"a key element in biased feelings is what we can call 'attachment.' once, at a scientific conference in argentina, a mentor of my friend francisco varela told me that, as a scientist, he should not be too attached to his own field of research, as this might distort his ability to assess evidence objectively. hearing these words, i immediately felt they should also apply to the religious domain. for example, as a buddhist, i should strive not to develop excessive attachment toward buddhism. for to do so would hinder my ability to see the value of other faith traditions.
furthermore, when there is an element of attachment, our affection and concern for others are often dependent on the way those others relate to us. we feel concern for those who care for us and treat us well. but when our affection is dependent on the fulfillment of our own goals and expectations, which we project onto others, it will always be very fragile. so long as the others meet our expectations, everything is fine, but as soon as they do not, our feelings of affection can easily turn to resentment and even hatred."
"furthermore, although compassion arises from empathy, the two are not the same. empathy is characterized by a kind of emotional resonance -- feeling with the other person. compassion, in contrast, is not just sharing experience with others, but also wishing to see them relieved of their suffering. being compassionate does not mean remaining entirely at the level of feeling, which could be quite draining. after all, compassionate doctors would not be very effective if they were always preoccupied with sharing their patients' pain. compassion means wanting to do something to relieve the hardships of others, and this desire to help, far from dragging us further into suffering ourselves, actually gives us energy and a sense of purpose and direction. when we act upon this motivation, both we and those around us benefit still more."
"for many, it seems, there is a conflict between the principle of compassion, which implies forgiveness, and the exercise of justice, which requires punishment for wrongdoing. as they see it, the principle of justice or fairness, rather than that of compassion, must underpin any humanistic approach to ethics. to give priority to compassion and forgiveness, they argue, would allow perpetrators of harm to go unpunished and hand victory to the aggressors. the ethic of compassion, they say, amounts to little more than an ethic of victimhood, under which aggression always triumphs, wrongdoing is always forgiven, and the weak are defenseless.
this objection rests, in my view, on a fundamental misunderstanding of what compassion entails in practice. nothing in the principle of compassion - the wish to see others relieved of suffering - involves surrendering to the misdeeds of others. nor does compassion demand that we meekly accept injustice. far from promoting weakness or passivity, compassion requires great fortitude and strength of character."
"compassion demands that we condemn wrong actions and oppose them with all means necessary, while at the same time forgiving and maintaining an attitude of kindness toward the perpetrators of those actions."
"an austrian economist named ernst fehr introduced an interesting concept that he calls 'altruistic punishment.' he illustrated the concept by means of a game of trust. the game is played in rounds and involves ten players. the players are given equal amounts of money and asked to contribute some of it to a collective fund. the experimenter explains that in each round the total amount the players contribute to this fund will be doubled and then redistributed equally among them. in the early rounds, most players are quite generous, making substantial contributions to the central fund, in the belief that others will do the same. this, i think, reflects the intuitively optimistic side of human nature. inevitably, however, there are some individuals who hold back and contribute nothing. in basic monetary terms, they see that what profits them most is to keep their share of what is given, without spending any money of their own. such people, i understand, are known in the language of economics as 'free riders.' as a result of their behavior, the other players start to feel they are being taken advantage of, and begin to contribute less and less to the central fund until finally, usually by about the tenth round, the entire system breaks down. at this stage, no one is willing to contribute, even though the experimenter's offer to double any money contributed is still in place.
at this point the players are introduced to the notion of altruistic punishment, a mechanism by which they can punish the free riders. by contributing some of their own money to a nonrefundable punishment bin, they are able to force free riders to pay double that amount. so, for example, by spending three dollars on punishment, a player can make the free rider pay six dollars. as it turns out, once this system is introduced into the game, cooperation between players can be sustained more of less indefinitely. would-be free riders are deterred from taking advantage of others, and as a result the players continue to contribute to the central fund and everyone benefits.
although this experiment was principally designed to test a theory in economics, i feel that it also contains a universally applicable message. it shows us that punishment can be exacted in a way that benefits everyone, including wrongdoers themselves. it illustrates the point that punishment which does not exact revenge, but rather corrects the wrongdoer, is in everyone’s interest.”
"in moments of anger or irritation, we may be rude to loved ones or aggressive toward others. later we may feel some remorse or regret, but when looking back on our outburst, we do not fail to distinguish between what we did and who we are. we naturally forgive ourselves and perhaps resolve not to do the same thing again. given that we find it so easy to forgive ourselves, surely we can extend the same courtesy to others! of course not everyone is able to forgive [themself], and this can be an obstacle. for such people, it may be important to practice compassion and forgiveness towards themselves, as the foundation for practicing compassion and forgiveness toward others."
"practicing awareness is not quite the same as listening to your conscience, however. in buddhist ethical theory there is no idea of the conscience as a distinct mental faculty. but being conscientious is still very important. it is described in terms of two key mental mental qualities, namely self-respect and consideration of others.
the first of these, self-respect, relates to having a sense of personal integrity, a self-image as a person who upholds certain values. so when we are tempted to indulge in harmful behavior, our self-image acts as a restraint, as we think 'this is unbecoming of me.' the second mental quality, consideration of others, pertains to having a healthy regard for others' opinions, especially for their potential disapproval. together, these two factors give us an added level of caution about doing wrong which can strengthen our moral compass."
"in the context of secular ethics, perhaps the antidote to destructive emotion with the most urgent and immediate relevance for our everyday lives is what is called soe pa in tibetan. though usually translated as patience, soe pa also includes the virtues of tolerance, forbearance, and forgiveness. what it really means is the ability to endure suffering. it entails not giving in to our instinctive urge to respond negatively to our difficulties. but soe pa has nothing to do with being either passive or impotent. it is not a case of tolerating something just because you do not have the ability to hit back. nor is it enduring injustice grudgingly, through gritted teeth. instead, genuine patience requires great strength. it is fundamentally the exercise of restraint based on mental discipline. there are three aspects of patience, or forbearance, to consider: forbearance toward those who harm us, acceptance of suffering, and acceptance of reality."
"the only effective antidote to greed is moderation and contentment.
of course, in extolling the benefits of simplicity and modesty, i am not suggesting that poverty is acceptable. on the contrary, poverty is a tremendous hardship, one that we must do all we can to end. in addition to making survival a struggle, poverty tends to disempower people and make them feel cowed or demoralized. in these ways, it makes the poor suffer greatly. on the personal level, however, the sooner we accept that riches alone do not bring happiness, and the sooner we learn to live with a sense of modesty, the better off we will be, especially with respect to our happiness.
time and geography will always impose limits on how much wealth anyone can succeed in accruing in a single lifetime. given this natural limit, it seems wiser to set one's own limits through the exercise of contentment. in contrast, when it comes to acquiring mental riches, the potential is limitless. here, where there is no natural limit, it is appropriate not to be contented with what you have, but to constantly strive for more. unfortunately, most of us do the exact opposite. we are never quite satisfied with what we have materially, but we tend to be thoroughly complacent about our mental riches."
"it is useful to begin by reflecting on the harm we do to ourselves, even physically, when we succumb to temptation and bad habits. then we can also consider the harm that our bad habits inflict on others. it is easy to assume that our personal behavior and habits have no real effect on others, but this is seldom the case. suppose, for example, that one member of a family is addicted to drugs. although, of course, the other family members will not suffer the direct physical and mental ill effects of the drug, this does not mean they will not be harmed. in all likelihood they will be deeply afflicted by worry and concern, as well as by whatever other agonies and complications may accompany the situation. so, when considering the harm we inflict through a lack of self-discipline in our personal habits, we should always be mindful of those who care about our welfare and those whose welfare is intimately connected to our own.
it can also be useful to consider the harmful effects of a lack of self-discipline at a wider social level. in my view the problem of corruption, which is prevalent in so many parts of the world, is actually nothing but a failure of self-discipline. corruption is always a surrender to self-serving attitudes of greed, bias, and dishonesty. even the existence of a fair and just legal system becomes of little value when that system is paralyzed by corruption.
with the awareness that comes from contemplating the consequences of a lack of self-discipline, we can gradually develop a greater ability to resist temptation in our own life. eventually, with sustained practice, self-discipline will start to come naturally and will no longer require conscious effort and willpower. at that point, when restraint and moderation come naturally, we begin to feel the great sense of freedom that comes with self-mastery. this virtue of self-discipline is extolled in all the world's major religious traditions. . .
gaining mastery over our destructive propensities through the exercise of awareness and self-discipline at the levels of body, speech, and mind frees us from the inner turmoil that naturally arises when our behavior is at odds with our ideals. in place of this turmoil come confidence, integrity, and dignity"
"classical buddhist texts describe generosity in terms of four kinds of giving: first, the giving of material goods; second, the giving of freedom from fear, which means offering safety and security to others and dealing with them honestly; third, the giving of spiritual counsel, which entails offering comfort, concern, and advice to support others' psychological and emotional well-being; and fourth, the giving of love.
an important point to recognize at the outset is that the aim of any of these four kinds of giving should never be to ingratiate oneself with others, but should always be to benefit the recipient. if one's motivation is in any way connected to seeking one's own benefit, this is not genuine generosity.
classical buddhist texts also note the need to be discerning when engaging in acts of generosity. for example, in addition to ensuring the soundness of one's motivation, they discuss the need to be aware of specific contexts in which giving might not be appropriate. giving disproportionately, or giving to someone at a wrong time, might do the recipient more harm than good. and clearly there are certain items, such as poisons or weapons, which are, by their very nature, inappropriate for giving. if what we give is likely to be used to harm others, the principle of compassion dictates that we shun giving in that context. furthermore, these texts emphasize the need to be sure we are giving out of respect for the recipient, not out of a sense of superiority. a genuine act of generosity will honor the recipient's dignity."
"in moments of anger or irritation, we may be rude to loved ones or aggressive toward others. later we may feel some remorse or regret, but when looking back on our outburst, we do not fail to distinguish between what we did and who we are. we naturally forgive ourselves and perhaps resolve not to do the same thing again. given that we find it so easy to forgive ourselves, surely we can extend the same courtesy to others! of course not everyone is able to forgive [themself], and this can be an obstacle. for such people, it may be important to practice compassion and forgiveness towards themselves, as the foundation for practicing compassion and forgiveness toward others."
"practicing awareness is not quite the same as listening to your conscience, however. in buddhist ethical theory there is no idea of the conscience as a distinct mental faculty. but being conscientious is still very important. it is described in terms of two key mental mental qualities, namely self-respect and consideration of others.
the first of these, self-respect, relates to having a sense of personal integrity, a self-image as a person who upholds certain values. so when we are tempted to indulge in harmful behavior, our self-image acts as a restraint, as we think 'this is unbecoming of me.' the second mental quality, consideration of others, pertains to having a healthy regard for others' opinions, especially for their potential disapproval. together, these two factors give us an added level of caution about doing wrong which can strengthen our moral compass."
"in the context of secular ethics, perhaps the antidote to destructive emotion with the most urgent and immediate relevance for our everyday lives is what is called soe pa in tibetan. though usually translated as patience, soe pa also includes the virtues of tolerance, forbearance, and forgiveness. what it really means is the ability to endure suffering. it entails not giving in to our instinctive urge to respond negatively to our difficulties. but soe pa has nothing to do with being either passive or impotent. it is not a case of tolerating something just because you do not have the ability to hit back. nor is it enduring injustice grudgingly, through gritted teeth. instead, genuine patience requires great strength. it is fundamentally the exercise of restraint based on mental discipline. there are three aspects of patience, or forbearance, to consider: forbearance toward those who harm us, acceptance of suffering, and acceptance of reality."
"the only effective antidote to greed is moderation and contentment.
of course, in extolling the benefits of simplicity and modesty, i am not suggesting that poverty is acceptable. on the contrary, poverty is a tremendous hardship, one that we must do all we can to end. in addition to making survival a struggle, poverty tends to disempower people and make them feel cowed or demoralized. in these ways, it makes the poor suffer greatly. on the personal level, however, the sooner we accept that riches alone do not bring happiness, and the sooner we learn to live with a sense of modesty, the better off we will be, especially with respect to our happiness.
time and geography will always impose limits on how much wealth anyone can succeed in accruing in a single lifetime. given this natural limit, it seems wiser to set one's own limits through the exercise of contentment. in contrast, when it comes to acquiring mental riches, the potential is limitless. here, where there is no natural limit, it is appropriate not to be contented with what you have, but to constantly strive for more. unfortunately, most of us do the exact opposite. we are never quite satisfied with what we have materially, but we tend to be thoroughly complacent about our mental riches."
"it is useful to begin by reflecting on the harm we do to ourselves, even physically, when we succumb to temptation and bad habits. then we can also consider the harm that our bad habits inflict on others. it is easy to assume that our personal behavior and habits have no real effect on others, but this is seldom the case. suppose, for example, that one member of a family is addicted to drugs. although, of course, the other family members will not suffer the direct physical and mental ill effects of the drug, this does not mean they will not be harmed. in all likelihood they will be deeply afflicted by worry and concern, as well as by whatever other agonies and complications may accompany the situation. so, when considering the harm we inflict through a lack of self-discipline in our personal habits, we should always be mindful of those who care about our welfare and those whose welfare is intimately connected to our own.
it can also be useful to consider the harmful effects of a lack of self-discipline at a wider social level. in my view the problem of corruption, which is prevalent in so many parts of the world, is actually nothing but a failure of self-discipline. corruption is always a surrender to self-serving attitudes of greed, bias, and dishonesty. even the existence of a fair and just legal system becomes of little value when that system is paralyzed by corruption.
with the awareness that comes from contemplating the consequences of a lack of self-discipline, we can gradually develop a greater ability to resist temptation in our own life. eventually, with sustained practice, self-discipline will start to come naturally and will no longer require conscious effort and willpower. at that point, when restraint and moderation come naturally, we begin to feel the great sense of freedom that comes with self-mastery. this virtue of self-discipline is extolled in all the world's major religious traditions. . .
gaining mastery over our destructive propensities through the exercise of awareness and self-discipline at the levels of body, speech, and mind frees us from the inner turmoil that naturally arises when our behavior is at odds with our ideals. in place of this turmoil come confidence, integrity, and dignity"
"classical buddhist texts describe generosity in terms of four kinds of giving: first, the giving of material goods; second, the giving of freedom from fear, which means offering safety and security to others and dealing with them honestly; third, the giving of spiritual counsel, which entails offering comfort, concern, and advice to support others' psychological and emotional well-being; and fourth, the giving of love.
an important point to recognize at the outset is that the aim of any of these four kinds of giving should never be to ingratiate oneself with others, but should always be to benefit the recipient. if one's motivation is in any way connected to seeking one's own benefit, this is not genuine generosity.
classical buddhist texts also note the need to be discerning when engaging in acts of generosity. for example, in addition to ensuring the soundness of one's motivation, they discuss the need to be aware of specific contexts in which giving might not be appropriate. giving disproportionately, or giving to someone at a wrong time, might do the recipient more harm than good. and clearly there are certain items, such as poisons or weapons, which are, by their very nature, inappropriate for giving. if what we give is likely to be used to harm others, the principle of compassion dictates that we shun giving in that context. furthermore, these texts emphasize the need to be sure we are giving out of respect for the recipient, not out of a sense of superiority. a genuine act of generosity will honor the recipient's dignity."
No comments:
Post a Comment