Karmic view of war - Discussion
Michael Jared Morgenstern:
However, it also seems clear that in come cases it is justifiable to kill someone (for example, I would fully support the murder of Hitler before the holocaust.)
Yes "Help Ever, Hurt Never".
If I help Hitler then I'm hurting people and if I hurt Hitler I'm helping people. LOL!I think as long as people are addicted to power and control there will be conflict. Just pursuing something in front of other people is enough for people to think it's valuable simply because you pursue it. "If so and so wants it then I should want it too". Getting a promotion causes envy in others who don't get it. Envy even exists between family members. Only when people look at status as not that important will fighting die off. Because hunger and desire is built into people I would give up following some belief that this will change any time soon because any organization that tries to do that will have politics built in that very organization and will involve the same pursuit of status (communism for example?)
Having systems where the best of competition is allowed to flourish but with societal controls (democracy/constitutions/rule of law) to prevent that from getting out of control is a more realistic than Buddhism. Unless you can get a much higher rate of stream-entry in the public it will fail spectacularly.
Secondly, just sitting around and enjoying the moment or staring at a tree is not going to be many people's cup of tea. They will want to play sports/adventure/create etc and these will often involve some kind of passion in order to create. Trying to stop this is futile (and not what most of us want) yet Buddhism is all about eradicating passion completely. You would have to divorce religion from brain science in order to get people who are atheist materialists to even look at your opinion. Then you would want to have a system that allows some passion to be retained so there's balance instead of no passion or, so much passion they are neurotic and addicted.
If we get more and more democracies to replace dictatorships that will be a huge improvement in reducing war. After that it would be more detailed work to reduce what war is left down and down further. When I'm saying this I'm talking about obvious crime and curing criminal brains which we're still in the dark ages in dealing with.
Michael Jared Morgenstern:
to me this gets to the heart of a contradiction in Buddhism, which is that of action/acceptance. It's not possible to create a doctrine that isn't prescriptive in some way, and any description of the path is often highly prescriptive, morality even more so. But then there is the idea of acceptance. I'm told that, looked through a certain lens, this is not a contradiction, but I'm not there yet.
Definitely one thing that's hard about Buddhism is that it is a path towards a state which cannot be encompassed with words. From the standpoint of enlightenment, this moment right now is the only moment. Every minute thing which happens cannot be separated from the overall situation around it, and cannot be truly and completely judged on the basis of conceptions based on occurrences in the past. Thus one cannot say definitively what should and should not be done; all action is situational.
Thus, on the relative (conceptual) level we have teachings on morality, which are good as general guidelines. However, on the ultimate level, in which each situation is unique and must be uniquely judged and responded to, it is more wise to act based on situational understanding than general guidelines for good conduct. The idea of acceptance is not of passiveness, it is accepting the truth of the situation, not continually striving to mentally impose a conception of how one wishes the situation to be.
Michael Jared Morgenstern:
I'm also curious about the Buddhist perspective on somebody who breaks morality in the short term (kills someone) for a positive benefit in the long term (averting genocide, for example.) Of course, everyone thinks they are doing someone some good with their actions, but Buddhism has a concept of people who better understand reality and therefore might have more "justification" to do such a thing.
I have heard the example fairly commonly when it comes to relative and ultimate truth, and morality of that which you have suggested above: in general killing is bad, but it may be acceptable in certain situations.
Those people who 'understand reality' understand the non-separateness of all things and are not bound by conceptual confusion. They know the true nature of all things, in that they are one; they do not literally know everything though. Their actions are unclouded by confused dualistic perception, but still they are acting on a human basis. Enlightenment doesn't make you super-human, it simply makes you aware of what you truly are. You do not gain anything you didn't already have.
Richard Zen:
Secondly, just sitting around and enjoying the moment or staring at a tree is not going to be many people's cup of tea. They will want to play sports/adventure/create etc and these will often involve some kind of passion in order to create. Trying to stop this is futile (and not what most of us want) yet Buddhism is all about eradicating passion completely. You would have to divorce religion from brain science in order to get people who are atheist materialists to even look at your opinion. Then you would want to have a system that allows some passion to be retained so there's balance instead of no passion or, so much passion they are neurotic and addicted.
Buddhism is not about eliminating passion, it is about eliminating dualistic confusion. Do not think it is possible to eliminate the sting of life. Do you think enlightened people are numb?! They may have open their hearts to a great degree, but in existence everyone learns lessons. Enlightenment is not the end state, it is simple recognition of the wholeness of all things, of the truth of the matter.
I too would be bored staring at a tree all day. You cannot conceive of the enlightened state! How many times must this be said?!! Do you think we have a choice how much passion we eliminate? All or nothing baby! All people must shed their delusions on the path, taking none with them. You must die to be reborn.
You cannot chose how you progress, you must drop your delusion and accept that one truth which will never go away.
T DC:
Richard Zen:
I see what you mean about the contradiction. I guess what I meant was; one can still feel passionate after enlightenment, and also that in the sense of giving things up, everything must go. If you feel passion to be a good quality in yourself, then by all means don't try to quash it, but of course you must let go of clinging to it. Enlightenment isn't the eradication of any personality, it is essentially the elimination of self-referencing as you said above.
The thing about people wanting it or not it tricky. What we are talking about (passionless) could be looked at as an external characteristic, enlightened people seem not to feel passion. One cannot hope to attain enlightenment if their basis is to be like the appearance of the master, if their striving is based on becoming how they imagine the master to be, or feel. Genuine striving for enlightenment has to do with clear internal suffering as a result of false-self sort of confusion, not materialistic searching.
That quote by Kenneth Folk about divine retardation is interesting, at times I have felt annoyed with my lack of drive to change things, as a result of knowing there is nothing to change. Whether or not people think they would prefer this or not, is somewhat beside the point. The state I am in is the eradication of all dualistic confusion, and thus the eradication of suffering. I believe this state must and will be reached by all people on earth at some point before they can move on in their endless cosmic spiritual journey. And at any rate it's not bad. Whether or not I feel the urge to create paintings, I can do what I please now with the knowledge that I am not changed at all fundamentally by any and all external circumstances.
So yes by all means external pursuits matter less now. But what is the goal of external pursuits? Satisfaction? The enlightened state is one of constant satisfaction.
Don't ignore that want to change things. That's existential angst over missed opportunities and a call to responsibility. I never want to lose that. It doesn't mean you have to ruminate obsessively over missed opportunity because then that would paralyse you and letting go would be appropriate. It doesn't mean you have to change things that are out of your power. Focus on what's in your power. There's this element of Carpe Diem (Seize the day) that is true. Just because conventional goals are impermanent and don't satisfy completely doesn't mean you can't alter the way you go about it. Life is nothing but conventional goals and rewards, otherwise you would be sitting around waiting to die.
Using mindfulness and concentration to get things done that are responsible and worthy of your time will give your brain rewards. Because you have the advantage to see that interest and rewards are just only that and not a self there's no danger that you will be fooled by it. Enjoying good results from completing tasks doesn't have to lead to massive self-referencing like it does for ego-maniacs. When I wash the floor I enjoy the smell and the results of a clean floor. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. I don't have to uproot the floor and replace it with better and better materials and add heated floors, etc.
The problem with addiction is that when you start it can be hard to stop but for people who have meditated for long period of time and have had their amygdala shrink in size what's the worry to enjoy something when appropriate and then let go of it. I drink good beer and wine sometimes but I don't find it hard to stop.
I watch less movies, TV, and enjoy less music but I don't stop it completely. Depression is only seeing the bad and ignoring the good. That's what Shinzen Young described as way to get people away from depression when emptiness in practice scares them into negative mind states and nihilism. When I felt I needed to develop motivation (because it was too low) I started just thinking about the benefits of getting things done and that little bit of dopamine felt healthy. There were a few moments of awkwardness until my brain started giving healthy rewards to completing tasks and now I've regained what was good in the first place but used disenchantment to prevent addictiveness and to seek out aversion on purpose so I can melt it with mindfulness. I'm having so much more fun now and feel normally sane.
Going back to the Dalai Lama, it's important to perceive the good and bad in situations to see how good things can have bad elements to them and bad things can have good elements to them. By using imagination you can get desire and motivation to be interested in projects but if you add thoughts about a downside you can disenchant where needed. If the drawbacks are too large then don't do it. Addiction is simply looking at the benefits and never looking at the drawbacks. Once a habit of looking at both sides of a coin are developed then temptations are less of a problem. Instead of sidestepping the amygdala you can use it properly. Concentration aids the imagination process so you can explore avenues without having to act on impulse. To me that's a good example of skillful-means.