Back to Buddhist philosophy

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

People with power or influence over many others have a particular high degree of potential karma involved in their incarnation I'd guess. I remember a few years ago I read some famous maker of horror movies died and his latest movie had just came out, and it was horrible in every way possible and I thought, "how is he going to explain or justify that mess in the afterlife?" He could have made a movie about anything and he chose gore and worse. That was his last contribution to society before he passed.

Popular spiritual leaders or teachers are in the same way affecting many others. Thus, it seems to me, the affects will be greater karmically from the choices they make in life. With greater power or influence comes greater responsibility. The average person may intentionally harm a few others, a leader of some kind can harm millions.

True. I'd say don't give authority to anything as a general rule because it makes you gullible and docile. Better see how a person behaves to see they harmful or not. Give credibility based of trustworthiness and integrity, not status and not enlightenment and all that spiritual hogwash. Keep it very simple. The person is truthful, kind-hearted, unassuming, not-demanding, want nothing from you; and therefore trustworthy. This approach is best for refuge, and far better for your enhancement. It is not abstract. It's practical because this is a spiritual thread and if you participate here you the sangha. If the sangha is untrustworthy, it's not worthy of refuge.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

I'd say the difference is in understanding, compassion, love. A wise person can hold two things (or more) in their mind simultaneously, the understanding if something is wrong or bad AND the understanding of why it occurred or is happening.

The negative version of a "moralist" is one who judges without understanding. Blames the person. As Buddha said, ignorance is the cause, not the person. If one was not ignorant of their true nature, they could do nothing to intentionally harm another. Buddha said, as Jesus did, ignorance is the cause.

And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:24

In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises. Buddha - Avijja Sutta: "Ignorance Sutta"

The positive version of a "moralist" is one who judges with understanding. Though the word "judge" there is probably not the best one to use. Maybe discern and understand instead. And moralist is probably not right word to use there either!

The word "moralist" is basically a bad view of somebody who makes judgements about others' behavior. But there is nothing wrong about making judgements about others behaviors. Both Buddha and Jesus were constantly making judgements about others behaviors. The difference, like I said, is in understanding. Both Buddha and Jesus would not put the blame on the person, but instead on ignorance.

The ND speakers (cut and pasted ) use this tact: First posit the most banal aspect and say that is morality. Second say a deeper aspect so it sounds very wise. I think Spira explained things best because he doesn't dismiss morality on banal or deeper levels, but rather, stresses their necessity.



He has some parallels with the Buddhist philosophy, mainly the circular relationship between "sila, samadhi and panna" - morality, concentration and wisdom. Morality gives foundation to meditation, meditation gives rise to wisdom, which strengthens (understanding of) morality, which enhances meditation, which deepens wisdom etc. etc. etc as each aspect expands the other.

[sentient]

I do have rather negative view of ‘morality’.

So repeating …
What is the point of preaching morality to others – if not to curb the behaviour of others in order to secure the separate self.

Only the ego, the dual wall can do it, egolessness, nonduality cannot.

What is the point of comparing those immoral others to me who is the righteous one with the right morals and thus can be trusted … if not elevate one’s self – one’s own ego.

So what is all this self-promotion with morality under the guise of spirituality? Ill-will or good-will?

Morality can never lead to genuine compassion, it can only mimic it.
When the dual-mind or the ego wants to become ‘spiritual’ it does so by trying to live up to an ideal or to a mental concept and thus becomes an artificial, fake, rigid, mechanical representation of the real thing.

*

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by sentient

I do have rather negative view of ‘morality’.

So repeating …
What is the point of preaching morality to others – if not to curb the behaviour of others in order to secure the separate self.

Only the ego, the dual wall can do it, egolessness, nonduality cannot.

What is the point of comparing those immoral others to me who is the righteous one with the right morals and thus can be trusted … if not elevate one’s self – one’s own ego.

So what is all this self-promotion with morality under the guise of spirituality? Ill-will or good-will?




Morality can never lead to genuine compassion, it can only mimic it.
When the dual-mind or the ego wants to become ‘spiritual’ it does so by trying to live up to an ideal or to a mental concept and thus becomes an artificial, fake, rigid, mechanical representation of the real thing.

*

That fits.

In fact it may all fit.

Who it fits and what fits is really about the fitter..


I’m seeing and aware of your view. Compassion doesn’t house anything but itself. If it’s contained in anyway, the containment is not flowing freely through the one containing it.

Compassion through ‘emptiness dancing’ doesn’t require the streams of understanding in place that is leading you to know it as itself. You have to become it without the mind at play eventually. But to understand the totality of something or anything, the ethical, moral principles serve its opening deeper..

In this way the inclusiveness becomes part of moral ethical emptiness. Then your aware but not contained. Then your allowing compassion to be inclusive through all of your being.
So...then
Morality is morality. Compassion is compassion.

It then becomes a stream of awareness, but never holding on to anything, so all things serve as each stream seeks to be served.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustBe

That fits.

In fact it may all fit.

Who it fits and what fits is really about the fitter..


I’m seeing and aware of your view. Compassion doesn’t house anything but itself. If it’s contained in anyway, the containment is not flowing freely through the one containing it.

Compassion through ‘emptiness dancing’ doesn’t require the streams of understanding in place that is leading you to know it as itself. You have to become it without the mind at play eventually. But to understand the totality of something or anything, the ethical, moral principles serve its opening deeper..

In this way the inclusiveness becomes part of moral ethical emptiness. Then your aware but not contained. Then your allowing compassion to be inclusive through all of your being.
So...then
Morality is morality. Compassion is compassion.

It then becomes a stream of awareness, but never holding on to anything, so all things serve as each stream seeks to be served.

I think is comes down to obedience, and what people are finding distasteful is not morality per-se, but obeying. I say obedience is unethical, and in no way virtuous.


Even in my long post I was saying metta isn't really effective unless you're somewhat established in mindfulness anyway, so if your mind is agitated and heart is with malice, stay with self awareness. Don't blow bulldust into the air.


Of course this still implies morality. Saying don't pretend implies truthfulness. That surely signifies virtue. Maybe 'virtue' is a better word than 'morality'. I should say 'virtue' from now on. It doesn't imply obedience.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think is comes down to obedience, and what people are finding distasteful is not morality per-se, but obeying. I say obedience is unethical, and in no way virtuous.


Even in my long post I was saying metta isn't really effective unless you're somewhat established in mindfulness anyway, so if your mind is agitated and heart is with malice, stay with self awareness. Don't blow bulldust into the air.


Of course this still implies morality. Saying don't pretend implies truthfulness. That surely signifies virtue. Maybe 'virtue' is a better word than 'morality'. I should say 'virtue' from now on. It doesn't imply obedience.

Yes that could be.

There is such an inclusiveness to the ‘whole’ understanding and awareness through what your sharing.

As I’ve come to see through my own personal experience, the end point in myself aware of all things being discussed, compassion and loving kindness become an inclusiveness of all life, regardless of right and wrong behaviours. So in some ways whatever moves through the stream of reaching this point more open and clear, there is the realisation, no part of you can be separated out, in this ‘becoming’. There is a realisation point to let go of ‘right and wrong’ through the minds view. Hence in this ‘inclusion’ of self released from those binds, the self moves into the heart to feel a natural arising of ‘compassion’ for all life.




Virtue probably does fit better than morality..

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustBe

Yes that could be.

There is such an inclusiveness to the ‘whole’ understanding and awareness through what your sharing.

As I’ve come to see through my own personal experience, the end point in myself aware of all things being discussed, compassion and loving kindness become an inclusiveness of all life, regardless of right and wrong behaviours. So in some ways whatever moves through the stream of reaching this point more open and clear, there is the realisation, no part of you can be separated out, in this ‘becoming’. There is a realisation point to let go of ‘right and wrong’ through the minds view. Hence in this ‘inclusion’ of self released from those binds, the self moves into the heart to feel a natural arising of ‘compassion’ for all life.




Virtue probably does fit better than morality..

Yes, I am not talking about morality (now called virtue) in isolation. What I say now is contextualised with what I said before. The thread is taking steps from the banal to the nuanced, and this means that minds have to become more nuanced in perception as understanding requires self awareness.

The philosophy is not dumping a single text or different texts in isolation. The philosophy is joining the dots between this text and that to create the all encompassing picture. They do not want to discuss it, but challenge it, take over, establish the expert and so forth. All of these things are motivated by some nature of will, and if we can see the nature of our own will without the attached stories and justifications, we will know its nature solely through the feeling that it has. But if we stop to know that feeling, just to know it 'as it is', the volition ends right there and then.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes, I am not talking about morality (now called virtue) in isolation. What I say now is contextualised with what I said before. The thread is taking steps from the banal to the nuanced, and this means that minds have to become more nuanced in perception as understanding requires self awareness.

The philosophy is not dumping a single text or different texts in isolation. The philosophy is joining the dots between this text and that to create the all encompassing picture. They do not want to discuss it, but challenge it, take over, establish the expert and so forth. All of these things are motivated by some nature of will, and if we can see the nature of our own will without the attached stories and justifications, we will know its nature solely through the feeling that it has. But if we stop to know that feeling, just to know it 'as it is', the volition ends right there and then.

I’m now starting to see how your collaborating through the awareness of the whole context.

Tis all about the ‘feeling’ as it is and as I’ve explained through my own experience and awareness, it’s the way to build onto what is in you moment to moment, listening to yourself in everything you are sharing. Looking at the feelings that align you to ‘a side’ rather than seeing yourself as all sides of the larger picture.

[sentient]

Continuing with my monologue …

Well, as I have already mentioned a few times before - the latter part of my childhood was spent in a narcissistic household.

The mindfulness practice of a narcissist is to be in full alert 24/7 about whether people like you or not – whether a person is for you or not or whether they have good or ill will towards you …. because it is everybody’s moral duty to love and cherish them.

If a narcissist feels their manipulation is working – they will feel that their mask, the false front/self is secure and if not, they will feel fearful to the point of paranoia, at which point the maliciousness, what they see as their righteous self-defence is their only reaction option in a situation.

Not accusing anyone of being a narcissist on this thread (as yet). But nobody – nobody! talks about looooove as your consciously aware moral duty you must adhere to and obey in life as a narcissist.

*

And what about the uncharismatic, unattractive man who never gets any action?
What is his weapon? – ‘Spiritual’ discipline - morality and obedience … “Look at me, what a man of virtue I am you can trust”.
…. Yeah, right ! What could be sleazier!

Alan Watts has plenty of charisma and his talks are informative and entertaining.
His attitude towards women though makes me want to puke. So personally, I would probably not have liked him as a person, but hey, the man knows what it is when “IT lives you” or when “IT lives through you.” Hence he can be a teacher and be celebrated as such, no matter how flawed he was as an individual.

There is no walking the path, if one is stuck at one place at the beginning of the Buddhist practice and cannot move from there - just repeating the same old, same old like a broken record.

*

IF your mind or your whole being is as open as an ALL Accommodating Space - Space doesn’t slice things up into moral; - black and white good vs. bad categories. It accommodates ALL.
IF your mind is like a clean slate upon which nothing has been written as yet ….. well, then you can enter into “not knowing what is” - letting the now situation itself (which is always in the state of flux i.e. impermanent) show you “what is”. And once you have seen “what is happening” well then one can consider an appropriate response or enter into “not knowing what the appropriate response is” and thus letting it, the solution spontaneously pop into your head.

To think, that with a predetermined good moral attitude code - one will meet reality – is to delude oneself and others. One will only be involved in mirroring one’s conceptually idealized ego ..... validating it from one corner to the next.

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sentient

Continuing with my monologue …

Well, as I have already mentioned a few times before - the latter part of my childhood was spent in a narcissistic household.

The mindfulness practice of a narcissist is to be in full alert 24/7 about whether people like you or not – whether a person is for you or not or whether they have good or ill will towards you …. because it is everybody’s moral duty to love and cherish them.


If a narcissist feels their manipulation is working – they will feel that their mask, the false front/self is secure and if not, they will feel fearful to the point of paranoia, at which point the maliciousness, what they see as their righteous self-defence is their only reaction option in a situation.

Not accusing anyone of being a narcissist on this thread (as yet). But nobody – nobody! talks about looooove as your consciously aware moral duty you must adhere to and obey in life as a narcissist.

*

And what about the uncharismatic, unattractive man who never gets any action?
What is his weapon? – ‘Spiritual’ discipline - morality and obedience … “Look at me, what a man of virtue I am you can trust”.
…. Yeah, right ! What could be sleazier!

Alan Watts has plenty of charisma and his talks are informative and entertaining.
His attitude towards women though makes me want to puke. So personally, I would probably not have liked him as a person, but hey, the man knows what it is when “IT lives you” or when “IT lives through you.” Hence he can be a teacher and be celebrated as such, no matter how flawed he was as an individual.

There is no walking the path, if one is stuck at one place at the beginning of the Buddhist practice and cannot move from there - just repeating the same old, same old like a broken record.

*

IF your mind or your whole being is as open as an ALL Accommodating Space - Space doesn’t slice things up into moral; - black and white good vs. bad categories. It accommodates ALL.
IF your mind is like a clean slate upon which nothing has been written as yet ….. well, then you can enter into “not knowing what is” - letting the now situation itself (which is always in the state of flux i.e. impermanent) show you “what is”. And once you have seen “what is happening” well then one can consider an appropriate response or enter into “not knowing what the appropriate response is” and thus letting it, the solution spontaneously pop into your head.

To think, that with a predetermined good moral attitude code - one will meet reality – is to delude oneself and others. One will only be involved in mirroring one’s conceptually idealized ego ..... validating it from one corner to the next.

*

Fair enough, not that anyone is promoting predetermined morals, but when you talk narcisists or about Watts attitudes to women, obviously there is moral issue there. But more to the point, the feeling that it gives you, and then how you react to the feeling is bringing the adverse reaction that incites ill-will in yourself. If you don't know it in yourself, you can't understand the topic.


This is not saying you shouldn't have the feeling or the reaction or the ill-will. This is just the bare fact and nothing else or the insight that comes from knowing of yourself.