I should have no sense of accomplishment when I help another being. After all, I do not exist, nor does the other being. Although I exist and so do they. Both statements are true when interpreted in the right spirit, and ar enot actually logical negatives of each other. The Buddhist teaching of emptiness, that no thing inherently exists, or has its own self-nature, is a useful teaching, but it is not the end of the story. No thing inherently exists, since it depends on things which came before, but reality is definitely there. It helps to realize that we constantly misconceive it, and that it may not even be conceivable.
I like the second part of the passage, where Buddha says `foolish people' are deluded by having a concept of self, life and soul. At first he may seem to be passing judgment, but in fact `foolish people' are no people. How can you pass judgment on a non-person? Of course `non-person' has its own negative connotations, but just as I am a non-self, others are non-people. We are all part of the organism of humanity, the organism of nature, the jigsaw puzzle of reality.
5 comments:
I like Red Pine's translation here. It seems the clearest. Tathagata does not rescue "beings" because a being rescued is no longer a being. Furthermore, if he rescued beings, he would be attaching himself to a being or beings, and would not posess unsurpassed enlightenment.
I would like to comment a little bit on a previous post as well. You mention the idea that thinking of expecting a reward is not the right way to practice charity.
This reminds me of a very powerful concept in some strains of Christianity: that thinking the sin is equal to commiting the sin. Thought crimes are then very real and a fantasy can become all too real in its consequences (eternal damnation). This, in turn, can encourage repression at even the level of formation of cohesive thoughts. Certain areas of enquiry are so thoroughly verboten that they cannot be entertained in the privacy of one's brain.
Now, I know that buddhism does not teach sin, but I also know that many former Christians and westerners overall struggle with this. And struggle with chastisement and self abasement when they misstep. i.e., I expected some reward when I gave that gift. I am a jerk. I better shape up, etc. And this is the kind of dualistic thought buddhism seeks to eschew.
I agree totally. Thanks for emphasizing that! Self-criticism can definitely lead to a bad mental place. When I start to have thoughts that I "disapprove of," it sometimes helps me to just observe the thoughts in action. It doesn't always work, but, hey, that's okay.
One of the most important things I have taken away from my Buddhist practice is the habit of not fixating on things, and this includes my own behavior. And when thoughts begin to intrude and I begin to fixate on them, I try not fixate on my process of fixation. Being able to let things go has been quite helpful to me.
-Vacuous
One way to try to approach our own behavior is the same way we approach other phenomena we are interested in: with curiosity and good humor.
Indeed!
-V.
E., can you point me to a Bible passage where Jesus equates an action with the thought of an action? I know Paul emphasized that, but I don't know my Gospels well enough to know whether Jesus said that.
It seems to me clearly the case that thoughts concerning actions are not equivalent to actions. Wishing to kill another person is psychologically harmful, but not nearly as harmful as actually killing the person. Indeed, if spontaneous thoughts of killing occur to a person and that person can find a way to work around them and not act on them, then I feel that person is doing better spiritually than if they acted on their impulses.
One teaching of Buddhism is that we are constantly surrounded by delusions. We will never be rid of them. However, once we recognize that we are in the midst of delusion, we are seeing more clearly than we were before.
Post a Comment