I’m starting a new thread based on a post in the Pit in the “The masturbatory we’re smart” threads" thread posted by olivesmarch4th. I didn’t want to continue hijacking that thread, but there were some questions here that I wanted to answer. I pulled it into MPSIMS but olivesmarch4th is certainly welcomed to take it back to The Pit.
Please read these posts first. This post is in that context.
My response will follow this post.
[QUOTE=olivesmarch4th]
Well, I see your point, but does that mean we should never judge people, ever? I should welcome white supremacists and child abusers into my home because it’s not correct for me to judge them for their choices? If I can’t judge someone for having sex before marriage (and in this case, I really don’t care), then where do we draw the line?
[/quote]
I’m not a Buddhist, but my understanding is that there’s a basic principle involved here.
After a google, I found this:
This is just a random quote from someone on a message board, but I’ve heard it affirmed several times through different sources on Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama often talks about how the Tibetans were tortured and killed by the Chinese but that the Tibetans maintained their compassion for the Chinese.
They say that it’s about separating the poor behavior from the person doing the behavior and protecting oneself from the behavior (fleeing Tibet) but not losing compassion for the person/people (the Chinese).
In your question, I’m not sure if you feel you would be in danger of a child abuser or a white supremacist, but not protecting yourself or others from danger is what they call “idiot compassion.” But if you’re not in danger from them, then I’m not sure how inviting them to your house has any consequence. You might have done so without your knowledge in the past.
It doesn’t really matter what almost anyone else does here. I was asking about your worldview and beliefs. If you get to draw the line, then you’re acting as the judge.
And it is your worldview and only yours that is based on a loving standard with a foundation of Buddhism. Other people’s worldviews may differ substantially.
OK, so you feel that you should not call someone a jerk under a loving standard. But remember that under Buddhism, whatever you apply to the other person, you also have to apply to yourself. Then see below how you’re not applying the same standard to yourself. You’ve now just moved the target from the other person to yourself. If you can’t call them names, neither can you do it to yourself. In my opinion, that’s clearly the most difficult part of Buddhism. . . if you can’t denigrate others, then it’s the same to do it to youself.
And the self-awareness comes when you notice that you’re moving the target from others to yourself and back to others in a see-saw effect and not really changing the behavior but just changing the focus.
I listen to and read a lot of Buddhist material and I go to a Christian church every Sunday although I’m neither a Christian nor a Buddhist, and what you’ve described is not my view of either Christianity or Buddhism. Christianity, IMO, doesn’t require self-flagellation and Buddhism isn’t about deluded thinking.
Also, there’s a difference between making a mistake under your worldview and having a self-contradictory one.
Getting angry when you’re a Buddhist is a mistake. Thinking that compassion is limited to some people under a Buddhist worldview is self-contradictory.
Buddhists who have been practicing for many years, like Pema Chodron, claim that they’re shitty Buddhists or shitty meditators, but that’s different than believing two contradictory things simultaneously.
Btw, you might like Pema Chodron’s books. They’re very self-affirming.
Could you elaborate? I’m not sure I understand this from context. I cut the context out, so feel free to add it back. I wasn’t sure which parts to connect.
And now you’ve just switched the target from expecting other people to live up to the loving standard you set out and now berating yourself for not doing so. But really, it’s the same act. . . with a different endpoint.
I thought about this particular question (I assume the underlying question is “is it ever okay to be judgemental?”), and I decided that some things are just wrong, and it is right and correct to judge them. There is no absolute certainty; at some point you just have to do the best you can and go out and live your life (don’t forget about acceptance, too).
Part of the problem is there’s a humongous difference between skillful living (or ‘‘the Buddhist ideal’’ I guess we might say) and my own, imperfect self.
[QUOTE=Roo]
This is just a random quote from someone on a message board, but I’ve heard it affirmed several times through different sources on Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama often talks about how the Tibetans were tortured and killed by the Chinese but that the Tibetans maintained their compassion for the Chinese.
They say that it’s about separating the poor behavior from the person doing the behavior and protecting oneself from the behavior (fleeing Tibet) but not losing compassion for the person/people (the Chinese).
[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree with any of this, at all.
[QUOTE=Roo]
In your question, I’m not sure if you feel you would be in danger of a child abuser or a white supremacist, but not protecting yourself or others from danger is what they call “idiot compassion.” But if you’re not in danger from them, then I’m not sure how inviting them to your house has any consequence. You might have done so without your knowledge in the past.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a loaded issue. I had long been the victim of idiot compassion–not a mistake I’m willing to repeat.
[QUOTE=Roo]
I listen to and read a lot of Buddhist material and I go to a Christian church every Sunday although I’m neither a Christian nor a Buddhist, and what you’ve described is not my view of either Christianity or Buddhism. Christianity, IMO, doesn’t require self-flagellation
[/QUOTE]
No, Christianity does not require self-flagellation, but it does accommodate masochists more easily. I can’t think of a better way to make an already depressed person feel worse about themselves than tell them they aren’t worthy of God. Which is, of course, a fundamental fact of Christianity. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is through grace you have been saved. I used to be a very devout fundamentalist Christian as a teenager. I know what Christianity is at its best and I know it at its worst. I also know it doesn’t suit me, and the tremendous opportunity it gave me to judge myself is one of the chief reasons I feel that way. That is not an attack on Christianity, it is an issue of personal compatibility.
Buddhism sees the root of all suffering as stemming from our ignorance about the true nature of the world–that can just as easily be called deluded thinking. If I suffer when someone disagrees with me on the Straight Dope, it’s because I’m caught up in this marvelous delusion that I somehow exist apart from the person who disagrees with me. If I suffer because I stub my toe and I’m telling myself, ‘‘Oh, how I should NEVER be in pain!’’ then I suffer because I’m deluded into thinking there’s a way the world should be. All of these sufferings, borne of desire and aversion, are a result of deluded thinking.
The concept of deluded thinking is fundamental to the Diamond Sutra:
[QUOTE=wiki]
The Diamond Sutra, like many sutras, begins with the famous phrase “Thus have I heard” (एवं मया श्रुतम्, evaṃ mayā śrutam). In this sutra the Buddha has finished his daily walk with the monks to gather offerings of food and sits down to rest. One of the more senior monks, Subhuti, comes forth and asks the Buddha a question.
What proceeds from there is a lengthy, often repetitive, dialogue regarding the nature of perception. The Buddha often uses paradoxical phrases like “What is called the highest teaching is not the highest teaching”.[2]
The Buddha is trying to help Subhuti unlearn his preconceived, and limited, notions of what reality is, the nature of Enlightenment, and compassion.
[/QUOTE]
And the suffering resultant from deluded thinking is what underlies the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, most notably Right Mind and Right Understanding. They are inherent in the Five Aggregates: form, perception, sensation, mental formation, and consciousness, which are roughly defined as hallmarks of existence of the ‘‘ego’’ self that are essentially without substance. The primary purpose of Zen meditation is to learn to see into the true nature of existence and thus live without delusion. Even the term ‘‘buddha’’ means ‘‘One who is awake,’’ i.e. not deluded.
Compassion comes as a matter of consequence following freedom from delusion. Once you realize the interconnected nature of all phenomena, and realize your next door neighbor is just as much a part of yourself as the cloud in the sky, it is only natural to care about your whole self, neighbor included. Compassion in Buddhist thought is really the ultimate form of Self-love – Self being the whole Universe, your true Self.
[QUOTE=Roo]
Also, there’s a difference between making a mistake under your worldview and having a self-contradictory one.
Getting angry when you’re a Buddhist is a mistake. Thinking that compassion is limited to some people under a Buddhist worldview is self-contradictory.
[/QUOTE]
I want to make this very, very clear. Compassion for EVERYONE is, always has been, and always will be the very MOST important thing about my life. This was true when I was a Christian, it was true when I had no religion, it is true as a Buddhist and it will be true until the day I die. I do not dispute that compassion is an inherent (though oft-misunderstood) and fundamental part of Buddhism – this is what attracted me to Buddhism in the first place. There is nothing that matters more to me than love.
The statement I made judging other people for their lack of compassion is not remotely supported by the Buddhist philosophy. The fact that you pointed out to me the error of my thinking and I realized it didn’t mesh well with my own values should indicate that I’m not holding a contradictory worldview, 'least not when it comes to compassion.
And yes, Pema Chodron rocks. I’m also a fan of Cheri Huber’s There is Nothing Wrong With You.
[QUOTE=Roo]
Could you elaborate? I’m not sure I understand this from context. I cut the context out, so feel free to add it back. I wasn’t sure which parts to connect.
[/QUOTE]
Mmm, yeah. I think the issue of intelligence, among such obviously intelligent posters, brought out the best and worst of people, including myself. I felt at home among all the rampant insecurity. I think whether people want to admit it or not, the issue drew out a sense of vulnerability in many posters. This allowed me to see myself more objectively, strengths and weaknesses together, as no different than anyone else here.
[QUOTE=Roo]
And now you’ve just switched the target from expecting other people to live up to the loving standard you set out and now berating yourself for not doing so. But really, it’s the same act. . . with a different endpoint.
[/QUOTE]
Oh absolutely. But self-denigration isn’t something I claim Buddhism would sanction, either. I am in the middle of a major depressive episode, and I doubt I would have even posted what I did (regarding other people being self-centered jerks, even) if I weren’t feeling so down in the first place. I hope you don’t think I run around judging people all the time. You are absolutely right that it’s the same wrongheaded principle of judgment at work. I am really doing the best I can to just make it through moment to moment.
During these times, I always remember the hope of impermanence but I forget about compassion. I believe Pema (since you mentioned her) underscores the importance of taking painful experiences and using them to make you a more compassionate person. I think we’re both in agreement that I’d be better off doing that.
On judgement and compassion (or judgement vs. compassion), do not most if not all faiths and beliefs teach the same basic message?
Treat other people the way you would want to be treated.
If I were a rapist or a serial killer (not currently practicing of course, more of the reformed rapist or serial killer) would your not allowing me into your home for tea reflect how you would want to be treated if the roles were reversed?
Does “The Golden Rule” in any culture make for exceptions?
“Treat others the way I would want to be treated, unless they have swastika tattooed in the middle of their forehead.”
“Treat others the way I would want to be treated, unless they have been convicted of having sex with little girls.”
All of this said, although being judgemental is morally and ethically wrong, we as humans still do it. At our best is the desire to eliminate suffering and embrace compassion, but we have far to go. Enlightment is not a destination, it is the path we must walk on.
The Golden Rule is so fundamental to our morals and ethics, and so simple an algorithm to figure out whether what you’re doing is wrong or right, that it’s really one of the only moral codes I choose to live by. Passing judgement upon someone who has failed the GR, is also something that’s hard for anyone to turn a blind eye to. To get a little meta, where does passing judgement fall under the Golden Rule? I’d say most, if not all, would not like to be judged by others. So, there you have it.
However, judgement shouldn’t be confused with discretion, prerogative and being prudent. Olives gives the example of, should she let a child molester into her home? Of course not, and there are several reasons outside of being judgmental that will allow for this kind of discrimination. One example, is that person broke the law.
A lot of my moral beliefs and philosophy does fall in line with what buddhism holds. And I agree with Olives, that there is a certain drive in those with the most healthy of motivations that allows one to practice what one is good at, gifted in, or even unique in, to the betterment of society and the world at large. Beyond that drive, if I hold a talent that most people would want me to exercise out of selflessness, and the greater good, to use my abilities toward that, rather than squander it so I can watch more television or take long naps.
I also agree with Olives, that most of those that happen to be good at something, love to do it. It would be tragic, both to the individual and the world at large if it were wasted out of selfishness. Imagine if John Lennon was too lazy to pick up a guitar. Or Newton never published a single word. What is this world missing that could have advanced us further along, but didn’t because someone was being self-centered? The Golden Rule applies here too, and it’s easy to see what it tells us.
[QUOTE=cmyk]
Beyond that drive, if I hold a talent that most people would want me to exercise out of selflessness, and the greater good, to use my abilities toward that, rather than squander it so I can watch more television or take long naps.
[/quote]
Quote edited, bolding mine.
But… What if I’m really good at it? I mean Olympic Gold Medal and World Record good at it? The Michael Jordan of the remote, the Tiger Woods of the sofa, the Kobeyashi (sp) of the popcorn bowl?
I don’t disagree with this. But, what if John Lennon was a brilliant chemist and could formulate a universal cure for cancer? On top of this he absolutely loved doing it. He may have been, but his path was to play music, presumably which he loved more, and he did so exceptionally well. Was he self-centered by taking the more asthetic road rather than the practical one?
A river can wash things, provide refreshment and hydration, provide energy, transport things and many other purposes for the benifit of all. But a river does not need to do any of these things. It just needs to flow. I don’t think we necessarily need to be anything, we just need to be. There are no other obligations.
[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Quote edited, bolding mine.
But… What if I’m really good at it? I mean Olympic Gold Medal and World Record good at it? The Michael Jordan of the remote, the Tiger Woods of the sofa, the Kobeyashi (sp) of the popcorn bowl?
[/QUOTE]
Then spread your wings and fly!
[QUOTE=nd_n8]
I don’t disagree with this. But, what if John Lennon was a brilliant chemist and could formulate a universal cure for cancer? On top of this he absolutely loved doing it. He may have been, but his path was to play music, presumably which he loved more, and he did so exceptionally well. Was he self-centered by taking the more asthetic road rather than the practical one?
[/QUOTE]
So long as Lennon lived his life to what he felt was its maximum potential. I believe he did. There are a lot of people who have demonstrated muti-faceted abilities. DaVinci for one. All these things never stopped him from being an artist, a scientist, an engineer, an inventor, a musician, a writer, and mathematician. These are just labels. He spent his life filling his potential. Maybe because he just loved to do it, or he was bored otherwise, or he knew he could add to posterity. Or all these things.
[QUOTE=nd_n8]
A river can wash things, provide refreshment and hydration, provide energy, transport things and many other purposes for the benifit of all. But a river does not need to do any of these things. It just needs to flow. I don’t think we necessarily need to be anything, we just need to be. There are no other obligations.
[/QUOTE]
I love this analogy. And I agree with it. But let me add to it. We, as humans, can impose objectives to our lives. A river cannot change its course by itself, but we can. Are you a river that runs underground, or one that flows long, wide and accessible? Have you built a dam? Or are you the frikkin’ Mississippi?
To quote James Cameron via Sarah Connor (yes, I am an olympian movie watcher), “There is no fate, but what we make.”
I just wanted to add, I don’t see The Golden Rule as being an entirely passive thing. If you can affect the lives of others positively, and with their consent, that would be considered noble, whether or not it was a trivial or monumental sacrifice to yourself.
[QUOTE=cmyk]
I just wanted to add, I don’t see The Golden Rule as being an entirely passive thing. If you can affect the lives of others positively, and with their consent, that would be considered noble, whether or not it was a trivial or monumental sacrifice to yourself.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
I don’t think HHTDL writes books because he needs the money.
[andy rooney]Did you ever notice that there are no televangelists wearing orange robes asking for donations? Do you suppose there are in other parts of the world? Somehow I don’t think so.[/andy rooney]
And I know he does not write books because he enjoys writing, he has said as much several times. His path is not as an author but to communicate the importance of compassion, propagate his following and teach us the path to enlightenment. However he does write books himself (with the help of a translator) instead of using a second party as an author. He may not like it but it is the most direct and respectful way to convey his messages.
[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Agreed.
I don’t think HHTDL writes books because he needs the money.
[andy rooney]Did you ever notice that there are no televangelists wearing orange robes asking for donations? Do you suppose there are in other parts of the world? Somehow I don’t think so.[/andy rooney]
And I know he does not write books because he enjoys writing, he has said as much several times. His path is not as an author but to communicate the importance of compassion, propagate his following and teach us the path to enlightenment. However he does write books himself (with the help of a translator) instead of using a second party as an author. He may not like it but it is the most direct and respectful way to convey his messages.
[/QUOTE]
Books and the written word are so important, as they allow anyone with the will to discover the teachings themselves and without bias or forcefulness (as Christianity was brought to me). The teaching of Jesus can be found in the New Testament, and his disciples put that into scrolls and letters. I now look into the Bible, and rediscover Jesus’ teachings under new light and a new perspective under my own views, rather than the propaganda and dogma that was forced down my throat when I was a child.
Perhaps the Dalai Lama knows this. Posterity is an important thing, and writing it down is a better way to ensure it’s not misconstrued over generations by zealots. Although, everything is always open to interpretation. But I think books help to mitigate that.
[QUOTE=nd_n8]
[andy rooney]Did you ever notice that there are no televangelists wearing orange robes asking for donations? Do you suppose there are in other parts of the world? Somehow I don’t think so.[/andy rooney]
[/QUOTE]
But “ask for donations” is something Buddhist monks have pretty much always done. The Pali word for “Buddhist monk”, bhikku, literally means “beggar”. I don’t know if they go on television to do it, but they do ask people to give them stuff.
Of course, they’re not supposed to use these donations to make themselves rich. But it’s a scandal when Christian televangelists do that, too.
[QUOTE=olivesmarch4th]
Part of the problem is there’s a humongous difference between skillful living (or ‘‘the Buddhist ideal’’ I guess we might say) and my own, imperfect self.
[/quote]
Well, let’s hope so. If there were no difference between you and the Buddhist ideal, you’d be claiming to be Buddha. . . and that would be a little disconcerting. 
Just an observation. You use this term and concept a lot. . . victim.
Idiot compassion is something you do. It’s a choice one makes to have more poorly-reasoned or fake compassion than self-protection. It’s not real compassion.
I’m glad you found Buddhism to be compatible with you. I’m not sure that I agree with your view of Christianity. But then, that’s just my view, and I’ve found neither to be totally compatible with my viewpoint.
You may, however, be interested in this Wiki pointing out the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism. There are parallel sayings, origins and attitudes from both.
As I was searching for that Wiki, I found this and found it interesting. Supposedly, this is the Dalai Lama answering a question about whether one can be both Buddhist and Christian:
It’s also my own personal observation that many people use religion as a vehicle for what they would normally do. So if they’re determined to self-denigrate or hate others, it doesn’t really matter what religion they choose, they’ll still do it.
Ah OK, gotcha. Completely agreed. I had not heard this term before. I’ve only heard the Dalai Lama call something like this ‘wrong thinking.’
Great! Then I didn’t misunderstand you. I thought this is what you said you believed.
In “The Art of Happiness”, the Dalai Lama points out that in order for people to become more compassionate, they need to be persuaded of the benefit of compassion. And the benefit is that they will alleviate their suffering. If the benefit is to feel noble or better about oneself that they are a compassionate person, then that becomes just one more source of suffering.
I LOVE that book! It’s one of my absolute favorites. It has a special place on my bookshelf along with the Pema Chodron books and the SARK books.
Huber also has one on depression (which I don’t have), but it sounds good. I do have one called “Be the Person You Want to Find” which I think is excellent. . . for anyone.
I don’t think that’s a Doper issue. That’s just a human issue.
If you don’t see it often here, it’s not because it doesn’t exist. It just would get dull to talk about it all the time.
Agreed, I think (if I’m interpreting you correctly). It might be in line with what I’m suggesting below.
I just have a small suggestion for when you’re feeling depressed and feel tempted to talk about the jerks, assholes and/or a certain jerk/asshole. You might want to put that thought aside for a night or so and think about whether you really want to do that. You can always do it the next day.
The reason I suggest this is because if you post about it, you’ve then violated your own personal moral standard that you’ve stated above and given much more power to the person than they had before, thereby causing you much more suffering than you started with, giving rise to the spiral of suffering. Writing about some negativity like that in a way that makes it real and large can sometimes give it way more power than it deserves. I’m not suggesting that you ignore the feeling, but writing it on a public message board and having people agree with you gives a lot of weight and power to an issue that it might not deserve. The small amount of sympathy and/or validation you receive might not be worth the suffering you cause yourself.
I hope your depression lifts soon.