.
To execute the murderer does not end murder.
To incarcerate the robber does not stop robbery.
To call out the liar and hypocrite does not eradicate lying and hypocrisy.
To crucify the savior does not erase salvation.
Perhaps this was some of what Gautama had in mind when he suggested that "It is not what others do and do not do that is my concern. It is what I do and do not do -- that is my concern."
The easy convenience of good deeds and virtue may deserve some respect, but it cannot be allowed to pass for a truth that will assure peace.
.
In light of your former teacher's moral code or lack thereof, this is an interesting reflection.
ReplyDelete...interesting ....especially in light of your previous post "The Past Rises Up"...."It is not what others do......" ...i guess I have to walk a mile in the shoes of the victim of abuse to truly make a comment on what he was thinking and carrying for all those years!
ReplyDelete"The easy convenience of good deeds and virtue may deserve some respect, but it cannot be allowed to pass for a truth that will assure peace."
ReplyDeleteEasy convenience? Ha!
I don't know.... it's probably not your intent, but writing such as this tends to lend credence to those whose views demean or deny common decency and morality in Zen.
I have found in most credible yogic and spiritual traditions that morality is a necessary but not a sufficient component.
The fundamentals of Buddhism is summarized by Shakyamuni in the Dhammapada. One commonly accepted translation is.
Not to do any evil,
To cultivate good,
To purify one's mind,
This is the teaching of the Buddhas
In Soto Zen there something called the Three Pure Precepts.
There are various translations. A common translation is
To do no evil.
To do good.
To save all beings.
In the yogic traditions based on Patanjali we have the
Yamas and Niyamas for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamas
BTW -- From my admittedly limited reading it appears that Shakyamuni was himself quite moral and under his watch it seems that not a few monks were penalized and some even ejected for serious violations of the precepts.
Perhaps it would be best for Zen students to keep the fundamental teachings such as the Dhammapada in mind: stay out of trouble, be nice, and do zazen.
You say the Buddha said "It is not what others do and do not do that is my concern. It is what I do and do not do -- that is my concern."
ReplyDeleteUnder a title "Easy Conveniences"
Ironic.....
"I don't know.... it's probably not your intent, but writing such as this tends to lend credence to those whose views demean or deny common decency and morality in Zen."
ReplyDeleteI agree. As a matter of practice, common decency and morality are important. But also I think beliefs, however well-founded, deserve close attention because they still reside in and rely on something ELSE ... the world that lacks common decency and morality. Saying this does not up-end or deny the need for common decency or common sense -- they are crucial. But to the extent that they are beliefs, let each student, in his or her own practice, investigate closely ... no need to run your bias or arrogance on someone else.
"no need to run your bias or arrogance on someone else."
ReplyDeleteBias? Arrogance?
You ignore many of the reasons morality is so important. You seem to be saying that morality is simply a personal matter. In fact that is far from the truth.
Unless the members of a community are moral we must have laws, police, investigators, and lawyers and judges and juries (or their equivalent).
"You seem to be saying that morality is simply a personal matter. In fact that is far from the truth."
ReplyDeleteEthics, for my money, are what we do in the company of others. Morality is what we practice when no one is looking.
"Unless the members of a community are moral we must have laws, police, investigators, and lawyers and judges and juries (or their equivalent)."
Since we do in FACT have laws, police, investigators and lawyers and judges and juries, the implication seems to be that the community of man is, to one extent or another, immoral.
In the face of such a conclusion or implication, the question becomes whether laws, police, lawyers, etc., can be the arbiters of morality. FACTS do not suggest that they can. As the Buddhists say, greed, anger and ignorance are endless and it is MY responsibility to clarify them all. How? With practice ... MY practice.
Theories and philosophies can suggest directions, but they cannot assure that those directions will be followed or utilized or actualized. It doesn't matter whether I agree with others that a specific course of moral action is best. It matters whether I put it into practice. Agreement or disagreement take a back seat to facts and actualization.
Of course this is just my take.
Genkaku,
ReplyDeleteFor a moment I thought you had me for a senior moment. I majored in philosophy in college (actually a one of double major and I was already doing Zen training as a lay student). Still, I was fairly sure that your distinction between "ethics" and "morality" was an arbitrary one.
Lets look at Ethics vs. Moraliy first:
"[Ethics is] is the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual. Christian ethics and Albert Schweitzer's ethics are examples."
-- John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995
I hope this reference from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is enough to show you that your view, philosophically speaking at least, is technically incorrect.
Now as for the distinction you want to make: "what we do in the company of others" as opposed to "what we practice when no one is looking."
First off, this reminds me of something I read in some book about Zen a long time ago -- a chapter contained the story of a Zen man tried to live his life when he was alone like he was with people, and when he was with people as though he were alone. I've thought that seems admirable, and that may be he was on to something more.
Making the distinction what what one does alone and with others makes for an interesting issue. Personally, I have seen it as significant with issues of prejudice, and in the workplace. Publicly someone seems nice to others of different races or nationalities, but privately there is hatred or fear. Someone seems friendly to someone at work, but talks to the "boss" when that person is not around and badmouths that.
However, I do not draw the distinction you do. There is no ethical behavior in those cases; only hypocrisy!
There are further issues which may or may not be relevant. I tend to think you may find them relevant since you spoke of personal investigation. An example would be coming to terms with something like lying. There's telling the whole truth. There the truth with one or more omissions. There are "white" lies intended to protect someone. There's lying to get ahead. Lying to hurt someone. There's the stretched truth in ads and commercial. The partial truths we tell put of convenience and laziness. There are certainly more general examples.
What will investigation lead to? Possibly a view that is essentially moral relativism with degrees of rightness and wrongness. Possibly a view of moral certainty where in the end an act is clearly good or clearly bad. Or, perhaps, extensive subtle analysis can lead to realization of Great Truth. Who can say?
In any case, something (my gut, perhaps) tells me that that _separating_ morality and compassion from "Truth" is really on the wrong track.
It's the same "sense" that tell me that Eido Tai Shimano is absolutely wrong when he says the precepts are just for the "little people," or when he took advantage of people sexually and otherwise. When one of Mr. Shimano's monks says that there is no morality in Zen, he just doesn't really understand "Truth" or that living a moral life is a sure means of finding at least some some measure of peace in the world of everyday life.
OK, anonymous, you're right.
ReplyDeleteNow what?
"Now what?"
ReplyDeleteHmmmm....
Such a sparse reply.
First off, it sounds a bit cranky, like you don't like being found to be wrong more than anyone else does. Fair enough. However, it also seems like you are less gracious about being wrong than you could be. I wonder why.
To answer your "now what?" from a practical point of view I suggest going back to the basics but this time not demeaning the value of ethics and compassion in Zen training.
The fundamentals of Buddhism as was summarized in the Dhammapada.
"Not to do any evil,
To cultivate good,
To purify one's mind,
This is the teaching of the Buddhas"
Didn't mean to be ungracious, anonymous. Just direct. I am happy to be wrong if it will make you right, so please take my response from that point of view.
ReplyDelete