conundrum

If all phenomena are perfect manifestations of original nature, how can we prefer and select one outcome over another?

If all personalities are really impersonal systems of cause and effect, how can we judge or otherwise deal with malicious or unskillful people?

I love questions that appear to be contradictory from one perspective but aren't from another

Brian, when you can see that all phenomena are perfect manifestations you won't be as likely to prefer any one outcome over another. What you might see is that things just are as they are, and by nature and definition are complete and perfect, and cannot be any other way. Wishing for a different outcome, or for an object to be different than it is, is one of the major causes of suffering, at least in my experience.

Everything in the universe is ultimately impersonal -- not you - -and deeply interconnected. Like everything else, people are what they are. We tend to label them "good" or "bad" or "malicious, but those are constructs of the mind, not actual attributes inherent in the people and things we experience.

I read Bill Hamilton's "Saints & Psychopaths" last night, where he mentions the dangers of submitting oneself to a psychopath rather than a saint. There are smaller versions of that same sort of thing in everyday life, though, where one can go through needless suffering as a result of submitting (in the sense of not seeing fit to go out of one's way to take action in order to bring about a certain outcome) and thus be taken advantage of, be neglectful, or miss an opportunity. From the other side of things, you have for instance the story of Ramana Maharshi who once let his body waste away to almost nothing and had to be cared for by others as he was so absorbed in the perfection of Awareness that he took no physical action.

How can one submit while also taking care of oneself and others? Is not "to take care of" just "to prefer and select an outcome"?

"I read Bill Hamilton's "Saints & Psychopaths" last night, where he mentions the dangers of submitting oneself to a psychopath rather than a saint. There are smaller versions of that same sort of thing in everyday life, though, where one can go through needless suffering as a result of submitting (in the sense of not seeing fit to go out of one's way to take action in order to bring about a certain outcome) and thus be taken advantage of, be neglectful, or miss an opportunity."-Brianm2

Hi Brian,

I went through a period, after returning from a year-long retreat in Asia, when I thought that being a good person and a good Buddhist meant being nice to everybody. As a result, it seems that bullies came out of the woodwork, sensing the opportunity to pick on someone who refused to fight back. I've since re-evaluated the situation. Now I eat bullies for lunch. Just part of the perfect unfolding of the universe.

Fierce metta,

Kenneth

@ Kenneth: "I went through a period, after returning from a year-long retreat in Asia, when I thought that being a good person and a good Buddhist meant being nice to everybody. - Kenneth"

Kenneth - Wondering what you think it means to be a good person (not so interested in what it means to be a good Buddhist).

Michael

"Kenneth - Wondering what you think it means to be a good person (not so interested in what it means to be a good Buddhist)." -Michael

Hi Michael,

I love the direct question, because it forces me to think clearly about it. I think a good person is one who sincerely wonders what it means to be a good person, and lives with the question over a period of time, not with the intention of coming to conclusions, but with the intention of staying open. I've been asking myself this question a lot lately, so I suppose I'm becoming a better person by my own definition. But I don't have any concrete answers, just more questions. How can I learn to be a human being? How can I be there for others? How can I make amends for some of the trouble I've already caused? How can I cultivate the perspective of someone who looks back on his life with just one minute left to live... and then go out and live according to what I find?

Pondering...

Kenneth

This thread is reminding me of some of my unanswered questions from my "my behavior" thread.
The man who I read the riot act to who made me move out of the parking space that he just had to have for some reason-- my wife and I have been debating this since that night. She, as a person who much of the time takes Christian principles seriously ("sermon on the mount" type principles) thinks that the ONLY proper response would be to politely move out of the way without saying anything. She admits that the guy was being a jerk but doesn't think that matters. "that's his problem, your problem is to figure out how to deal with how it made you feel."
This works for her and I learn a lot from watching her go through life. however, she has always been taken advantage of and bullied here and there because people know they can get away with it.
I'm still not sure what I think. Sometimes it feels right and good to be passive and/or submissive and sometimes it feels right to let someone have it in a direct and forceful manner.
I know my second wife thought that it was ALWAYS right to express her anger no matter what. So she'd let me have it and feel much better while I'd be left to deal with what always felt like an attack.
I may never figure this out but in the meantime I try to be mindful and hope my actions come from a sincere desire to do what is best knowing we are all connected and all together.

""Kenneth - Wondering what you think it means to be a good person (not so interested in what it means to be a good Buddhist)." -Michael

Hi Michael,

I love the direct question, because it forces me to think clearly about it. I think a good person is one who sincerely wonders what it means to be a good person, and lives with the question over a period of time, not with the intention of coming to conclusions, but with the intention of staying open. I've been asking myself this question a lot lately, so I suppose I'm becoming a better person by my own definition. But I don't have any concrete answers, just more questions. How can I learn to be a human being? How can I be there for others? How can I make amends for some of the trouble I've already caused? How can I cultivate the perspective of someone who looks back on his life with just one minute left to live... and then go out and live according to what I find?

Pondering...

Kenneth"

Kenneth - I love your integrity. Thank you.

The questions you've posed in reply deserve a thread of their own. The answers to those questions seem to depend on perspective. Everyone will draw their own conclusions, and as they do, I send them my hugs.

Michael

"The answers to those questions seem to depend on perspective."

Give that man a cigar!

These are really important questions that, IMHO, do depend on how you see. If you live in the world as an owner, an ego, a person with a stake, (a "dog") then you will see the answers to be classically problematic. You will probably see these questions as having right and wrong answers. You will probably see people as being right or wrong, good or bad. The truth, however, says every dilemma, every problem, every issue that arises is fundamentally situational. The truth is that there are no right people or wrong people, no good people or bad people. There are only actions that create situations and actions that are taken in response to situations, and those actions in response might indeed be the showing of anger, or being meek and submissive. The answer, as it appears to me today my dear friends, is always "It depends."

I'm OK with the perspective according to which there is no good and evil, etc. My problem is not with accepting this view. My problem is with reconciling this view with making decisions in the world. I think the simplest way of stating that is the question I posed above...

How can one submit while also taking care of oneself and others? Is not "to take care of" just "to prefer and select an outcome"? Is not "to submit" just "not to prefer any outcome"?

Brian, I'm going through a pretty significant crisis right now. I want certain outcomes. Absolutely and without doubt, and I have a huge desire to achieve some pretty specific objectives. I want everyone to be ok. I want everyone to be safe and happy. In order to even state that, however, there must be an "I" in the equation. Truth says there is no "I" here, there, or anywhere. So it's a series of mental constructs to believe as I do. Of course, I'm a human being, so I'll continue to want and to take ownership for choices and outcomes that "I" truly have no stake in. Does that help? See how the answers depend on your perspective?

"If all phenomena are perfect manifestations of original nature, how can we prefer and select one outcome over another?

If all personalities are really impersonal systems of cause and effect, how can we judge or otherwise deal with malicious or unskillful people?"

I was about to say a bunch of stuff. But I returned and re-read the original two questions/statements.

Upon further reflection this seems more appropriately to be an experiential question than a purely intellectual one. For example, the simple fact is that we definitely can select one outcome over another. We can go into that metaphorical Baskin-Robbins and say, 'I think I'll choose a mango sorbet today'.

Just one more manifestation of the glorious creative function of nature. It is natural. We can recontextualize it, but not turn it off.

After you get a cut, try willing the skin cells not to knit back together. Try heating water over fire and willing it not to become vaporous.

The state of being cut and the state of healing are equally perfect; so are liquid and vapor. Nevertheless, there are natural ways of things.

Sila is not just a set of dry static rules to be memorized and followed. All art, all science, all human endeavor belong to the domain of sila.

The second question:
If all personalities are really impersonal systems of cause and effect, how can we judge or otherwise deal with malicious or unskillful people?

I think the short pithy answer is: 'To the best of our ability'

The Chinese traditions contain the musings of many awakened minds on the same questions you are contemplating. (Dao De Jing, Analects of Confucius, Yi Jing (my favorite), Zhuang Zi, records of the Chan masters).

"
Brian, I'm going through a pretty significant crisis right now. I want certain outcomes. Absolutely and without doubt, and I have a huge desire to achieve some pretty specific objectives. I want everyone to be ok. I want everyone to be safe and happy. In order to even state that, however, there must be an "I" in the equation. Truth says there is no "I" here, there, or anywhere. So it's a series of mental constructs to believe as I do. Of course, I'm a human being, so I'll continue to want and to take ownership for choices and outcomes that "I" truly have no stake in. Does that help? See how the answers depend on your perspective?

"

Chris: this no "I" thing is pretty subtle, right?
At this point I don't think there isn't an "I" here. I want food and shelter and sex and love and I want my kids to be okay. This is all very real and it is what runs my days.
However, I know that this I isn't permanent and is made new every moment. But every moment it is real and true for that moment. This is what we are supposed to do as these entities with non permenant "I" s. Right: Have I missed something?

So it seems there are at least two possible replies...

One is that we don't care so much about reconciliation. We just switch back and forth between perspectives depending on the time/circumstance. This seems to be what Chris is talking about. But this doesn't seem to sit right. If I really want to take the recognition of original nature seriously, how can I be satisfied to play a deluded game of pretend? (btw, thanks Chris for sharing your ordeals. I do appreciate it and hope things work out for the best.)

Another reply is that the two views work in parallel. This seems to be what Nigel is talking about. We have the personal process doing its normal thing, habitually working for outcomes it thinks are good. And enclosing that we have the wider impersonal recognition of perfect original nature in all things. The problem with this is that the personal process knows about this recognition of perfect nature stuff; it is not independent from it, it is not merely watched by whatever processes stand back and objectify sensations, but it interacts with and is affected by those processes. So it begins to call into question its motives for habitually working for outcomes it thinks are good. Then it gets all confused and posts stuff on message boards. So the parallel view doesn't seem to sit right either, to the extent that these processes are not parallel but intertwined.

I recognize that I may be getting ahead of myself and that the reconciliation is experiential, not intellectual. The issue though is that recognition of the problem of reconciliation is causing problems for motivation and behavior in life and practice, right now. The nature of the problem itself is not just academic, but thoroughly practical; it comes to bear on how one should practice and how one should live life.

"
Another reply is that the two views work in parallel. This seems to be what Nigel is talking about. We have the personal process doing its normal thing, habitually working for outcomes it thinks are good. And enclosing that we have the wider impersonal recognition of perfect original nature in all things. So it begins to call into question its motives for habitually working for outcomes it thinks are good. Then it gets all confused and posts stuff on message boards.
I recognize that I may be getting ahead of myself and that the reconciliation is experiential, not intellectual. The issue though is that recognition of the problem of reconciliation is causing problems for motivation and behavior in life and practice, right now. The nature of the problem itself is not just academic, but thoroughly practical; it comes to bear on how one should practice and how one should live life."

Wow, what a succinct expression of this living dilemma!

What this means to me in practice is that the dillemma only arises in retrospect ("after" a moment of resting in timeless perfection), for my illusory ego, when it tries to understand the timeless perfection as something which it can "attain". In other words, my illusory ego seems to assume that moments of recognizing complete perfection are completely perfect, but moments of non-recognition are more or less imperfect, and therefor ought to be improved until they too are primordially perfect
Sometimes it seems really useful to "work with" my experience in a meditative way, by suspending such assumtpions of imperfection and just being with what is mindfully. Sometimes it seems really nice to just "stop" the clinging to various concepts and experiences, immediately right now, and leave everything as it is, seeing the great perfection.

But either way, whether there seems to be an illusory ego trying to control outcomes and perfect circumstances or whether there seems not to be such, or whether the illusoryness of said ego is directly seen as it is arising and functioning or whether I am bamboozled by it in that moment, either way there are natural functions as Nigel put it, having to do with the way my bodymind inhabits circumstances, which is always allready participatory. In other words, there can be no duality between resting in timeless perfection and its perfect complete expression as a thinking, feeling, sensing human being. Therefore, all normal functions are completely allowed including those which allow us to interact with other sentient beings and insentient objects, and more than this, they can be immediately seen as perfect and pure, in each case. Period! This includes the normal range of emotions and all concepts.
Over time, it seems that resting in this way, without placing conditions on what is perfect and complete and what isn't, leads to some shifts in the way bodymind inhabits its environment and interacts with other sentient beings.
Notice this "without placing conditions" actually means that ordinary preferences are not neccessarily seen or felt to be assumptions of imperfection, nor is action which expresses such preferences neccessarily seen or felt to be a compulsive attempt to control outcomes, but instead a direct expression of buddha nature in the present moment.
In one sentence: "leaving things as they are in primordial perfection" means that all temporal processes of ordinary human experience, being allready in motion, are allowed to continue to function normally as part of that "letting be" in perfect completeness, and don't grind to a halt just because we are resting in primordial perfection.

"

Just one more manifestation of the glorious creative function of nature. It is natural. We can recontextualize it, but not turn it off.
"

Regarding the capacity to be decisive within time while resting in buddha nature, this is perfect Nigel! I could just remove everything else I just posted. But I won't!

"In other words, my illusory ego seems to assume that moments of recognizing complete perfection are completely perfect, but moments of non-recognition are more or less imperfect, and therefor ought to be improved until they too are primordially perfect "

For me the problem is the other way around. Having accepted that all moments are already perfect, there is no longer any impetus to do anything. The impetus to act is the notion that some outcomes are better than others. But this notion is destroyed if one accepts all things as equally perfect.

"In one sentence: "leaving things as they are in primordial perfection" means that all temporal processes of ordinary human experience, being allready in motion, are allowed to continue to function normally as part of that "letting be" in perfect completeness, and don't grind to a halt just because we are resting in primordial perfection."

Yes, and one such normal human process already in motion is to ponder that the value system it has used to drive behavior is in fact illusory, and so one's whole motive to do or avoid doing anything is shaken. This shaken-ness too is already perfect. But it is contrary to the notion of bringing about good and avoiding harm, because in fact these notions are illusory, and no good can be done and no harm can be done.

Nice!
I see what you mean now!
Yeah, that makes sense. Adyashanti talks about how after an initial awakening to reality like this, all or many of the dualistic motivation structures which had led to our behavior before are just no longer tenable. They are like toys we've outgrown, and for a while there can seem to be nothing there in place of them in terms of our functioning on the human level. Instead, there can be a sense that their is no valid motivation to do anything at all, since the dualistic nature of our old motivation structures is being seen through.
You said the impetus to act is the notion that some outcomes are better than others, thus seeing the perfection of all moments leads to a loss of the impetus to act. Is it possible that this assumption about the impetus to act is the defining assumption of dualistic motivation structures? Is it possible that there are other sources of activity besides such dualistic value systems, which do not harbor the assumption of imperfection?
Is it possible that the perception that, from the point of view of mine or others' bodyminds, certain outcomes are desirable and others not, is a pure and perfect perception? Or is it the case that to perceive responsively, i.e., actively in engagement with events, is an exception to the fact that everything is pure and perfect?
It sounds like you are perhaps entering trasitional territory between harboring certain assumptions about what constitutes action and discovering forms of action which directly express buddhanature. Or perhaps I am just reading my own issues into your questions, in which case I apologize
Jake

Also, I'm not sure why the fact that timeless awareness/Being is indestructible, by definition, is taken to imply that all that is timely and functional is an illusion. This seems to be a problem more ofr Indian discourses on enlightenment, in which primordial buddhahood/atman discourses (Advaita, for ex) are rigidly segregated from temporal, liberative discourses (Theravada, for ex) about achieving buddhahood. I guess I have been more exposed to Central Asian and East Asian discourses in which these two modes aren't two modes, and therefore it is difficult for me to see why this is a big problem.
So though benefit and harm are not relevent or possible concerning buddhanature, they are relevent concerning temporal processes. There is only confusion for me as long as I hold to a dualistic view of time/timeless, which I can only seem to do while identified with my illusory ego, which is only illusory in that it seems to be based on this very duality.
Sentient beings are greatly deluded about enlightenment, buddhas are greatly enlightened about delusion-- Dogen

"Is it possible that there are other sources of activity besides such dualistic value systems, which do not harbor the assumption of imperfection?"

Roughly speaking, there are actions that are deliberate or spontaneous. Perhaps not all spontaneous action is in service to some valued end, but some spontaneous action is (for instance, eating or sleeping). These problems I describe are not problems for spontaneous action. They are problems for deliberate action. Spontaneous action takes care of well-being in the short term. Deliberate action takes care of well-being in the long term. If I only act spontaneously, I care for myself in the short term but harm myself in the long run. Of course, the long term harm is already perfect and no recourse need be taken. Except, I don't completely buy that. But if I don't completely buy that, then I am cultivating ignorance for original nature.

"So though benefit and harm are not relevent or possible concerning buddhanature, they are relevent concerning temporal processes. "

But all temporal processes are manifestations of buddha nature. So if benefit and harm have no meaning with respect to buddha nature, then they have no meaning with respect to temporal processes.

ok, I am driving myself absolutely freaking batty over this. I'm seriously about to lose my marbles. Here is my provisional way out. The Buddha taught the end of suffering, so damn everything else, that's good enough for me-- suffering is undesirable and to be avoided. Don't care if it's already perfect, I prefer other outcomes and choose to select them. So I will do my best to not let considerations of perfect original nature influence my decision making in any way, because that way lies suffering. Then I'll see where that goes. sheeesh.

I was going to try and stay out of this one, but I remembered a quote from Ram Dass that I think directly applies to this issue in a profound way...

"The World is perfect as it is, including my desire to change it."

And yes, this becomes more and more clear as we continue to practice.

By the way, this is reminiscent of Arjuna's dilemma in the Gita. It might be worth visiting that text, if only for sheer amusement.

Don't make the mistake of getting stuck in the Transcendent. True realization is leaping clear of both the many AND the One. Identifying with the One may be more pleasant and peaceful than identifying with the many, but it's identification nonetheless. Enquire into this, and don't settle for easy intellectual answers. Enquire until you know the answer in your bones.

~Jackson

"

"The World is perfect as it is, including my desire to change it."

And yes, this becomes more and more clear as we continue to practice.

By the way, this is reminiscent of Arjuna's dilemma in the Gita. It might be worth visiting that text, if only for sheer amusement.

Don't make the mistake of getting stuck in the Transcendent. True realization is leaping clear of both the many AND the One. Identifying with the One may be more pleasant and peaceful than identifying with the many, but it's identification nonetheless. Enquire into this, and don't settle for easy intellectual answers. Enquire until you know the answer in your bones.

~Jackson"

great articulation, Jackson, and nice quote!
Living this cunundrum is what I think of as Genjokoan, as in taking my own existence- in its unbroken wholeness of transcendance and immanence- as a koan. There doesn't seem to be any formulable answer, of course, just a growing comfortability with the fact of nonduality, and a growing clarity about my illusory ego's attempts to hold this at arms length by fitting it back into some dualistic schema.
It seems more and more obvious that no separation being real, no concept of short or long term goal is disallowed from the present moment, nor is the activity of moving towards these goals excluded. What seems less and less to be the case is the assumption that anything fundamentally different will ever happen, here and now, no matter how many goals are achieved or discarded. It is all to easy to "spiritually bypass" the issues and challenges of my engaged, embodied existence, but much more rewarding to live a normal human life in the light of timeless view.

Okay. I do believe that as long as one sincerely tries in their daily life to do what is "best," and is always open for new and orginal ways to accomplish that , then they will more often than not do a right thing. And, if it doesn't seem to turn out well then that same person needs to use the same sincere techniques to solve the problem that was created. All this is good practice especially when done with a spriit of surrender and openness.

Also, my latest take on "suffering" and the buddha's teaching is that he was saying that this state we are in (with no permanent self, constant change, and no real relief to be found in sense pleasures) is highly unsatisfying and creates a constant state of basic disatisfaction.
Enlightenment, then, eliminates this disatisfaction. (I could say all that a lot better!)

And, there is a great lecture from zen tacher Steve Weintraub online that I will try to find that I think relates to all this. He is talking about the various "gates" to enlightenment and how everything is actually one of the gates. Everything. Even ours and others bad behavior.
here it is:
www.sfzc.org/zc/display.asp?catid=1,10&pageid=1029