More about Zen and morality..

[disastermouse]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

Thus, while it is absolutely true that "immoral conduct" comes from "greed, anger and ignorance" ... it is not always so easy to keep us from falling into that trap no matter how long we have practiced, nor is it easy to always say exactly what "moral action" would be in a given "gray" situation ... AND MOST OF LIFE IN SAMSARA IS "GRAY" SITUATIONS!

I don't think that the point here is one ever attains moral perfection - I think the point of my original post was to differentiate WHERE morality comes from in Buddhism and how it's not conventional morality - that is, it's not the preferences of the one's parents and the greater culture that are absorbed into the super-ego. It comes from a falling off of the three poisons, and proper moral activity also springs from an immediate lack of delusion in the moment.

Chet

[disastermouse]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

But I also think that a lot of behavior, as Jundo points out, is either "hard-wired" into us or powerfully conditioned and doesn't magically disappear when we have an insight.

Who's asserting that anything magically disappears upon having an insight? In the moment of insight, it may...but I think you guys are dragging up a strawman here, because I don't recall asserting the magical disappearance of immoral behavior anywhere in this thread.

Steve Hagen asked, "What's the most important thing in Zen?" He answered himself, "To wake up." Then he asked, "What's the second most important thing in Zen?" Again he answered himself, "To wake up again." (And yeah, he began with the caveat that there's really no such thing as 'the most important thing in Zen')

My point here has never been some fairy tale about the complete vanquishing of unskillful actions - my point is rather that the removal of obstacles comes primarily from insight and NOT from willpower or direct attack upon one's own 'immorality' - because that only causes the suppression of drives that come out in other misery-making ways. Can we not agree that all immoral behavior springs from a misunderstanding either about who and what we are and also what will ultimately bring us the most happiness? This 'hard-wired' bullshit - this is a cop out. If immoral and unskillful behavior is truly hard-wired into us, why bother with any sort of a morality practice? Accepting this little piece of rationalization also completely cuts of the Buddhist path as pertains to liberation. You are saying that liberation is not possible. Let's call this what it is, please - utter bullshit.

No. Nothing is hard-wired. Karmically it may be nearly intractable, but it is only 'nearly' intractable.

hus, while it is absolutely true that "immoral conduct" comes from "greed, anger and ignorance" ... it is not always so easy to keep us from falling into that trap no matter how long we have practiced, nor is it easy to always say exactly what "moral action" would be in a given "gray" situation ... AND MOST OF LIFE IN SAMSARA IS "GRAY" SITUATIONS!

And this is exactly WHY prescribed moral actions do not work - because of the grey area. This is why no one can tell you what the correct action is. Ultimately, the idea is not to avoid all moral predicaments - moral predicaments are often precisely what causes us to become honest with ourselves.

This thread wasn't really about avoiding immoral behavior - because it's often immoral behavior that can give us insight into our own self-deception when nothing else can. (And let me cut you off at the pass by hoping you're bright enough to not translate that into 'Immoral behavior ALWAYS leads to insight.' I would think people would be smart enough to see that the two statements are not the same, but I don't want to expend energy batting away errors in logic or misattributions of what I actually DO say, LOL.)

My point has never been that perfect insight leads to perfect morality. My point has been that, on the Buddhist path, there is no honest morality WITHOUT insight. Whomever mistranslates that into, 'Insight always translates into morality.' is guilty of a grievous logical flaw. That is to say, and let me put it in bold AND capitalize it:

INSIGHT IS A NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT COMPONENT OF MORALITY.

Chet

[Shogen]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

Zen the practice, morality the resulting action.

The morality of which I speak is not of the forced fed variety by institutions and judged by them. Morality is rooted in and eminates from "Buddha Mind." How do we discover this mind which has alwaways been with us?
I'm sure there are various ways but, my choice is the way of Zen.

I'm sure when Siddhartha was sitting throught the nine years prior to his enlightment he too had his detractors. They probably told him that his way was bogus forget his foolishness and come join them because their way was the correct one. This living, breathing, eating, sitting, walking human being found the way to enlightment. So is the way not established for anyone who has the will to do the same? For those who say the possibility to attain Buddhahood in this lifetime is not possible, i think not. Who can say there was not many such enlightened folks that quietly passed throuh life without display. Perhaps, that is why we are left with," Buddhas can only speak with Buddhas"

Lizard mind and the "little buddha" in our pants(for some not so small) that is the human condition now and exists in unison with our ability to choose various actions. Isn't it our choice of action that defines us? Isn't the power of choice an awsome responsibility?

For the fall of the so called realized Zen teachers just how realized where they? Did they leave any good teachings behind? Isn't that what really matters? From where did they fall and where did they land?

For me morality eminates from " Buddha Mind" and manifests in compassion for all Myriad Things. (us included) Gassho

[JohnsonCM]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

My point here has never been some fairy tale about the complete vanquishing of unskillful actions - my point is rather that the removal of obstacles comes primarily from insight and NOT from willpower or direct attack upon one's own 'immorality' - because that only causes the suppression of drives that come out in other misery-making ways. Can we not agree that all immoral behavior springs from a misunderstanding either about who and what we are and also what will ultimately bring us the most happiness? This 'hard-wired' bullshit - this is a cop out. If immoral and unskillful behavior is truly hard-wired into us, why bother with any sort of a morality practice? Accepting this little piece of rationalization also completely cuts of the Buddhist path as pertains to liberation. You are saying that liberation is not possible. Let's call this what it is, please - utter bullshit.

No. Nothing is hard-wired. Karmically it may be nearly intractable, but it is only 'nearly' intractable.

Personally, I find a few things here that I don't know if I can agree with, Chet. If the removal of obsticals comes primarily from insight, and not the suppression of drives as you suggest, then why the Precepts? I think that this line of thought might be putting the cart before the horse. The fact that we are physically built to enjoy eating to excess, or anything sense based for that matter, shows that some things are indeed hard wired into our systems. Elsewise the sensory feelings would be dull and muted or our brains would not recognize them as feeling "good". This doesn't cut out the path of Buddhist liberation, it supports it. The Buddha said that we are held prisoner by our wants, desires, delusions and attachments, and only by our "practice" which is designed to lead us to insight, can we break free. The Buddha gave us the Precepts as a part of that practice, and he did so for a reason. Muscle memory perhaps. Live moral long enough, and you become moral. Insight, or realization, liberation, any of it isn't usually so easy to understand, else we would all be truly realized already and this would all be moot. The practice, I think, leads us to insight, not insight leading us to practice. Though for those "unmarked Buddhas" out there that live and die without us knowing about it, maybe it does work that way for them. But they'd be the exception, not the rule. The rest of us, must content ourselves with effortlessly working towards it, while enjoying the Nirvana of Samsara.

[gakuse345]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

This seems to be a debate between the Freudians and the Maslovians.

[monkton]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

This 'hard-wired' bullshit - this is a cop out. If immoral and unskillful behavior is truly hard-wired into us, why bother with any sort of a morality practice?

I read this in New Scientist last week - fortunately it's on line so I don't have to describe it myself: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...cial-bias.html

I do note that it stops short of saying that it proves that racial stereotyping is innate or 'hard wired' in the last sentence. But it does point towards innate biological tendencies - which are 'perfect' in themselves - but which for the greater good of society we have outlawed as 'immoral'. (And I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing and that we should all follow our 'natural' inclinations!)

So, because society is defining what is immoral here, we can say that something that we would call immoral or unskilful behaviour is a fundamental part of our make up, and that we can be totally unaware of it until we are taught that it is wrong, or until our empathy skills develop to the extent that we can attempt to use them to override these instincts. Our ability to act morally could be described as our ability or willingness, to overide these tendencies. Which involves some sort of internal work, some sort of practice, is not guaranteed so even if practised will not automatically produce the 'best' result. Scribbling away here, not sure if I said what i meant to - time to walk the dogs - catch up with you all later
gassho,
Monkton

[disastermouse]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

My point here has never been some fairy tale about the complete vanquishing of unskillful actions - my point is rather that the removal of obstacles comes primarily from insight and NOT from willpower or direct attack upon one's own 'immorality' - because that only causes the suppression of drives that come out in other misery-making ways. Can we not agree that all immoral behavior springs from a misunderstanding either about who and what we are and also what will ultimately bring us the most happiness? This 'hard-wired' bullshit - this is a cop out. If immoral and unskillful behavior is truly hard-wired into us, why bother with any sort of a morality practice? Accepting this little piece of rationalization also completely cuts of the Buddhist path as pertains to liberation. You are saying that liberation is not possible. Let's call this what it is, please - utter bullshit.

No. Nothing is hard-wired. Karmically it may be nearly intractable, but it is only 'nearly' intractable.

Personally, I find a few things here that I don't know if I can agree with, Chet. If the removal of obsticals comes primarily from insight, and not the suppression of drives as you suggest, then why the Precepts? I think that this line of thought might be putting the cart before the horse. The fact that we are physically built to enjoy eating to excess, or anything sense based for that matter, shows that some things are indeed hard wired into our systems. Elsewise the sensory feelings would be dull and muted or our brains would not recognize them as feeling "good". This doesn't cut out the path of Buddhist liberation, it supports it. The Buddha said that we are held prisoner by our wants, desires, delusions and attachments, and only by our "practice" which is designed to lead us to insight, can we break free. The Buddha gave us the Precepts as a part of that practice, and he did so for a reason. Muscle memory perhaps. Live moral long enough, and you become moral. Insight, or realization, liberation, any of it isn't usually so easy to understand, else we would all be truly realized already and this would all be moot. The practice, I think, leads us to insight, not insight leading us to practice. Though for those "unmarked Buddhas" out there that live and die without us knowing about it, maybe it does work that way for them. But they'd be the exception, not the rule. The rest of us, must content ourselves with effortlessly working towards it, while enjoying the Nirvana of Samsara.

I think you picked a good example with the over-eating because I have a real-world example that speaks to that example.

I've tried to get a lean, bodybuilder's physique for over 10 years. I would try to 'eat right' - the right kinds of foods, the right portion sizes, etc. Inevitably, my willpower would wane and I'd be right back where I started - or worse. I got up to about 22-25% body fat - that's about normal for people in general, but it's an utter failure for a bodybuilder.

Then I discovered intermittent fasting, a way to work WITH my tendency to over-eat by more strictly setting up WHEN I can eat. When I don't eat, I eat NOTHING - but when I do, I get all my calories in an 8-hour eating window. This means I get big, satisfying meals, even on a significant calorie cut. Willpower is only required about 2-4 hours a day, if that. The urge to over-eat is satisfied daily, and yet instead of getting fatter, I got much, much leaner.

Combating my tendency to over-eat and my desire to feel satisfied never worked for long and it often ended with me getting fatter, not leaner. Working with my desire to over-eat turned my desire into an ally in a greater goal.

Chet

[Stephanie]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

I was thinking this morning on the way to work that perhaps my take on this is influenced by my Freudian training (though I actually prefer Object Relations in terms of psychoanalytic schools) and seeing human behavior through terms of aggressive and pleasure drives--good call, gakuse.

I was also thinking that this is a complex topic, which is what makes it an interesting discussion. I'm figuring out my thoughts on this as I type them up--this isn't something I have a solid perspective on yet, though I do have some thoughts.

Something I've been trying to figure out how to articulate is a perspective I've been developing that is relevant to this discussion. Which is that Buddhist training and realization is a path that gives us the freedom to transcend our biological conditioning. The human condition already gives us more ability to transcend biological conditioning, and the Buddhist path is a path of perfecting the human condition. As people, we are still driven by instinct, but our creativity, our ability to think abstractly, to detach ourselves and think when we get that immediate rush of blood to the head (or wherever else), allows us to choose different paths in dealing with instinct. We can express it in multiple ways or repress it. We can be creative in terms of what foods we like and what we're attracted to. Moreso than other animals, that tend to respond to the same triggers in the same way, always (though animals too have some capacity to be creative and spontaneous).

Buddhism takes all this a step further. Buddhism allows us to see the content of our minds as content and trains us not to automatically identify with it. It allows us to have a similar perspective on our bodies and feelings. We can think or feel something but detach ourselves from it. This allows us to act rather than to simply react.

More and more, I believe morality is a choice. I believe we have a natural tendency to be helpful and kind, but we also have a natural tendency to be competitive and cruel. Neither tendency is more 'true' than the other. Both are part of who we are. Nature, or "the universe" (to use the phrase many Zen Buddhists seem to like to substitute for "God"), does not give a shit one way or the other. We have a lot of theories about how nature ultimately rewards good action, but I am not sure it is so. Nature rewards intelligence, strength, and dominance. From an evolutionary perspective, the stories of saints and bodhisattvas sacrificing themselves to hungry tigers are a "total fail." However, from a human perspective, these stories reflect something we recognize as good.

Of course, we are a part of "the universe" too, so our ability to see beyond simple win/lose, strong/weak, etc., dichotomies, is also a tendency of the whole of reality. And perhaps something in the fabric of the universe has prescribed that such beings will arise. I don't know, and I don't think it matters that much. It seems to me though that there is no force out there pressing us to do good. It is ourselves, our own imaginations, that allow us to envision acts of "good" rather than simply acts of power or success. I think this is perhaps what Blake was talking about when he lauded Imagination as our highest human quality and saw Christ as an avatar of imagination. The ability to take moral action, to choose a good path, to be self-sacrificing, is something that has risen in the human imagination.

So all this meandering thought goes back to... yes, we may be "hard-wired" in certain ways but that does not mean that we are "doomed" to act in certain ways. It means that we have evolved, perhaps, to be aggressive and to seek to dominate others, but that in our humanity we can rise above our hard-wiring and not act simply because instinct or impulse suggests we do. This is where the Buddhist path comes in... and the link between morality and insight. Both arise from our ability to disidentify with the goings-on of our organisms. We don't have to believe our thoughts about reality (insight) and we don't have to act solely driven by greed, anger, and ignorance / instincts / pleasure and aggression drives (morality).

So yes, all this practice does go together. We learn to "unhook" from delusive ideas about what Reality is, and we learn to "unhook" from instinctive drives to aggress against others.

[Jundo]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

Perfect Buddhas and Zen Masters exist primarily in dusty books. Such perfect Buddhas and Masters -- being the product of the writer's imagination -- are drawn to always act in the perfect way appropriate to the circumstances, always say the right and wise thing to fit the story in which they appear. Perfect Buddhas are perfectly enlightened and perfectly moral ... and probably someone's dream of what a Buddha should be.

I believe that I way "over-spoke" here in my excitement. I do know and can see (beyond some thing to "see") a perfect "Buddha realm", Nirvana and "Perfect Buddha" (though all just labels for something beyond labels) ... that perspective where there is no one to kill or be killed, nothing to steal or in need of taking. It is True, folks! We encounter this (although ultimately no "we" and nothing to "encounter") in a quiet moment of Zazen.

My point is merely that we all live down here in muddy, confused, sometimes beautiful sometimes not, Samsara, filled with complex moral choices each day (Should I buy a pair of sneakers if I know that there is a 15% chance it was made in a child labor sweat shop? Should I drive a car if I know that it contributes a little to someone getting lung cancer from the pollutants or suffering in an "oil war" on the other side of the world?) And while NIRVANA is PERFECTLY SAMSARA when known as such ... and although we all have our inner "Buddha" which is a small, still voice within of Wisdom and Compassion ... we have to be very very cautious in understanding just how that awareness perfumes, guides, forms and frames our moral choices down here in bloody Samsara. It Ain't so Simple as saying that, by merely tasting the Nirvana all around us, we will know whether to buy those sneakers or drive that car.

That's really my main point.

Gassho, J

PS -

Maybe it has to do with intention, when ones intention is freed from greed, anger or ignorance it (ones intention) is "morally" (""cause moral in this sence is nothing to attain) correct, isn´t that simple? The outcome is a different matter, that one can not always (or never) predict.

Well, yes, both traditional views of "Karma", as well as the ordinary Civil and Criminal law in Western Societies generally hold us responsible for our intentional acts (or, in the case of the law, acts which we know or should reasonably know will likely come out some way, and thus are equivalent to "intentional"). I think it a fair moral standard.

When I say, "I always used to suppose there was an underlying 'moral order' but now I am not so sure," I am not saying I do not believe that the Three Poisons can be identified as the main source of harmful behavior. Rather, I'm saying I'm not sure that whether or not we act from the Three Poisons matters to anyone or anything else other than the human beings who invented that concept.

Well, as Taigu and I sometimes point out about Kannon, the Bodhisattva of Compassion ... it does not matter whether a He/She actually exists in the world ... for when any of us do an act of Compassion, Kannon actually exists in the world. Same for an act of evil ... which makes the "devil" and "hell" real in this universe.

viewtopic.php?p=15494#p15494

I do believe karma works, and I don't understand how skeptics like Stephen Batchelor say they don't believe in karma, because karma is just cause and effect. Our actions have effects that affect us.

I do not think that Stephen Batchelor (and me too, by the way) deny "Karma", that our volitional actions have effects. It is more the overly mechanical view that if we do X "we" will come back as bunny rabbits ... and that harmful acts have to have some 1-to-1 payoff somewhere down the road. In fact, at least for me, I do not deny it ... so much as call myself a "skeptical agnostic" who just considers the question moot so long as we focus on not doing harm right in this life, right now.

[Jundo]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

... I think the point of my original post was to differentiate WHERE morality comes from in Buddhism and how it's not conventional morality - that is, it's not the preferences of the one's parents and the greater culture that are absorbed into the super-ego. It comes from a falling off of the three poisons, and proper moral activity also springs from an immediate lack of delusion in the moment. ...

My point here has never been some fairy tale about the complete vanquishing of unskillful actions - my point is rather that the removal of obstacles comes primarily from insight and NOT from willpower or direct attack upon one's own 'immorality' - because that only causes the suppression of drives that come out in other misery-making ways.

Chet

I think it may be a too broad brush. Almost all human groups, Buddhist or not, share a common morality ... do not kill, do not steal, do not covet thy neighbor's wife. One might think that that is somewhat "hard wired" into the human brain too, based on its commonality. We all have some variation of the "Golden Rule" ... with the main Buddhist addition perhaps being that "the other" that your "self" "does unto" is "not two" from you!

And I think that Buddhists, as much as anyone, need a combination of that small inner voice, the teachings of their parents, and imposed outside rules/laws/policemen/the Tax Office/Vinaya to keep us on the "straight and narrow" (or, in traditional Buddhism, the belief that one was going to incur "Bad Karma", and come back as a snake or burn in a Buddhist Hell! viewtopic.php?p=17953#p17953 ). We also need some inner "guilt" and "regret" (in moderation folks!) for the bad stuff we have done, and "willpower" to keep us from "doing the nasty" when nobody is looking sometimes. ALL human beings, Buddhist or not, need all of that (the history of Buddhist society is my "evidence", cause it has needed all of that to keep people "good" down here in Samsara since the time of the Buddha and ever since.).

However, I do fully agree with this you wrote, Chet ..."INSIGHT IS A NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT COMPONENT OF MORALITY."

Gassho, J

PS -

Nature rewards intelligence, strength, and dominance. From an evolutionary perspective, the stories of saints and bodhisattvas sacrificing themselves to hungry tigers are a "total fail." However, from a human perspective, these stories reflect something we recognize as good.

I very much disagree. "Nature" (of which we are part and parcel, as much as the lions and petunias) also rewards ... in human society, anyway ... generosity, kindness and cooperation, etc. (but that is even so in the animal kingdom ... where many animals cooperate, engage in self sacrifice for the group, etc.). So, stories of the saints and bodhisattvas are not a "total fails" ... any more than the tale of the soldier who jumps on a grenade for his buddies, the man who donates a kidney to a stranger, etc. They are human beings at our best ... and perfectly "natural" behavior.

But, yes, as you say, ". I believe we have a natural tendency to be helpful and kind, but we also have a natural tendency to be competitive and cruel."

ALTRUISM IN ANIMALS

http://zoology.suite101.com/article.cfm ... in_animals

Of course, we are a part of "the universe" too, so our ability to see beyond simple win/lose, strong/weak, etc., dichotomies, is also a tendency of the whole of reality. And perhaps something in the fabric of the universe has prescribed that such beings will arise.

I feel it is so. But whether it is or not ... WE'RE HERE, and had better make the best of this self-life-world.

[Rich]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

Maybe this is why Buddha simplifiied everything by not owning anything except for a couple of robes and bowls and begging for food to survive. His very existance depended on the generosity and caring by others. His nirvana and samsara were much closer to one as compared to ours...maybe. Anyway if the right choice, decision or action isn't clear maybe we just have to wait for the clouds to clear up. A lot of times the choice becomes unecessary and irrelevent anyway. What kind of socially and environmentally friendly sneakers should I buy? :lol:

[Grizzly]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

Didn't the Buddha in the Pali say that the function of morality was to create the right conditions to achieve enlightenment..along with everything else. All tools to achieve the the beyond good and bad 'state' he called nirvana. Following the rules keeps people off your back, stops you having guilt etc.- all in all it benefits your practice and state of mind. As always a practical reason (the main focus of all my posts) is the why it is recommended. of course this doesn't leave others out because it is about them being happier too by our restraint and non-hurting mindset. if its something we need to rigidly adopt until we can live unconditoned by the poisons then it can be a great thing.
As a separate note I was reading about the difference between modern and historical morality (a simplistic distinction). The author was saying that today we debate what would you do in such and such a situation or is it right to x, y or z. In the past there was more emphasis on character- who are you in the world, and out of taht naturally come the actions in situations. It is certainly worth contemplating the difference between the two approaches.
I agree that ultra-forced morality can lead us to do the very thing we are trying to stop. That happens if we suppress. if we can allow the problem to be with us in consciousness, and then either we change it with chod- like therapeutic techniques or it just goes or loses its sting or is metta'd, then the restriction has served us by bringing to light that which is now accepted and transformed.
Just some thoughts
Rich

[JohnsonCM]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

I think that if everyone glances through the posts on this thread, you'll start to see a common theme. A desire to be enlightened and more than we are simply taught to be leads us to study Buddhism. This study encourages us to practice, part of which is to realize and identify when our human nature is trying to direct us to act instead of our realized selves. In practicing, we learn we are all inseparable, yet unique and in realizing that we make the effort to act morally. In acting morally we benefit all beings (as best we can). Eventually, (we hope) we realize that we are all inseparable, if unique, and because of that we act in a way that benefits all beings, which just so happens to coincide with what we call moral.

As an illustration, it might look something like this......

[disastermouse]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

I should mention that I think the Buddha set up the 'imposed' morality of the precepts (and for monks, the Vinaya) in order to make practice and insight as likely and as simple as possible. Not only should you not lie because it sets up ill will amongst your neighbors - it's also mighty difficult to keep up with the many versions of truth you put out there. Much of the precepts is just 'KISS' logic. Like Grizzly said, it keeps you out of trouble and it keeps you from creating sticky new karmic situations that you then have to navigate.

But for me - how did I learn restraint (whatever quantity of that quality that I can be said to possess, LOL)? Mostly through the painful lessons learned through lack of restraint, sadly.

Chet

[Dorje T]

Re: More about Zen and morality..

I have found precepts, ethics, morals, (acknowledging that these are not exactly synonyms) can bring a lot of insight and benefits. For years I didn't take refuge (receive the "outer" precepts) until the precepts seemed to come out from within me 'spontaneously' [after considering them for a long time in the context of practice] as an insight.

In practical terms as Chet just mentioned, but also in sitting, ethics and morality are important. It's hard to really "just sit" when you have heavy karma, hard to get to the subtle "other shore". This is in part because some of the insights you might gain have to do with the nature of your relationship to everyone/everything "else". Without a "me" opposing "you" what is there except relating, except interaction? How can we interact without consideration, without morality?

Something you all might recall called "Mahayana Buddhism" came [at least in part] from such insight that self-release was good so far, but not quite the whole picture. My zen teacher used to say "when you sit, the whole world is sitting with you." This is not really just a metaphor. This is a great insight into ethics and morals.

But we should remember, the "insight" that we are discussing, the one you imagine, is not really the 'true' insight - and that might get over looked in talking about it.

You can't really talk about the true insight that releases us from [abolishes] unethical activity because it looks just like ethical behavior itself - what's the difference? When does morality happen? Now. When does insight happen? Now. You can't really say something like "when zen insight comes, will I have a different view of morality then?" Insight is now! Morality is now!

Preachers TALK a lot about ethical behavior and look at how that ends up so often. Im not saying don't talk about it, Im just saying that talk is not morality, not insight. Talk always ends up contradictory, always, because it is conceptual - a representation of THIS. We should just remember this.

Morality is the EXPRESSION of morality, the expression of compassion - which is the word I'm more used to.

There are those [even in Buddhism btw] who have hidden behind [or were confused by] their own imaginary insight which supposedly put them above worldly ethics and morality.

Just please, brake for cats crossing the street! THAT is insight. THAT is morality. Don't bring harm. Zen insight or what ever words you want to use will not absolve you of the fact and responsibilities of being-interdependence. What I would call "karma" or working within the karmic realm is exactly the work of Buddha - they are of "one taste" as Tibetans often say.

If you screw up and are unethical or immoral in some way you don't get reprieve from being a Buddha, you ARE Buddha, you are just an unethical Buddha and you are on the hook for that.

Zen and morality are exactly the same.

gassho