[Gem]

Originally Posted by Darcy

Gem and naturesflow, your discourse has been engaging. Thanks for this discussion.

I don't understand Buddhism very well, except at an initial, intuitive level - it is something I am trying to learn more about. I recognize suffering/dukkha (not as the superficial interpretation I see frequently, but the concept behind it that is difficult to transcribe into language).

Meditative practice has never been something I connect to easily. The boy whom had the existential crisis, wondering if he really exists... I grew up with that intensity, had those sort of crises even younger than that. I felt I was walking a line between being and not being - my body was separate but not separate from matter, and I understood this acutely. It was painful but wonderful, and I would have moments of absolute awe of being small and aware. I suspect many children are vulnerable to that experience.

Morality as a focus for a foundation sidesteps what underlies the need for that morality, and it is a basic fear of loss of control. We learn as we get older to reign ourselves in, to respond to consequences, and to avoid pain. This is what prevents me from stillness or openness.

Only once did I allow myself to fully surrender to a "meditative" state. It was guided with a group of people. The purpose was to let go of oneself, to allow yourself to be, to quiet the mind - "let yourself fall away" for the purpose of relaxing. It appeared to be rejuvenating for the others, but it did not have that effect with me. I ripped myself away, and actually believed in my own death. The guide knew something went wrong because I had tears streaming down my face, could not speak for some time, and he didn't understand how it happened. It took me weeks to feel myself again.

I fear my own intensity - what lurks inside, what happens if I let go. Would a foundation be an act of control, or simply finding yourself in purged state where that intensity would no longer be there?

I also grew up in a Christian household and let go of that faith system as a teenager, without much conscious awareness until it was done, and so the awareness was sudden. For me, I didn't feel lost, but liberated. I no longer cared about reward or punishment, something so emphasized in the Protestant culture. Morality became more tangible because it allowed me to navigate my life instead of the promise of my afterlife.

In that sense, I have felt that morality is a tool to govern social behavior, and not a gateway to truth. Unless I am not understanding what the meaning of morality is supposed to be - I mostly hear it used in the context of a code of conduct.

In the simplest terms morality regards the how actions or inaction might result in benefit or harm, but in Buddhist philosophy there is no God that deems good and evil, so there is no 'obedience' that begets wrath or reward. If one undertakes the meditation in a formal setting, they are required to adhere to 'precepts', no killing, no stealing, no sexual misconduct, no lying, no intoxicants. These are stipulated because the 'frame of mind' or intent behind killing, stealing, lying and so forth is counterproductive or contradictory to meditation.

In that ethics regards meditation, and indeed, is considered to be the foundation of the practice, the fundamental basis of ethics regards the truth of yourself and the sense of goodness itself. The greater good which transcends any personal desire, aversion or preference, as we already know that what might suit ourselves may not be 'for the best'.

In the meditation one has to 'face the truth'. In first instance pain and pleasure will arise in the sensation, and in second instance, the aversion and craving mind respectively. When we are compelled to act on the adverse and craven mental reactions to the sensation, we tend to selfish, harmful, hurtful thoughts words and deeds. Conversely, if we are not overcome with mental reactivity, but remain even minded regardless of the sensation, we tend to selfless, kind, beneficial thoughts words and deeds.

This implies that ethics regards the 'volition', so the philosophy of ethics in Buddhism isn't 'God-given' nor an exercise in reason, but rather, the awareness of 'volition'; 'volition' being any urge to move the mind.

I am not implying that a person should willfully control anything, as being willful is 'an urge to move the mind', and this suggests the subtle difference between 'I will do do what it takes' and 'I am willing to do what it takes'. The sort of control required to be 'willing' toward any sensation arising is completely different to the sort of control that urges you to 'do something about' the sensation which arises. The former 'willingness' is not inactive, however. It is more like 'I know just what to do' without any agitation disturbing the mind. The latter willfulness is 'I must do something' - which is born of aversion and desire in reaction to the sensation.

The mindfulness practice is the cessation of that tension between adverse and desirous reactivity. it is the ability to see 'what is' without any judgment. Hence ethics is not born of a 'judgmental God'. Quite the contrary. It comes from our peaceful 'true nature', which is not disturbed by the passing of experience.