Anattā (no self)

Originally Posted by Gem

In places where this is not out of bounds, such as Mooji's ashram or the Buddhist school where Chodron became a nun, people are harmed because the appropriate boundaries that form the protections are not upheld by the teachers - who supposedly are not subject to morality due to their enlightenment, according to the apparently enlightened Spira.

I know you've been harping about Pema Chodron, but I don't agree that these centers were not subject to morality.

What was done was done in private, this is not a case of free for all. There is no such thing in Buddhism - you should know that, and I'd ask you to be careful in how you portray Tibetan schools. Not all are bad, or have problems.

Theravadans also have their very real issues - as does every Sangha.

The very basis of Buddhism is do no harm, and whether enlightened or stuck in morality, it's the same direction. Morality helps the meditator because an ethical mind is a more stable mind. Rain95, who appears to have gone, lied quite often. I would guess such a mind is not the best foundation of practice. So right morality is taught, because it helps but not as a binding code - morality was the basis of much bloodshed one should be reminded. It's not as simple as xyz but I think the Christians have it good - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and do no harm.

JL

[Gem]

Originally Posted by janielee

I know you've been harping about Pema Chodron, but I don't agree that these centers were not subject to morality.

What was done was done in private, this is not a case of free for all. There is no such thing in Buddhism - you should know that, and I'd ask you to be careful in how you portray Tibetan schools. Not all are bad, or have problems.

Theravadans also have their very real issues - as does every Sangha.

The very basis of Buddhism is do no harm, and whether enlightened or stuck in morality, it's the same direction. Morality helps the meditator because an ethical mind is a more stable mind. Rain95, who appears to have gone, lied quite often. I would guess such a mind is not the best foundation of practice. So right morality is taught, because it helps but not as a binding code - morality was the basis of much bloodshed one should be reminded. It's not as simple as xyz but I think the Christians have it good - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and do no harm.

JL

Chodron seems to be a good egg, but she got caught up in a school where various abuses are common knowledge, and she has since worked to rectify the malpractices concerned and establish an appropriate level of moral conduct there.


I'm aware that issues related to immorality are widespread in Buddhist schools, so I just continue to spruik the value of sila. Indeed, morality is required for a stable mind, and leading a moral life is the foundation of meditation.



You're right that morality is not a binding code, and my saying is 'obedience is unethical'. What is true of your heart, the truth of one's intent - is it actual in the one true wish that all beings be happy?


I thought Buddhism generally taught a 'golden rule', but framed it as 'do not do to others what you would like done to yourself'. I'm not sure if that was a Buddhist teaching, but they used that saying at my school.


Yes, Buddhist ethics are based on benefit rather than harm, and with heart free of malice and ill-will - skillful in mindfulness and self-awareness - perhaps we'll be beneficial in all we do.

[running]

your always going to find things you like and things you dont like across every square inch of the globe. its my opinion that accepting the world as not what we want but what we get but focusing on seeing the light in the dark and working on ourselves is productive. if we personally experince something, see something, and then by all means see if there is something we can do to change something. at the same time i wouldn't start ripping the heart out of life because things aren't just how we want them. putting one into confinement of rules and regulations and so on is a lot more scary to me that living in a non perfect world. sometimes people have so much inner anger they express it by going around with plastic jewelerly around ones face while ripping apart everything along there path with anger. that is scary. acceptance of others as they are and being onenself is healthy and less destructive over all imo. the world will never be perfect but i can navigate that and love it to. as it is.

Originally Posted by Gem

Chodron seems to be a good egg, but she got caught up in a school where various abuses are common knowledge, and she has since worked to rectify the malpractices concerned and establish an appropriate level of moral conduct there.


I'm aware that issues related to immorality are widespread in Buddhist schools, so I just continue to spruik the value of sila. Indeed, morality is required for a stable mind, and leading a moral life is the foundation of meditation.



You're right that morality is not a binding code, and my saying is 'obedience is unethical'. What is true of your heart, the truth of one's intent - is it actual in the one true wish that all beings be happy?


I thought Buddhism generally taught a 'golden rule', but framed it as 'do not do to others what you would like done to yourself'. I'm not sure if that was a Buddhist teaching, but they used that saying at my school.


Yes, Buddhist ethics are based on benefit rather than harm, and with heart free of malice and ill-will - skillful in mindfulness and self-awareness - perhaps we'll be beneficial in all we do.

I think of Buddhism's golden teaching as kindness - true compassion that is informed by the outer as well as inner - but until one is kind, one is taught to be.

Namaste,

JL

Originally Posted by running

your always going to find things you like and things you dont like across every square inch of the globe. its my opinion that accepting the world as not what we want but what we get but focusing on seeing the light in the dark and working on ourselves is productive. if we personally experince something, see something, and then by all means see if there is something we can do to change something. at the same time i wouldn't start ripping the heart out of life because things aren't just how we want them. putting one into confinement of rules and regulations and so on is a lot more scary to me that living in a non perfect world. sometimes people have so much inner anger they express it by going around with plastic jewelerly around ones face while ripping apart everything along there path with anger. that is scary. acceptance of others as they are and being onenself is healthy and less destructive over all imo. the world will never be perfect but i can navigate that and love it to. as it is.

Hi running

I agree with Gem and others that sexual abuse and assault is not on. And any person harmed in the quest for spiritual enlightenment is a sad sad thing.

There are no "absolutes" but in general we care - about every person - and that is how it should be in my opinion.

JL

[running]

Originally Posted by janielee

Hi running

I agree with Gem and others that sexual abuse and assault is not on. And any person harmed in the quest for spiritual enlightenment is a sad sad thing.

There are no "absolutes" but in general we care - about every person - and that is how it should be in my opinion.

JL

i totally agree. i just disagree that people should be told how to live.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Sentient hello there!
Sorry you'll need to be a bit more direct. Are you trying to raise a specific point or is there something else that you're getting at?

What I see is that Gem has been discussing some universal standards of ethics and morality, but with clear Buddhist foundations and precepts.
Likewise, Running (and maybe others, not sure) has equally been discussing from the clear perspective of Western culture and its morality and ethics, overlaid or infuse with some of his own personal spiritual beliefs variously obtained.

Both of these perspectives represent a moral and ethical set of beliefs and behaviours of some kind. Whether universal or individual, or a mix of the two.

Am I supposed to be considering one person as egoless or more selfless? I wasn't even considering that sort of thought or judgment -- so perhaps I misunderstood you.

I thought we were discussing ideas regarding morality and ethics -- and in that regard, what is more universally engaged and oriented, so less specific to any one person.

Peace & blessings
7L

I thought we were discussing Anatta i.e. “No Self” on this thread.

Anatta often translated in English as ‘non-self’ or ‘egolessness’, is regarded by both Buddhist practitioners and scholars alike as being the essential kernel of the vast edifice of Buddhist thought and practice.

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by running

i totally agree. i just disagree that people should be told how to live.

Boundaries need to be in place so there are lines that cant be crossed. People who don't understand this shouldn't take influential positions such as a spiritual teacher because they don't have the depth of understanding it takes to perform that role, because people who place trust in them become harmed.

Even beyond the ethical boundaries there is are extended duties of care, so there is not only what cannot be done, but also what must be done given any forseeable risk of harm.

When one who takes the position of a spiritual teacher is ignorant of these things, and especially, ignorant of the ethical considerations concerning the power of the teacher position, they go on to create ashrams with organisational structures not based upon an underlying ethical framework.

When we know the moral fiber of the teacher isn't properly sound, we can't trust them, which from the very top, means there can't be refuge in the sangha. The whole structure of the ashram which the sangha community revolve around becomes unsafe, so there can't be a place of refuge.

It seems like a spiritual place, with spiritual community, with an enlightened teacher, and lost people are so full of hope, and they have strong desires to get something from it, become enlightened and what have you, so they misplace all their trust in it and make themselves overly vulnerable, but if a place isn't actually worthy of refuge, that becomes a very dangerous situation.

[running]

Originally Posted by Gem

Boundaries need to be in place so there are lines that cant be crossed. People who don't understand this shouldn't take influential positions such as a spiritual teacher because they don't have the depth of understanding it takes to perform that role, because people who place trust in them become harmed.

Even beyond the ethical boundaries there is are extended duties of care, so there is not only what cannot be done, but also what must be done given any forseeable risk of harm.

When one who takes the position of a spiritual teacher is ignorant of these things, and especially, ignorant of the ethical considerations concerning the power of the teacher position, they go on to create ashrams with organisational structures not based upon an underlying ethical framework.

When we know the moral fiber of the teacher isn't properly sound, we can't trust them, which from the very top, means there can't be refuge in the sangha. The whole structure of the ashram which the sangha community revolve around becomes unsafe, so there can't be a place of refuge.

It seems like a spiritual place, with spiritual community, with an enlightened teacher, and lost people are so full of hope, and they have strong desires to get something from it, become enlightened and what have you, so they misplace all their trust in it and make themselves overly vulnerable, but if a place isn't actually worthy of refuge, that becomes a very dangerous situation.

maybe i would understand better if you mentioned what your talking about. im sorta defensive about all this cause i dont like the idea of an organization telling me or anyone else what i can and cant do. it feels like a slippery slope to another catholic church, christian, morman, Jehovah witness and so on. on have personaly gone up against the club as they call it called Jehovah witness. they literally were trying to rip the kids from a girl i knew from them. because she no longer wished to be involved with such.

nobody has a more strict code about sex than the catholic church and we all know what happend as a result of that.

the other part is if its about a student being involved with a teacher, i can sorta get that. but they are both adults and have the right to make their own decisions. so thats quite a power play ovef those two people.

i believe your being genuine about how these are good ideas to you. the whole thing from my perspective, from my mind, it sounds scary. rather than fixing potentially causing a lot of unintended damage exceeding what it was proposed to fix.

Originally Posted by running

i totally agree. i just disagree that people should be told how to live.

You know, we could go on about this topic. I don't think I disagree with what anyone is saying (except maybe 7L who is a bit too severe for my taste)

But you know, like in all of life, there's going to be context - no absolutes and no matter what we do, how we try, there's no absolute perfection - I think even Gem understands that, and I know what he is saying and where he's coming from - I used to think exactly like that and still do to a degree, except I wouldn't be so absolute on the judgements from afar...

I remember reading after Gem mentioned it, about the sexual abuse cases - I think it involved children too in some parts. I can't express how ..

I do agree that spiritual communities are also to a degree vulnerable (like ALL of society) so yes we would hope that the head of any spiritual center or group is genuinely realized - where they are, there is kindness, if there is not, well...

But again slippery slopes slippery slopes. Just do your best to be kind. And I always felt, @Gem, that if we care about this world, the best thing we can do is be self-realized ourselves, that type of transcendence, and understanding is rare and a real service to all our lives in whatever capacity we live.

Namaste,

JL