As Lama Govinda said, "All suffering arises from attitude. The world is neither good nor bad. It is solely our relationship to it which makes it either one or the other." So, even if it's a bad day, "every day is a good day."
I do struggle with the above - partly because it's a teaching that has (IMHO) been extrapolated and used in so many other contexts - particularly New Age therapy, etc. to not particularly good effect. Attached to in a limited way it becomes a philosophy that produces many forms of relativism, can be nihilistic and spawns mind-numbing techniques of 'blaming'. Self blame - and blaming others - for somehow not getting it, not having a positive attitude, failing to turn things round, etc.
What does ''the World'' refer to? Is it all the dharmas - the many thousand things? Is it a neutral entity from which we fashion our lives - creating good and evil in the process?
The stumbling block I come up against is that for a teaching to feel valid (for me - at the level of inner integrity) it has to have a universal essence. I want to find the universal essence in this teaching - because it carries great wisdom - but I'm not 100% there.
There is just too much tragedy and heart ache in the world to apply the teaching in a universal context. At the level of the particular it is true that we create the world we live in in our mind - our own singular minds - but our singular minds connect to other minds. If I witness another person in a hell state - in circumstances beyond their control - I need to register 'bad'. Something 'bad' is happening for that person.
I really worry about the 'turn arounds' - say in the teaching of Byron Katie. Sometimes a 'turn around' is a negation of a person's reality and can be very damaging. Sometimes its the route to a negation of ethics.
Does it mean I can't be a buddhist if I don't agree that good and bad is always a question of mental attitude?
I come back to this question often
Gassho
Willow
I do struggle with the above - partly because it's a teaching that has (IMHO) been extrapolated and used in so many other contexts - particularly New Age therapy, etc. to not particularly good effect. Attached to in a limited way it becomes a philosophy that produces many forms of relativism, can be nihilistic and spawns mind-numbing techniques of 'blaming'. Self blame - and blaming others - for somehow not getting it, not having a positive attitude, failing to turn things round, etc.
What does ''the World'' refer to? Is it all the dharmas - the many thousand things? Is it a neutral entity from which we fashion our lives - creating good and evil in the process?
The stumbling block I come up against is that for a teaching to feel valid (for me - at the level of inner integrity) it has to have a universal essence. I want to find the universal essence in this teaching - because it carries great wisdom - but I'm not 100% there.
There is just too much tragedy and heart ache in the world to apply the teaching in a universal context. At the level of the particular it is true that we create the world we live in in our mind - our own singular minds - but our singular minds connect to other minds. If I witness another person in a hell state - in circumstances beyond their control - I need to register 'bad'. Something 'bad' is happening for that person.
I really worry about the 'turn arounds' - say in the teaching of Byron Katie. Sometimes a 'turn around' is a negation of a person's reality and can be very damaging. Sometimes its the route to a negation of ethics.
Does it mean I can't be a buddhist if I don't agree that good and bad is always a question of mental attitude?
I come back to this question often

Gassho
Willow
Comment