I’m not getting rid of anything here, at least I think LOL! Instead, dharma reveals that we can embrace our pain and the pain of others without that pain becoming that which isolates us and defines us in the here and now. Hopefully, I get to a point when I can freely move between my pain and happier moments by virtual will because my “mind” is much lager and more powerful than the ego that wishes to reduce that space to here and now moments.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Here S9 I think we see that we need not think of the world and our perceptions as being a-part of a duality of experience, but rather simply as gradations of learning how to apply dharma to our lives dilemmas. Sounds good anyway LOL! I would be skeptical of calling our different perceptions different levels of existence. Perceptions are clearly capable of being modified my better and better understanding-in my view.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
We may just have different ways of expressing the same set of ideas. I also readily admit that my views of dharma are mine and I don’t want to say there are not other ways of thinking about this rich body of thought. But I do deeply appreciate your challenges and insights for they do help me better articulate my own thinking—so thank you much!<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Eric D.

Subjectivity9 · October 2010

Eric,

E: I don’t see the ethical implications of the ‘no-self’ as you seem to think I have here. I agree with you that there are multi-layers of realization of one’s self in the world. I further agree with you that certain states of affairs pertain to how we may, or arguably must, function in the “dream” as you so well stated.

S9: I was merely trying to point out that, outside of this finite (dualistic) world that our mind is dreaming, there would be no need for an ethic of any kind. After all, if there were “no-self “(ultimately), it would stand to reason that there was no other, either. (Other than what?)

E: Nonetheless, why I think the dream analogy is interesting, I think it has numerous problems if we carry the analogy too far. Certainly when egoic thought operates by providing us with a functionalistic illusion, it serves our survival and reproductive (among other) interests, something dreaming does not.

S9: I believe, if you think on this issue a little further, you will come to realize that our so called conventional, waking life is very similar (if not identical in many ways) to our nightly dream state (REM), in that we can have children in a dream, as well.

In fact, the only time we question our nightly dreams is when we begin to waken to some extent. But, isn’t that what the Buddha had suggested about life in general, when he referred to his own Enlightened state as being “Awake?” In other words, Buddha had “Woke up” from all of the mind’s multi-layers of dreaming.

E: We may function without adherence to the ego.

S9: Indeed so, as we are at some point purely capable of dis-identification with ego and her worlds. We can step back from it, and allow all of the dream states to take place automatically, Wu Wei.

We might see, “Yes, these events and personalities do seem to be taking place, and yet at the same time these/they are not “me.”

E: By seeing that our definition of the self within the “dream” is the very problem of our suffering, by letting go of it we see our more accurate definition is wrapped up in others and other being.

S9: Here may be one of the places that we part ways in our personal understanding of these things.

I see rather that we must come to understand that the Ultimate Truth is beyond ALL mental definitions, labeling, and objectifications, simply because these are the tools of the mind, and therefore subject to or limited by the mind.

E: This obviously expands our compassion and insight into how we are interdependent on otherness for our very being and definition. Quite the contrary, no-self is the beginning of a positive ethics for all.

S9: I wish that you would take some time out of your day and explain to me why this must be so, according to your lights.

E: To say that there’s no self is to say that there is numerous organic components to us—many selves you might say. So, I’m hardly arguing for a strange nihilism of sorts or a nothingness that is affected by no action. Rather, I’m arguing for a freedom to love, live, and laugh by honoring the reality that faces us at the beginning of the journey.

S9: Again, would you explain this a bit further, as I cannot see the “why” of these statements Forgive me, but to me this seems contradictory to your assertions of “no-self,” unless of course you agree with me in that the statement “no-self” only means “no-ego-self.”

E: I think you and I do agree that we can distinguish between different contexts and points of realization. Perhaps it may be the way we are distinguishing these different layers—or what have you—that may be at issue.

S9: Perhaps as we iron out our differences our ideas will become clearer to each other. Like they say, “The devil (is often) in the details.” Grin!

E: I think we can make two broad and useful categories of realization of self and ethics: (1) Ultimate truth, and (2) conventional truth.

S9: Or in the mind we have true, truer, and truest. There are so many ways to cut this pie. Smile! (I would call this looking outward; knowledge.)

I have also heard a sage refer to this truth seeking as deep, deeper, and still deeper. (I would call this looking inward; meditation.)

Perhaps there is also a dividing line between looking out for truth, looking inward for truth, and finally stopping at that still middle point. (Is this what Buddha meant by the “Middle Way” do you think?)

E: To dream means someone is dreaming!

S9: Speaking dualistically this would certainly appear to be a given. Yet the Zen masters have cautioned us to look beyond the words (beyond the finger pointing), which are trapped within duality to the experience beyond, which seems obvious at some point. Some have called this Pure Awareness.

E: I would contend that these things are so because of their functions.

S9: I agree that the dream of conventional life is an insubstantial verb.

E: The mistake in our thinking comes in when we think that these functions have some sort of independent existence from all else.

S9: Are you than saying that there IS no Pure Awareness, or that awareness is epiphenomena?

E: By saying there is no-self is actually saying that we are many things connected to one another and dependent on one another.

S9: This sounds a bit like materialism, in that there is only this material life, which incorporates constant change and nothing else. Is this what you mean? I am really trying to understand you, and not being cute. Honest!

I can buy into the concept of this mind world being empty of substance, or a bit like a mental movie, perhaps even energy devoid of purpose or meaning. (All smoke and mirrors. Grin!) But, where does it become so completely empty, a plot where no one or nothing was present, or that it never even happened? Like the old adage: “If a tree falls in the forest with no witness, did it even fall, or was it heard, etc.”

E: Perhaps I made it more confusing…LOL!

S9: Crazy as it sounds; I love to be confused. It means that I may be nibbling around the edges of my habitual cage, opening up my windows/doors, and thereby growing.

E: I do deeply appreciate your challenges and insights for they do help me better articulate my own thinking—so thank you much!

S9: Yes, someone once asked me why I was doing all this writing/thinking, when I could better be off meditating or practicing? I said this is a practice of sorts. By looking deeply at what I think I know, a clarification takes place (insights) and a contemplation of the “Unknown” expands, if you will. Perhaps this is why the Buddha made the sangha or Satsang part of his gift to us.

If I have unintentionally missed one of your points, which you consider important, please readdress it for me, as I have really tried (maybe in too long a fashion) to address your wonderful points. Smile!

Peace and love,
S9/Leslie

EricD · October 2010

“S9: I was merely trying to point out that, outside of this finite (dualistic) world that our mind is dreaming, there would be no need for an ethic of any kind. After all, if there were “no-self “(ultimately), it would stand to reason that there was no other, either. (Other than what?)”

ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
E: I stated above that I do not find sufficient reason to buy into the notion of a dualistic metaphysics-so “dreaming” in the manner you stated is fine, in my view, as an analogy but as a more precise descriptor of the nature of the universe it lack a precision that is required for a more accurate description of our actual state of affairs. Again, I pointed out that you were confusing my notion of ‘no-self’ with ‘nothing.’ You are assuming that personhood or ego is what is necessary for an ethic to be had. I don’t accept this assumption—if that is your assumption LOL. Once again, to say there’s ‘no-self’ is not to imply that there’s ‘nothing,’ even ultimately, for which an enlightened ethic would serve. Compassion, love, understanding is processed by the mind in a way that doesn’t always capture what’s going on because, in my view, the ego allocates these kinds of emotions for itself. My dharmic thought argues that what makes these values-“valuable” ultimately is that they reveal our interconnectivity to all being. Certainly, in such reasoning, we simply experience these things and all phenomenon ‘as is’ without the need for the conceptually obsessed ego chopping up and allocating these raw experiences for its own uses. In basic, again, in my view, these emotions-ethics and values “reveal” a deeper and eventual ultimate truth about our state of affairs-such as ‘impermanence-interdependence-no-self etc. I hope my clumsy way of explaining my view is more clarified. Sorry for any misconceptions. More on why I think this way is outlined in the previous posts.
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
“S9: I believe, if you think on this issue a little further, you will come to realize that our so called conventional, waking life is very similar (if not identical in many ways) to our nightly dream state (REM), in that we can have children in a dream, as well.”<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
E: I don’t dispute that there are similarities-but, again, that wasn’t what I saw at issue here. My viewis that the dreaming analogy has limitations when applied as a sort of literal metaphysical notion, and not because there isn’t an interesting and useful analogy to be made here. Rather, it is because in dreaming (certainly REM sleep) what’s going on isn’t a kind of deliberate activity of an alienating ego. Dreaming is rather arbitrary and aimless visions (or actually more like impressions) that utterly lack the sort of conscious-deliberate integration of an egoic mind and all its unconscious impulses. Where we’re similar, or where we might agree, is that the egoic mind and dreaming, in a broad manner of speaking, create images-impressions in stark emotional colors that paint the world in certain self interested ways. These “ways” are multifarious and distort our view of life and can lead to personal disorder or unease rather than clarify and calm. In this way, I think your analogy is perfectly acceptable. But experiencing all phenomenon as fully similar in quality- I think- is inaccurate. Each kind of perceptual experience has its own set of qualities and our dharmic philosophies should reflect this most basic observation of experience. Concepts are useful when wielded by an enlightened philosophy that reveals, eventually, their end use. So, waking conscious experience is one experience and dreaming has its own set of qualities that deserve to be treated as such in my view. I think what ego does is split reality into numerous fighting factions of conflict, it alienates itself from otherness in order to achieve its own ends. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
I think we live in a monistic universe and not a dualistic one. To argue for that, in my view, is to say there is this realm over here and that one over there. I can buy a conceptual dualism-but not a metaphysical one. I would contend that the most basic function of dharmic thought is to reveal how all such duality is a kind of Darwinian trick of the mind and not the reality. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
I think when the Buddha “woke up” it was a way of seeing-with clarity- reality, he saw through egoic mind and its many self-motivated processes. I think you may be taking the poetic description of the awakening story more literal than what may be warranted. Certainly in dreaming and egoic-waking there’s an illusory effect that takes place. However, not all illusions are experienced the same. Yes, the Buddha awoke. But was he in every similar manner sleeping by what we mean when we think of “actual sleeping”? Obviously not! It’s an apparent expression to help communicate a very complicated set of ideas.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
“S9: Here may be one of the places that we part ways in our personal understanding of these things.

I see rather that we must come to understand that the Ultimate Truth is beyond ALL mental definitions, labeling, and objectifications, simply because these are the tools of the mind, and therefore subject to or limited by the mind.”
<O:p></O:p>
E: I don’t necessarily disagree with this. However, not all conceptions are pointless. Some are more helpful than others in getting us to understand Utlimate truth. The conceptual mind is not an enemy of sorts; rather, it must be cultivated to better attain a more accurate view of life. In the end, all concepts have their limitations-of course. But in the context of what I was arguing originally I took that into consideration. My point was that concepts like “impermanence,” “contingent arising,” interdependence” and so on are much better ways of understanding than their conceptual counterparts of permanence, independent causation, and non-dependent being. Obviously, these three dharmic concepts bleed into one another-but the point is that in the learning process they help us experience life better and better until we can see their ultimate end, which will obviously be a process of ‘seeing’ that’ll differ from person to person. Not all concepts are equal nor should they be judged as such. If your point is only that all concepts, including Dharmic ones, have their ultimate limitations, then I agree. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>

” S9: I wish that you would take some time out of your day and explain to me why this must be so, according to your lights.”
<O:p></O:p>
E: Since I did expound on this already, I leave that here. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
“S9: Again, would you explain this a bit further, as I cannot see the “why” of these statements Forgive me, but to me this seems contradictory to your assertions of “no-self,” unless of course you agree with me in that the statement “no-self” only means “no-ego-self.”
<O:p></O:p>
E: LOL! Contradicting myself…this sounds like my girlfriend! I probably do-then LOL! Ok I’ll be serious-for the moment (smile), I do agree that “no-self” means “no-ego” self. That’s my point. However, the assumption that requires the burden of proof is the assertion that because there’s “no-ego” there’s no real ethics. My argument is that while there is no self per se, we still can see the dharmic insights and value of an ethical system. To say that there’s “no-self” hardly must mean that there’s nothing. Our ethical concepts, like others concepts, when viewed rightly via the eight-fold path etc. reveal something about our existential situation. For instance, if, lets say, Ayn Rand is correct about the nature of rights rooted in self-preservation, then compassion that I have for another is justified only because of my self- interest. It is only because I choose to act for myself-and myself alone, that my choices can possess any value. In my view, this is an egoic use of compassion. It doesn’t answer such questions like, ‘But why do we feel empathy and sympathy for others that have little or no direct personal connection to our lives?’ ‘Why is it that we admire those who give of themselves wholly for others?’ ‘Why do I have experiences wherein my desire is to be-feel an interconnection to all else?’ In this case, Dharmic philosophy reveals something more about us through our ethical contemplation. We have empathy and sympathy for others, feel and desire to feel for others etc, not because we merely wish to be connected to others, but rather because ‘we actually are.’ Dharma shows why this is and how we can improve upon our understanding of ethic. For me, dharmic ethics shows us that my acting in inconsiderate ways-alienating ways-we are ignoring the truths of interconnectivity and so on. Our more precise ethical awareness reveals something about our very being. This awareness of our interconnectivity, I would contend, shows us that there’s a transcendent non-conceptual existential order. In basic, like all our concepts viewed rightly through a dharmic lens, our being one with all that is-is the ultimate metaphysical reality that ultimately requires no ‘ultimate’ concept to explain itself. It just is and we ‘just are.’ <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Does this have to imply that ethical concepts and the like are not of value or revealing? Obviously not! Ethics, like metaphysics and epistemology, find their source and value in this sort of view of unity or monistic metaphysics. Our unity is felt through our ethical impulses. Our unity is seen through our scientific understanding of how all things are connected. Our unity is known through all the numerous ways we can think-conceptualize, and actually speak to one another. At the ultimate level these things meld into one another, and while they still exist-so to speak, they cannot exist on their own or in their own right but rather they dance in a much bigger space of unity than we can probably know with the most precise minds available to us. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
These conclusions are reached by asking how is it possible that we can relate to one another at all? To move in the world at all and to know and manipulate that world suggests an interconnectivity that unites all being and makes possible our common existential experience. Dharmic thought seems to explain this relation and interrelation to me best. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
“S9Perhaps there is also a dividing line between looking out for truth, looking inward for truth, and finally stopping at that still middle point. (Is this what Buddha meant by the “Middle Way” do you think?)”
<O:p></O:p>
E: I do…in a way. The Buddha thought that the middle way—between the extremes of self-deprecation and self-indulgence—is a proper balance of life. Our categories of “truth” and “falsity” have their place, so to speak, but they fail to capture certain aspects of mental experience such as raw or felt—numinous experience reveals something about the world without discursive thought processes involved. Ultimately, the middle way in this regard might be to see these categories of ‘truth’ and ‘falsity’ as functionally useful for enlightenment and clarity of concepts; however, we may still value these other sorts of non-discursive moments of revelation without clinging to either sort of experience all ‘good’ or all ‘bad.’ These moments of insight are all of value-I think. I think contextualizing moments like this helps us better to understand perhaps where we may be able to place these experiences. What do you think? <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
“S9: Are you than saying that there IS no Pure Awareness, or that awareness is epiphenomena?”
<O:p></O:p>
E: No…I think there is a kind of pure awareness. I just think that awareness can be found in our concepts-experiences and so on. We might distinguish between “peek” moments and “peak” moments or states of being. Peek moments come through thinking about a particular teaching and “viola” we “see”- have insight that goes beyond the concept. When I think of impermanence, for instance, I imagine all the ways things change, I simply ‘see it’ in my mind without putting words to it or conceptualizing it. Then, there are times, when I’m opened to all that’s happening around me and yet I’m at peace-filled with peace, in fact-and I’m empty of any particular, or even vague, concept; I simply feel on top of the mountain so-to speak. There are many of those who are closer to the peak experience than I am by far, but I think this distinction is useful. <O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
“S9: This sounds a bit like materialism, in that there is only this material life, which incorporates constant change and nothing else. Is this what you mean? I am really trying to understand you, and not being cute. Honest!

I can buy into the concept of this mind world being empty of substance, or a bit like a mental movie, perhaps even energy devoid of purpose or meaning. (All smoke and mirrors. Grin!) But, where does it become so completely empty, a plot where no one or nothing was present, or that it never even happened? Like the old adage: “If a tree falls in the forest with no witness, did it even fall, or was it heard, etc.”

E: LOL! Well, the material nature of the universe etc. I leave to science to help us define and expound on the physical nature of existence. To say that we live in a material universe is not an issue for me per se. My point is that we can know some things scientifically about the universe AND philosophically. Since our concepts are part of this changing universe for numerous reasons, maybe it’s best to view our ontology as one that is always open to a changing understanding of who and what we are. Materialism helps us scientifically. But what it means ultimately, I’m not prepared to say. I think we can expound on certain general features of existence philosophically (like impermanence, contingent arising etc). These dharmic descriptions need not conflict with our scientific descriptions. However, how each domain goes about its respective inquiry will obviously differ from the other. Though this is a good source of inquiry and your questions here are quite good, practically speaking, the scientific path is a good one to take when we are attempting a more fine-grained understanding on the nature of things physically-materially. However, a more clarified spiritual philosophy can add meaning (or take it away LOL) to our overall understanding of the nature of things. Again, I do not see where Dharmic thought must conflict with our scientific thought or assumptions. It’s just that our scientific thought isn’t the end of our inquiry-but I doubt I’m saying anything you don’t already know or might agree with LOL! While I think some approaches to understanding our actual state of affairs is better than others, I cannot say exactly ‘what’ the ultimate state is like. I’m not sure if that’s what you were after or not.
<O:p></O:p>
I hope I have clarified where I’m coming from-but I probably opened new vistas of inquiry, which will probably be good for the both of us (Smile) Again, thanks for your interests, it means much!
<O:p></O:p>
Eric D.

being · October 2010

In most cases the bully is a lost and confused ego. Striking back at such a person would be ignorant and egotistical. Not that striking back would ever be wise.

A story from my own experience:
When I was just a tiny kid (maybe first-grader), my parents put me into this judo training and I didn't like going there from the first day. I was bullied quite a lot there, but since my parents were pretty strict about what I should do I had to endure it for about 4 years.
And for some reason I was often the main target to be picked at, when playing outside at home with other kids. I guess I just was an easy prey.
My parents never really showed any positive emotions towards me, other than a big need to control, what I should and should not do. (On an intellectual level I understand it's no-ones fault and they probably had their own sufferings, which lead to them acting this way. The endless chain of cause and effect.)

I'm not sure why, but I've been very sensitive emotionally and physically all my life. So all this coldness got to my ego and my school became the place for me, where I would try to re-establish my tampered ego. Me and a friend of mine became the class bullies and the 'coolest' kids, who all the others had to look up to.
We would do all kinds of silly things to 'look cool'. Like interfere classes with stupid unnecessary comments & prove our superiority over other boys in the class etc.
But in reality I was actually just suffering from the lack of understanding, kindness and compassion from my parents & from all the bullying of other kids.

So please, if you see someone trying to prove himself by being aggressive, understand, that it's most likely that the person is suffering and ignorant to what he/she is actually doing.
From this understanding compassion should arise towards that person. And if it's pity, not compassion, it's still better than striking back, I guess.

Subjectivity9 · October 2010

Eric,

E: We simply experience these things and all phenomenon ‘as is’ without the need for the conceptually obsessed ego chopping up and allocating these raw experiences for its own uses.

S9: Since we seem to actually agree on a good deal, outside of the semantics, I think I will go directly at the real issue between us in some detail, if you don’t mind.

There is a practice that does not chopping this world up, called “bare attention.” This is something that can be maintained with some effort, while on the cushion. But this way of seeing, or should I say of living, cannot be maintained off of the cushion very long. Because the second we want to change something, like put food in our mouth, or walk to the store, etc. we must start of necessity with separation things and motions into different kinds.

In other words, we must eat our food, but not our fingers holding the food. Or we must realize that the store is over there and we are here, and that we cannot continue to stand stark still and yet at the same time make progress towards getting there.

Also we notice that walking itself is made up of many tiny individual moves, as walking meditation will soon point out.

What I am trying to point out is that, ego is a necessary tool. It is exceedingly useful for dividing what is (supposedly) me from what is (supposedly) not me (conventionally/conveniently speaking) within this more conventional (finite) world. We must realize facts like these are my fingers, and not just a part of the donut that I am eating. Biting down on your fingers will quickly convince you of this fact. Grin!

So although we are forced by necessity to deal with or through the ego (aka: this is me), yes, at the same time we can come to realize that the conventional ego is merely a tool, an interface between this conventional world and our conscious intentions. We can dis-identify with ego, much like we do a hammer, or our car, or really any of the many tools in our life.

In this way, we would not be living in the conventional understanding one moment, and that of Reality in some later moment. Rather we would be living in these two perspectives simultaneously. This conventional world would be superimposed on top of the Reality.

And:

Isn’t this is similar to a dream superimposed on top of the sleeping form in our bed at night.

In both sleeping and waking, a river of thought (stories) skims across the screen of Pure Awareness. Ego is merely the locus through which these stories stream.

Am I making myself clear? What is your view on this?

Peace and love,
S9

EricD · October 2010

Hello, S9
ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
Sorry for the late reply…life and all its egoic requirements LOL! First, I most certainly agree that we have to, in daily practice, “chop up” the environment—so to speak—in order to function throughout the day. I thought the way you put that was quite good by the way!
<O:p></O:p>
My philosophical position is that metaphysically there are objects in front of us. We perceive X and we have cognitive processes that make a sort of functional picture of that—or those—object. It isn’t to say that there’s nothing there but some kind of pure mind projection. Quite the opposite actually, our world is filled with ‘real’ objects and events that fill up and give guidance to our action: like do not go travelling off the cliff if you wish to continue living, for example. Epistemically, we are “justified” in our perceptual beliefs because our inferences about objects-events etc, and our resultant behaviors, are guided by the criterion of “useful praxis.” In other words, it is justifiable to believe that fire is on the hill because we see smoke, and this is further supported because in our scientific and experiential understanding we’ve come to conclude that wherever smoke is-there is fire. Having this understanding follows this ‘useful’ criterion and as such benefits our continued existence. Ethically, knowing that we live in this world of ‘others’ that have real effects and produce other ‘causes’ forces us to look at the nature of our interrelationship to the world, others (animal and human), and ourselves (a value exploration inwardly focused).
<O:p></O:p>
The problem comes about when our evolved nature—the ego—naturally takes over (from birth onward) and wishes to expand its interest- via aversion and grasping as one psychological means-to the world. The ego, in order to make survival manageable, attempts to reduce all phenomena (metaphysical, epistemic-psychological, and ethical) to bite size-easy to grasp concepts. This function of the egoic mind is neither good nor evil-its both and neither at the same time. We-as a species- couldn’t have survived without it. Yet, ironically-perhaps-it has been the source of much of our pain and suffering. Nevertheless, this concept-forming mind is the pathway to higher understanding and inner peace. So, is it useful? Yes! Is troublesome? Yes! Can we do better than merely give in to its enticing demands-so to speak? Absolutely! Moreover, we can do that by a more disciplined use of the mind. Now, I know you probably know and agree with much of this. So let me unpack it just a little further to get at the salient point.
<O:p></O:p>
The key, for me, is that the mind conceptualizes the data from inner and outer experience. So, for example, my bed is in front of me and I know that my mind, for convenience sake, plays the central role in defining the many objects as one thing relevant to the ego—“my bed.” Does this mean that there’s nothing really there because my mind is involved in developing my felt-experience of the bed? Of course not! There really is a series of items clumped together in front of my mind. However, our ontology ought not be guided by our speciated ontological interest. “My bed” is actually made up of sheets, a headboard, springs of various shapes and sizes, pillows, cardboard, wood-boards, and a whole number of other items that can be further and further broken down in to their constituent parts. The reality is that all of these things differ and can be continuously split up seemingly ad infinitum. It is only when these different objects come together in a certain relationship that we have the concept “bed.” Again, does this mean that the bed doesn’t exist in any sense? We can say, ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ It does in that there are objects in front of me sitting in a certain relation to each other. No, it doesn’t exist ultimately! In other words, there are no beds because that’s just a function of the mind projecting a name and use to these related items. In this specified sense, there are no “real” beds, trees, cars, dogs, cats, planets, plants, or persons. These, and obviously much more, relate and eventually meld into one another in the actual broader scope of the whole universe. Hence, these things are “empty” of any fixed intrinsic nature! It is useful (conventional use) for the mind to do this, however. As you put it above, this sort of short hand for complex systems helps us get through the day.
<O:p></O:p>
The issue, I think, is not that we cease ego-function or not see its usefulness. The answer is to train ourselves, again, as you wrote so well above, not to identify with that or this egoic influenced experience. The illusion analogy is useful in that our conceptually organized world doesn’t really exist in the way expounded above. The mind’s nature is to have us “pretend” that these conceptions-driven by our own ontological interests- are really real and have some sort of permanent effect on our being. This means we buy into our thoughts, emotions, and social impulses-like memes- as if these things are ultimately real. But, on further examination, we realize that if we continue to break down these things analytically and notice how our thoughts arise and then meld into other thoughts, our concepts really don’t have any final resting place or ground. They too are composed of varying elements that go down the analytic trail of infinity. The point is that we, through much study and discipline, reach an ever-greater awareness of our unnecessary dependence on conceptualization for our experience of raw phenomena. Yet, there’s nothing wrong with keeping it as a useful manager of experience LOL! However, it is our selfless awareness that becomes the manager of the ego-function. Therefore, the “need” to identify with that ego in actual experience is either non-existent or so weakened that its uses are largely relegated to mere ego-function. Experiencing raw phenomena is possible, but this takes practice and discipline for sure.
<O:p></O:p>
As to the need to compare the egoic mind to that of a dream or somehow living two lives- one transcendent the other in the illusion, I think is largely unnecessary. One, as the “bed” example illustrates—I think—one need not say that there isn’t this or that object in front of me per se. Quite the opposite! There really are “things” in relation to each other that produce actual visual and cognitive effects. The problem is when we come to define this or that object as some sort of fixed unity in experience-possessing a quality relevant to our own interests. Things exist beyond our biased minds and interests. None of this requires a sort of new age look at reality or something beyond a scientific view of things in order to get an idea of what it is that we are experiencing. We can have meaningful discussions about waking life and dreaming states without having to descend into the arcane and mystical realms of holographic reality or illusory existence. After all, our conceptual minds get a lot right. Conventional thinking and tracking of experience reveals a lot about our universe and our place in it. We need not forgo this wonderful-truth telling means of knowledge simply because this telling makes use of conceptual mind. I would argue that what we have to be aware of is that there’s more going on philosophically than just what our conceptual telling of this or that story gives us. So clarity of thought helps here. If one argues that our life is but a fiction and there’s no sense of anything being real, then the onus will be on the one making that very complicated assertion. Just because there are illusions at play here, doesn’t mean that they have no real potency or that there’s nothing behind them causing them to manifest in experience. Its just that when we speak of non-conceptual experience-ultimate truth-we have nothing to use to describe it because it’s the very basis on which any ‘truth’ is conditioned. It makes possible all the rest.
<O:p></O:p>
I think I fundamentally agree with you. I just see a connection between the conceptual world and base-or fundamental reality-if you will. It is because these two realms overlap in essential ways that we are able to see, correct, and eventually dis-identify with our conceptual selves.
<O:p></O:p>
Well, S9 I have to run again but thank you for a wonderful discussion as always!!
<O:p></O:p>
Eric D.

Ficus_religiosa · October 2010

Child therapists are beginning to realize the importance of teaching victims of bullies to strike back in a controlled manner - f.ex. by making the bully/ies look ridiculous while maintaining calmness.
Protecting your physical body and your mind is not to be frowned upon. It's simply necessary. I doubt anyone would agree that we should just lay flat on our stomachs and let a robber beat us - of course the sane Buddhist would poke him in the eye and make a run for it. In the same way you can protect your sanity by lashing out when threatened - we all know how traumatizing bullying can be. There's absolutely no reason to teach our kids to be helpless victims, when a simple pay-back could end what would/could have become years of terror.

Compassion is not forgetting ourselves, and it isn't letting bullies continue their behavior because "they don't know better", "they have had bad experiences" etc.
The least suffering would come from stopping the bully - even if that entail being aggressive yourself once in a while.

Subjectivity9 · November 2010

Hi Eric,

No need to apologize. I fully understand how busy, busy can be. Grin!
Here on the farm, at this time of year, we are up to our elbows in busy, what with putting multiple gardens, etc. to bed for the winter. ZZZZZZ

E: “…our world is filled with ‘real’ objects and events that fill up and give guidance to our action.”

S9: Can you be sure?
“Question everything!”
There was a great sage who said, “We do not live in this world. We live in our heads.”
In other words, all that we actually take for granted as being real, or believe that we know beyond any doubt, is merely what our brains have assembled for us into some knowable patterns. (Yes, even what Alan Watts referred to as “the concrete,” (as apposed to the conceptual) is a mental pattern.

First off, we identify with our body/mind, and then we ‘swallow whole’ whatever these two liars tell us about the so/called physical/mental worlds. But don’t we do that very same thing, every night, in our dreams?

Now I am not saying that we can live in total disregard, or that we can start walking through walls, (unless we also have a very good insurance policy that covers broken noses.) Grin! But than, wasn’t it the Buddha himself that said we should begin to dis-identify?

When we do, at some point, dis-identify with the physical/mental matrix…Poof…most all of our previous understandings, about both what this world is, and/or represents, magically melts away too. We become acquainted with just how EMPTY this whole physical/mental matrix actually is.

E: Epistemically, we are “justified” in our perceptual beliefs because our inferences about objects-events etc, and our resultant behaviors, are guided by the criterion of “useful praxis.”

S9: A favorite quote of mine:

“If you want to make the gods laugh, make plans.”

Anyone that thinks that cause and effect is a simple thing to understand and manipulate, should try their hand at out-thinking, and out-maneuvering Wall Street for a while. Smile!

I have always believed in the ancient philosophical saying that, "When a butterfly in China moves its wings, absolutely the whole universe (every single individual thing within the universe) is altered in some way." Albeit all of these changes are not so easily identified/understood by the human mind. There is so very much that is absolutely beyond our senses and our minds.

Every day I witness my cat hear things and smell things, etc. that remain a mystery to my so-called superior take on this world. (The human mind is only a tiny window on all of this multiplicity.)

E: Wherever smoke is-there is fire.

S9: Such a tiny window, and even that has exceptions. A mattress can smolder (a smoky mess) for days without any show of a flame.

The Buddha said that just because things show up in proximity to each other doesn’t point out that one caused another. We use these ideas of cause and effect, out of convenience, within a given paradigm of space/time. Buddha actually questioned if wood became ashes. (What are they outside of time?)

I know this would seem entirely crazy to someone who has bought entirely into the paradigm of space/time, or someone who doesn't question what eternity might be. But just maybe, we have to think outside of the box. Maybe Enlightenment (aka Reality) isn’t the same old/same old.

E: Having this understanding follows this ‘useful’ criterion and as such benefits our continued existence. Ethically, knowing that we live in this world of ‘others’ that have real effects and produce other ‘causes’ forces us to look at the nature of our interrelationship to the world, others (animal and human), and ourselves (a value exploration inwardly focused).

S9: This morning I heard the Dahlia Lama say (on the radio) that, “The purpose of life is happiness.”

Now that makes good sense to me.
If you find yourself in a mental dream, than why the heck not live it as/if you could culture happiness. The alternative seems almost masochistic/sadistic. So yes, you “Go with the flow.”

But, at the same time, there is a real advantage in having a good over-view. Isn’t that what FREEDOM is all about? What is Enlightenment, anyway, if not freedom from unnecessary suffering? (AKA not falling into the dream or using the dream to beat ourselves up?)

As always, my new e-friend, if I have missed something you wish I had addressed, or even more closely, please feel free to bring this to my attention.

Peace and love,
S9/Leslie

EricD · December 2010

Hey S9, great to hear (or read) from you again LOL!! It has been too long! Anyway, here we go Grin!

You wrote:

“E: “…our world is filled with ‘real’ objects and events that fill up and give guidance to our action.”

S9: Can you be sure?
“Question everything!”
There was a great sage who said, “We do not live in this world. We live in our heads.”
In other words, all that we actually take for granted as being real, or believe that we know beyond any doubt, is merely what our brains have assembled for us into some knowable patterns. (Yes, even what Alan Watts referred to as “the concrete,” (as apposed to the conceptual) is a mental pattern.

First off, we identify with our body/mind, and then we ‘swallow whole’ whatever these two liars tell us about the so/called physical/mental worlds. But don’t we do that very same thing, every night, in our dreams?

Now I am not saying that we can live in total disregard, or that we can start walking through walls, (unless we also have a very good insurance policy that covers broken noses.) Grin! But than, wasn’t it the Buddha himself that said we should begin to dis-identify?

When we do, at some point, dis-identify with the physical/mental matrix…Poof…most all of our previous understandings, about both what this world is, and/or represents, magically melts away too. We become acquainted with just how EMPTY this whole physical/mental matrix actually is. “

First, I would wonder how you justify ‘dis-identifying’ with the physical/mental matrix as meaning a total subjectivist portrait of ontology. I think there’s plenty of evidence to show that such a position wasn’t the Buddha’s position. Nor was it the position of those Buddhist schools of thought that followed an idealist approach to reality. Several problems here: One, typically subjectivism argues that only the subject projects meaning onto the world, and that the subject’s meaning is utterly relative to that person. However, this doesn’t explain how it is possible that we all have similar/the same perceptual experiences, attitudes, and ethical impulses. Studies done on these-and other issues are fascinatingly decisive; it is both in AND out of our heads. Culture modifies and places meanings on our perceptual experiences etc. but the fact that we’re seeing and experiencing something out there that possesses certain qualities hardly seems debatable. For example, David Buss has explored sexual preferences among men and women that cut across 38 different cultures. While there are some expected differences, it was shown that women and men have certain aesthetic and ethical expectations across cultures. Also, if it is all in our heads, why is it that well structured scientific theories can predict what they will find in the world without any appeal to the arbitrary realm found only in our heads? I think subjectivists go too far in trying to express the subjective qualities of the individual and social human psychological make-up. One of the key attractions of Buddhism is the opposite of this approach: It argues that there is a real world and that real world has karmic effects etc on our very being. The goal is not to do away with this real world but our thinking and egoic experience of it. There’s a huge difference in these two approaches.

In the Mahayana traditions, and others, the conceptual mind isn’t an enemy per se. In fact, these traditions argue that the conceptual mind is key to enlightenment by clarifying the non-conceptual experience(s) to be found in simple perceptual experiences. Like the latter Ludwig Wittgenstein argued, we utilize our logical systems of thought to the degree that we see there utter limit on the whole of thought and life itself. But it is a grave error to suppose that our framing of life is wholly arbitrary or that our bodies and minds are our deceivers. Our minds function to help us survive in a world of vicious competition and survival. This “Darwinian” function in fact does help us survive! It is why we cannot walk through walls or off cliffs and survive. In highly evolved minds, we are able to conceptualize what works and doesn’t work for our survival. But our minds hardly cease at this point. We can figure out what works from what doesn’t because we are genetically wired for the task. Nonetheless, mind, which is driven by the impulse to survive etc, also sees and ultimately economizes the world according to its interests. This is a problem! In the game of survival and reproduction the human mind conceptualizes the world through wants-desires and chooses to find those people and those circumstances that benefit it. Thus, the world becomes divided up according to what makes sense to us. All species function this way. It just happens to be our case that we have the ability to use massive thought patterns that often lead to bad or wrong conclusions that our fixed on anthropological interests.

This is why some concepts work better than others and why some thought systems organized in religion or science produce results leading to one set of outcomes and others to another set. Buddhist philosophy steps in the mix and mingles here to clarify our conceptual framework so that it sees that while the mind is in service of our survival, which it does quite well, it also is often wrong when it comes to more weighty matters of life and life’s ultimate meaning. Secondly, Buddhist or dharmic philosophy reveals the faulty nature of mind and how it can lead to suffering. Dharmic philosophy, I think, argues that the mind with all it conceptual machinery is both a blessing AND a curse. Your position seems rather one sided here. In this framing of dharma, it’s not about getting rid of mind or what the mind does well at all! Rather, it is to clarify our conceptual instruments and realize their ultimate limitations when it comes to raw perceptual experience. In this way, “mind”—and a well-nurtured body—is the very source of our liberation from suffering. The animalistic mind is untamed by need and aversion. When tamed by “Right View” of reality, one of the principles in the eight-fold path, among other principles, we cultivate the very power and energy of mind to be of better use to others and ourselves. In basic, the world and our place in it need not be reduced to an egoic mind that sees only self-satisfaction and repulsion. Our minds and the world have intrinsic meanings much bigger than just what our usual egoic concepts will allow. The ultimate meaning being that we may have simple raw-enlightened experience without being enslaved by our experiences or concepts that wish to reduce the world in the here and now moment of life.

This position or view of dharma sees that mind has negative and good uses. The goal is to cultivate the good and eventually see that “good” “bad” “truth” and “falsity” all point to a reality beyond themselves. Yet, that shouldn’t suggest that these concepts are of no use or that we ought not use them. It is just that there’s far more going on in our world and with us than just what these concepts can capture.

This is my first part of the answer. I hope this finds you well my friend,

Eric D.

EricD · December 2010

If you take the position that all is subjective and that we only live in some vague illusion or that we have no epistemic standard of use that can assist us in determining better courses of action from others, then such statements as these that you wrote, “Now I am not saying that we can live in total disregard, or that we can start walking through walls, (unless we also have a very good insurance policy that covers broken noses.) Grin! But than, wasn’t it the Buddha himself that said we should begin to dis-identify?” requires some sort of explanation. Why can’t we walk through walls or not really care about what others think or do—its’ all subjective and doesn’t matter what really happens since its all merely a meaningless illusion? Point being, if there’s no connection to some realm of which we all are involved in, then you should explain why Buddhism or anything or anyone would be of value to anyone. Sure, it may be of value to you, but that may be irrelevant to someone else who believes in the memes of destructive conflict. Why, given the teachings of dharma, can we not oppose the obvious deceptions that such a person(s) would have in executing some sort of suffering onto the world? The typical subjectivist leanings (not to say that you are) gives no answer that would be satisfying either to dharmic thought or would make sense of our experience because we really do feel a connection to this world. Hence, I would argue that a better understanding of dharma would promote dis-identification with any singular moment or event in an egoic fashion, but not dis-identifying oneself from the truth (i.e. dharma) or our world for which we all are interconnected with. Indeed, dharma makes sense precisely because it makes sense of the human condition of conflict and suffering. It offers a way out of our minds egoic tendencies of ontological bias, but not out of our interconnectivity with our world and one another. Buddhism is not relativistic nor nihilistic subjectivism. Buddhism, I would argue, keeps us in this world; however, it does so through proper understanding and compassion and not by dispensing with it. The goal is perfected understanding that we’re already connected and integrated to the world as much as we can be, it is some of our mind’s functions that sometimes convinces us that it’s not so.

Hence, the concept of “emptiness” is not ontological emptiness per se. In other words, it isn’t to say that there’s nothing out there. Quite the opposite! Rather, it argues that many of our concepts attempt to act as if the many manifestations of our universe are actual differences instead of merely conceptual ones of a certain kind. So, for example, a book comes from trees, which comes from seeds and nutrients-which comes from sunlight-cloud filled rain and so on. All of these elements, as well as others that are now keeping the book in continued existence, are all part of the books existence. The book emerged out of all this “stuff” that has no intrinsic-separate existence from all else. From the edge of the pages out into the world the book is presented to egoic-mind as separate from the entire world from which it emerged and has sustained existence in. It is tempting to see the book as something that had permanent existence apart from all else. “Emptiness” reveals that all things overlay each other and eventually melt away into a sea of diverse possibilities. In other words, the book is ultimately “empty” of my concepts of it and not of any sort of existence. If the “book” had no existence whatsoever, emptiness is pointless. The book has no fixed existence as “book” or can be wholly defined only as “book.” None of this remotely suggests that there isn’t something in front of my mind’s eye. Nor does it suggest that we can’t usefully refer to this object as a book. The trick is how we define this object and relate to it. The book, like “me,” has impermanent and extrinsic source of being that has, is, and will flow into other being. The fact that there’s other changing being present is what gives emptiness its enlightenment value—even beyond itself-ultimately.

You (S9) wrote:

“If you want to make the gods laugh, make plans.”

Anyone that thinks that cause and effect is a simple thing to understand and manipulate, should try their hand at out-thinking, and out-maneuvering Wall Street for a while. Smile!

I have always believed in the ancient philosophical saying that, "When a butterfly in China moves its wings, absolutely the whole universe (every single individual thing within the universe) is altered in some way." Albeit all of these changes are not so easily identified/understood by the human mind. There is so very much that is absolutely beyond our senses and our minds.

Every day I witness my cat hear things and smell things, etc. that remain a mystery to my so-called superior take on this world. (The human mind is only a tiny window on all of this multiplicity.)

I take that my position on Dharmic philosophy doesn’t disagree with the notion of possessing a rather healthy skeptical epistemic standard! My epistemological stance, however, hardly requires me to possess an infallible, omniscient, and absolute standard on human knowledge. That’s not my argument here. I agree with you that cause and effect are very complex forces. All my point here-was that our conceptual functions are useful. This is so by your own admission. All I wished to do was point out that the reason that they have the general useful functions that they have is because they are revealing about the nature of things. This hardly means that they are free from our ontological biases or that our conceptual definitions of this or that object/event is exhaustive. I simply wish to say that just because our egoic minds capture some relevant features of our world-hardly means that they can plan perfectly or be capable of knowing exhaustively the core nature of existence. I agree that the notion of “suchness” –raw perceptual events—reveals that all objects/events possess a sort of sui generis nature and is connected with the notion of emptiness. It is our ability to compose disparate data into a coherent whole that allows us to discuss and explore our path towards seeing the very limits of our conceptual instruments and ever better appreciate the simple experience.

Part two LOL! Eric D.

EricD · December 2010

You (S9) wrote:

S9: Such a tiny window, and even that has exceptions. A mattress can smolder (a smoky mess) for days without any show of a flame.

The Buddha said that just because things show up in proximity to each other doesn’t point out that one caused another. We use these ideas of cause and effect, out of convenience, within a given paradigm of space/time. Buddha actually questioned if wood became ashes. (What are they outside of time?)

I know this would seem entirely crazy to someone who has bought entirely into the paradigm of space/time, or someone who doesn't question what eternity might be. But just maybe, we have to think outside of the box. Maybe Enlightenment (aka Reality) isn’t the same old/same old.

Indeed S9 reality may be different! Yet, the only means of ascertaining this is not by rejecting what “appears” to be useful-conventions as somehow being non-revealing. Instead, it is by further exploring and sifting through these mysteries until we reach a higher point of understanding of a given process or a height in our own awareness. ‘Yes’ the Buddha questioned many things, and it is true that cause and effect possess egoic-cognitive conceptualizations; however, the Buddha never denied an ‘objective’ (so-called) reality! I think the main thrust of his argument on ontology was there are those who’ve gained ‘some’ useful-good insight on the nature of being, who then move to make further proclamations that could hardly be substantiated. All such people wish to give us the exhaustive nature of all being without admitting the enormous egoic-and other-challenges to such a task. The more ontological layers we strip away the more we see the emptiness of our initial conceptions. However, this doesn’t mean that there’s not something there or that we need to become total or absolute skeptics. This position of total subjectivity is as dogmatic and presumptuous, in my view, as any absolutist metaphysics. The middle way here, again, in my view, is to openly acknowledge our ignorance when and where it’s appropriate, leaving us with much to question and/or simply accept. Yet, there’s much that we can know or even reliably infer. For example, to say that cause and effect are useful is to implicitly acknowledge that there are concepts and methods that are not useful means of categorizing experience. To say that cause and effect are useful, in my view, is to say something about the nature of things-generally. Out of raw experience the mind may construct adequate means of conveying information and organizing human communities or which ‘cause and effect’ happens to be one such relation. We may ask how something works by studying cause and effect (karmic) influence on things being manipulated. The problem comes in when we attempt to say that we have a full or exhaustive comprehension of cause and effect itself. It is my view that each ‘useful’ conception is useful for reasons that elucidate an underlying or ultimate ‘truth.’ In the case of cause and effect, this relation exists because it points to the facts of interconnectivity, change, and emptiness. Only in a universe where one thing can impact another through change and interconnectivity is something like cause and effect possible. This has some use in explaining our karmic connectivity in the moral order as well. That’s another topic for another time LOL!

I also agree we have to think outside the box. However, just desiring to think outside the box and actually doing that well are two separate issues altogether.

You wrote:

S9: This morning I heard the Dahlia Lama say (on the radio) that, “The purpose of life is happiness.”

Now that makes good sense to me.
If you find yourself in a mental dream, than why the heck not live it as/if you could culture happiness. The alternative seems almost masochistic/sadistic. So yes, you “Go with the flow.”

But, at the same time, there is a real advantage in having a good over-view. Isn’t that what FREEDOM is all about? What is Enlightenment, anyway, if not freedom from unnecessary suffering? (AKA not falling into the dream or using the dream to beat ourselves up?)

As always, my new e-friend, if I have missed something you wish I had addressed, or even more closely, please feel free to bring this to my attention.

I think happiness here is understanding the nature of ‘mind.’ The illusionary influence of our egoic mind is that it convinces us through our experiences of the world that we exist as a ‘self’ (wrong view), and that this self attempts to fixate on the conceptual mind-which attempts to economize our world through cognitive constructs-and thereby limits it, and such ‘mind’ will do all it can to avert from those constructs it deems ‘bad’ “for itself” and grasp onto (a total denial of the reality of ‘change’) those constructs (via experience, of course) that it deems ‘good’ “for itself.” For my version of Dharmic philosophy- I think ‘liberation’ and happiness is achieved through limiting grasping-denial thought and seeing that the reason that the many useful concepts we do have point to something higher than what egoic mind wishes to admit. Being open to others, being altruistic, is an implied acknowledgment of our human interconnectivity. Being rigorous with our philosophical and scientific methods is an implied acknowledgment that our minds can go awry and yet we have the power to transcend those errors. If this is so in our philosophic and scientific lives, it can be the case in our own introspective lives as well. When we are good ecologists, we are implicitly acknowledging cause and effect as well as interconnectivity to the planet that has given rise to us and sustains us. To be liberated doesn’t mean we either divorce or marry our conceptual minds. Rather, it means that we see that our universe, our nature of being is big enough that we can do both. By not being enslaved to egoic mind, we are free from the poisonous suffering that pours into our lives and corrupts our path tawards enlightenment. We need not hate egoic mind, or anything-really; instead, we need only see that our non-egoic awareness needs no permanent-changeless situation to be happy or free. The reason we don’t want to buy into such illusions is precisely because there is a more accurate “right” way of achieving our enlightened ends.

I hope this finds you well dear friend,

Eric D.

Dakini · December 2010

I haven't read the longest contributions here, I hope my bit won't be redundant.

I think there are several different questions in the OP's question. First, Buddhism isn't compatible with a Capitalist, competitive society, but that doesn't mean that members of that society can't practice it effectively. Buddhism wouldn't work as a state religion in such a society, but we have separation of church and state, anyway. I read about a businessman who implemented Buddhist values in his business, and made a fortune. I'll see if I can find that book. I think he placed his customers' interests above his own, and it turned out to be a win-win situation. But there was more to it than that. It would be interesting to see if Capitalism could be infused with Buddhist values, but I think some sort of co-op type economy that focussed on collectives might fit better.

If the OP is talking about extreme situations, such as when someone is about to perpetrate a crime on someone else, or is trying to scam someone (also a type of crime), I say that there are some people in this world who only understand the language of forcefulness and violence. If avoicance isn't an option, one may have to strike back (then run), or speak to the person strongly, but mindfully, depending on the situation. (Losing control of one's speech or actions only makes things worse.) This type of question has been covered in a couple of other threads. I think it's ok to be rude to people calculatedly trying to rip you off. This is the only language some people understand. I've seen people try to be gentle and Buddhistic toward con artists, and it doesn't work. You have to be firm, maybe not rude, but firm.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Buhddist principles vs. Competitive nature in humans

Comments