Self-moralizing in Zen
Collapse
X
-
To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
-Dhp. 183
My Practice Blog -
Great thread and lovely and wiseposts here.
If you don't mind my limited take on this:
My mind was once poisoned by morality, the need to be good, the importance to act well and not do harm. I was living in a strange world that was tellng me : you are guilty, you are a sinner. People told me my body was wrong, they apprently told me lots of things that clashed with was I was simply feeling ( a major difference dear Willow between Budhism and Christianity, the original thing versus the original sin)
The discovery of Buddhist practice at a very early age was the first step leading to a state where guilt and fury are dropped, where doing good arises naturally, not as a result of moral cultivation or intention.
I don't give a f... About being good anymore ( once more, Chet's posts sound very close to my heart). Nobody asks me to help people and display compassion, if it is done, it is because there is no other way to live and die. We are all in the same boat.Anyway, I don't know if Compassion is doing a good job in my life, no time for navel contemplation, or looking back. Do I make mistakes? Plenty. Do I break the precepts? Often. Very humbling. Anyway, don't want to be a saint, don't want to be anything anymore. Just be.
You see, the big circus of morality is still very much caught in the little games of self and others, of past and future. Sure we need this to function as a society, but again I don't kill because some big daddy tells me not to, because killing would be insanity, like killing myself.
Being aware of the gaps but not shedding tears about them.
Self- moralizing is extra. The best way is to get back on the bike and ride. Its all part ofthe fun, after all.
Gassho
T.Last edited by Taigu; 06-23-2012, 10:23 PM.Comment
-
Thanks Taigu. I have been reading this thread throughout the day and up until your post my take away was that I lacked compassion for my self, that my moralizing was me being merciless to myself, or something like that. But that didn't quite ring true. I get it, and there is some truth to that, but it's not quite on the mark. Dropping guilt, on the other hand, now that makes some sense, and I did get some of that also from the above posts, but your ever pleasing to me bluntness hit it (me) on the head. And who feels guilt? this non-existent self, just another sand castle to be kicked down, and guilt is just another thought-feather to be blown away in the breeze of awareness.
I have faith and trust in the Path that I am on.
I do my best to exhibit courage and love to others, and maybe I can do a better job on exhibiting it to my self, too,
And as I become more aware I will continue to undertake more non-self actions.AL (Jigen) in:
Faith/Trust
Courage/Love
Awareness/Action!
I sat todayComment
-
disastermouse
Just a brief note about morality: Via Wilber (I know, I know...) I was introduced to Gilligan's concept of morality consisting of three levels (six stages): Pre-conventional (primary selfishness), Conventional (rule-based morality), Post-Conventional (universal condemnation of exploitation and hurt). The first is pure id, the second is the recognition that following rules is required for social acceptance, and the third extends the concept of 'we' and 'us' to everyone. Hence, if given the question about whether it's moral for a poor man to steal medicine he can't afford for his sick wife, someone in the first stage would say, "Yes. I do what what I want - fuck the rules." Someone in the second stage would say, "No. Rules are rules." Someone in the third would say, "Yes. The welfare of the wife transcends the rules of the market."
And that had little to do with Buddhism, but I think it's an interesting light to shine on a question of morality.
ChetComment
-
Great thread and lovely and wiseposts here.
If you don't mind my limited take on this:
My mind was once poisoned by morality, the need to be good, the importance to act well and not do harm. I was living in a strange world that was tellng me : you are guilty, you are a sinner. People told me my body was wrong, they apprently told me lots of things that clashed with was I was simply feeling ( a major difference dear Willow between Budhism and Christianity, the original thing versus the original sin)
The discovery of Buddhist practice at a very early age was the first step leading to a state where guilt and fury are dropped, where doing good arises naturally, not as a result of moral cultivation or intention.
I don't give a f... About being good anymore ( once more, Chet's posts sound very close to my heart). Nobody asks me to help people and display compassion, if it is done, it is because there is no other way to live and die. We are all in the same boat.Anyway, I don't know if Compassion is doing a good job in my life, no time for navel contemplation, or looking back. Do I make mistakes? Plenty. Do I break the precepts? Often. Very humbling. Anyway, don't want to be a saint, don't want to be anything anymore. Just be.
You see, the big circus of morality is still very much caught in the little games of self and others, of past and future. Sure we need this to function as a society, but again I don't kill because some big daddy tells me not to, because killing would be insanity, like killing myself.
Being aware of the gaps but not shedding tears about them.
Self- moralizing is extra. The best way is to get back on the bike and ride. Its all part ofthe fun, after all.
Gassho
T.
Should just clarify - I'm not an advocate of the moralizing within Christianity (that can be so destructive) but there is an overlap
between Christian and Buddhist ethics and no doubt the ethical mores of many other religions/belief systems aswell.
The concept of original sin as opposed to the perfection within - that has always existed - is not something I've given a lot of thought to - but I'm pondering on it now.
Thankyou for pointing this out
Gassho
WillowComment
-
Yes Willow, there is clearly an overlap. We should ask my brother Kyrillos, Chritian monk, Buddhist priest and Hermit, he is a living evidence of this oneness. Yes, Kannon and Mary are just one. Yes, doing good is important in both traditions. My rambling was about this: in Christianity heaven has been given and then taken away by the giver as a punishment for this original sin in the Garden, in Buddhism, Buddha nature pervades the whole universe and cannot be taken away. It can be ignored, not expressed, and that is the extent of our responsability, it is up to us to express it. In Christianity the Father-Son-Spirit has to be reached, prayed to, in our tradition Buddha and Buddha nature are identical and exist here and now, there are you-me-others. Something like that. In essence both are one and the same, in activity and implications, kind of different. Two flavours for one reality. I happen to prefer the Buddha nature one, or should I say it in a different way, I see truth in it. The other path as I experienced, was painful and twisted, which does not mean it is always so, quite the opposite actually. Many Japanese Buddhists would tell you how twisted the Buddhist religion is in Japan, many Christians would tell you how liberating is their path and faith.
gassho
TaiguLast edited by Taigu; 06-24-2012, 11:27 PM.Comment
-
Hi Taigu. If the Judeo-Christian view is that we have fallen from grace, and the Buddhist view is there is nowhere to fall from, or to.... in the default scientific materialism I was raised in, we simply found ourselves fallen as "cold hard facts". Only this human patch of warmth, looking out at a cold and mysterious universe, like cold snow blowing across a pavement. It would have been a relief to think there was at least a God to fall from, but such belief was dismissed as absurd. It may have been an illusion, but the gut sense of something wrong, of exile, was real... the terrible bleakness. I know a lot of people who still inhabit that world.. it's rough.
Just thinking out loud. Gassho, kojipLast edited by RichardH; 06-24-2012, 11:14 PM.Comment
-
disastermouse
Comment
-
disastermouse
Hi Taigu. If the Judeo-Christian view is that we have fallen from grace, and the Buddhist view is there is nowhere to fall from, or to.... in the default scientific materialism I was raised in, we simply found ourselves fallen as "cold hard facts". Only this human patch of warmth, looking out at a cold and mysterious universe, like cold snow blowing across a pavement. It would have been a relief to think there was at least a God to fall from, but such belief was dismissed as absurd. It may have been an illusion, but the gut sense of something wrong, of exile, was real... the terrible bleakness. I know a lot of people who still inhabit that world.. it's rough.
Just thinking out loud. Gassho, kojip
IMHO.
ChetComment
-
disastermouse
Comment
-
Materialism, like all mythologies, requires a great deal of abstract thinking unconnected with lived experience. Warmth is in the moment-to-moment living, and interjecting competing mythologies doesn't seem to help much - at least in my experience. Like Christians using computers that can't exist according to their metaphysics, Scientific Materialists falling in love much belie the contradictions between what they say they believe and how they live their lives.
IMHO.
Chet
Gassho,kojip
ed. and for what it is worth, I won't pretend to be free of such delusion... much freer than at one time.. but.Last edited by RichardH; 06-25-2012, 06:23 AM.Comment
-
disastermouse
That's true, . but regardless of how mind made it is, or how utterly obvious it may be to the non-deluded, suffering is real, being effectively trapped is real... even when we make words at those who suffer like "who is there to be trapped?"
Gassho,kojip
ed. and for what it is worth, I won't pretend to be free of such delusion... much freer than at one time.. but.
I'm not advocating platitudes in place of compassionate action. The brute facts of the matter are that, other than matters of safety, hunger, and true deprivation, I don't see how the manipulation of conditions (so few of which are under our control) or adherence to philosophy will help.
I'm only proposing curiosity in the face of suffering - specifically in cases like Alan presents - because it's the only response that isn't based in greed, repulsion, or ignorance. It also brings into question whether our guilt is even real. One has to ask oneself, "Do I even really believe this, or do I simply think I'm supposed to believe this?"
I'm not saying, "You don't exist, so your suffering doesn't exist." I'm suggesting that when suffering arrises, we should look to its true causes and not use the precepts in such a way that they shut down the inquiry before it begins. Instead of mimicking the virtuous actions expounded in the dharma (which we can never do anyway as long as we cling to erroneous concepts of self), would it not be better to make real the awakened view through Right Contemplation and Right View?
ChetComment
Comment