Do No Harm

[Rhett]

.

What about circumstances where most would not identify harm or potential harm, but a wise person does, and acts accordingly? The affected then hiss in pain.

There will naturally be varying views, opposing views even (all too common in my experience), to what constitutes harmful and non-harmful behaviour. A key difference is whether the protection of attachments is considered to be good practise, or harmful.

I think these points should be noted in any "Do No Harm" introduction.


.

[cckeiser]

It depends on which illusion he chooses to adopt, Kevin. You should know that.

Personally, I prefer to adopt the illusion that nothing I do causes harm. After all, this is just as real as any other illusion. The issue is thus resolved. I definitely don't harm anyone with my actions.

-

Please do not confuse my philosophy with the Do No Harm movement. I wear many hats, but only one at a time.
My friend Clyde, though respectful of my Poly-Solipsism philosophy, does not share the same perspective of it as I do. In fact to my knowledge he has never read the whole essay and we seldom discuss it.
So please, no matter how you may perceive me, do not label Clyde with your same assumptions.
The important thing we do share in common is our desire for a kinder and more compassionate world.
I would think that would be the aspiration of everyone.

Do No Harm

Chuck

[clyde]

Rhett;

What do you mean by the phrase "the protection of attachments"?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[Rhett]

.

What do you mean by the phrase "the protection of attachments"?

Wherever there is not enlightenment there is attachment. To be favourable towards attachments protects them from Truth's harm.


.

[David Quinn]

Chuck wrote:

Please do not confuse my philosophy with the Do No Harm movement. I wear many hats, but only one at a time.
My friend Clyde, though respectful of my Poly-Solipsism philosophy, does not share the same perspective of it as I do.

You guys are confusing. Who am I talking to now?

So let's see if I've got it right:

Chuck believes that all views are illusions and that no one illusion should be valued above another. He does, however, seem to value this particular illusion over all the others.

Clyde disagrees with that all views are illusory, which mean that he must affirm a particular view to be reflective of reality. What is that view exactly?

-

[clyde]

.
Wherever there is not enlightenment there is attachment.
.

Rhett;

Yes, and where there is attachment there is suffering.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[clyde]

David;

I read on your web-site that you are “A follower of the Infinite” and

I am a highly logical thinker who spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite. My aim in life is to awaken as many people as possible to this marvellous reality, which I sometimes call God or Tao.

Who isn’t immersed in the Infinite?

And if by “awaken” you mean to make aware, then our aims are similar, although “Do No Harm” also calls upon people to act according to that understanding. Isn’t that logical?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[Tek]

One can not achieve enlighten in this life because no

one can be perfect. We want to be enlighten because it is

something we do not have. I believe on the time of your death

in this life you became enlighten or fallen. The Creator gave us

this option of doing so. For in order to be love there must be

hate, in order to have light there must be darkness. For life

and beyond life is a double sided coin. For I died in the womb

of my mother but came back to life to bring other’s to

understand. To inform you whom argue with fools is not

enlighten but yet a fool, but he who makes his statement on

the table and make you chose is a Wiseman.

[David Quinn]

Clyde wrote:

DQ: I am a highly logical thinker who spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite. My aim in life is to awaken as many people as possible to this marvellous reality, which I sometimes call God or Tao.

C: Who isn’t immersed in the Infinite?

And if by “awaken” you mean to make aware, then our aims are similar, although “Do No Harm” also calls upon people to act according to that understanding. Isn’t that logical?

It depends. How do envision such action?

-

[Kevin Solway]

I believe on the time of your death in this life you became enlighten or fallen.

Why do you believe this?

[clyde]

David;

I’m not certain what exactly you’re asking. Perhaps you could rephrase your question?

And in what way could acting according to one’s understanding of the Infinite not be logical?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[David Quinn]

What specific behaviour do you think is consistent with a good understanding of the Infinite?

-

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: Wherever there is not enlightenment there is attachment.

Clyde: Yes, and where there is attachment there is suffering.

Yes.

Given the role attachments play in the occurence of harm, and by extension, the role the protection of attachments plays, can you tell me why these are not focused upon in your introduction to "Do no harm"?

Can you tell me why common attachments such as partnering, family, materialism, sex, happiness, and religion, are not spoken against? And why the vocal majority that speak of these as cure-alls, in particular the mass media and authority figures, are not spoken against?

A lot of suffering happens because of relationships, familial expectations, greed, sexual gratification, emotional longing, and herdly dogma. This is even seen by most, but is accepted.


.

[clyde]

David & Rhett;

I will address both of your questions together as I think my responses are related.

There is no specific behavior that I can name, because any action, in and of itself, may or may not be consistent depending on one’s present understanding and the circumstances of the moment; i.e., it is the relationship of understanding and action.

And because we do not know the understanding another has or the circumstances they face, we do not advocate specific “do’s and don’ts”. We are advocating the each of us acts in accordance with our understanding to cause the least suffering.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I “assume” that one may choose to act this way or that way and I understand that each potential act will have its own set of consequences. I do not assume that we know or can know all the consequences of our actions (or inaction), but that we can act with our current understanding to cause the least harm.

Lets get back to your core idea for a bit, like on the donoharm.us website

We believe that the first and most basic moral law is, "Do no harm." Why? Because we can feel pain and suffering, we can imagine the pain and suffering of others.

Is here imagining the same as understanding (the pain and suffering of others)?

I believe these are two different things, often colliding. Understanding causes itself a degree of suffering and frustration that causes people to run away into other 'lighter' suffering. Suffering is not something we all distribute, force upon others; much of it is received and engaged in, drawn into by our attachments. It's actually quite rare to be at the receiving end of harm without having part in it. One attempt to describe this was the idea of 'karma'. It's like having as basic moral law "have no karma". What does that help exactly in terms of education? And what would be moral about it?

So to call it the "first and basic moral law" looks delusional to me, because understandings might lead to the opposite, that some harm has to be inflicted, that nature has to be conquered, to a degree, that the earth and our soul has to be penetrated. With consideration yes, but the message of doing no harm is just plain confusing and deceiving in this respect.

[clyde]

Diebert;

Thank you for visiting the web-site. I hope you also read the web-page titled “reflections” ( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ).

We did not write “understand”, but “imagine the pain and suffering of others.” It is not necessary to understand the suffering of others – only that we can envision the suffering of others. And you left off the last sentence of that paragraph:

We believe that the first and most basic moral law is, "Do no harm." Why? Because we can feel pain and suffering, we can imagine the pain and suffering of others. Because we can imagine the pain and suffering of others, we can act accordingly.

Finally, are you confused by the message, “do no harm”? And if so, what confuses you about the message whose intent is to promote less suffering?

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert;

Thank you for visiting the web-site. I hope you also read the web-page titled “reflections” ( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ).

My only point so far is about the three words that are seen as a proper 'hook' into deeper realizations. If people have to start browsing around for further qualifications to find what is intended with the phrase: is the phrase then still a good choice, one could ask?

We did not write “understand”, but “imagine the pain and suffering of others.” It is not necessary to understand the suffering of others – only that we can envision the suffering of others.

All suffering is understandable, quite easily, once the root is known.

Finally, are you confused by the message, “do no harm”? And if so, what confuses you about the message whose intent is to promote less suffering?

Basically what I'm not agreeing with is the apparent wish that people should stop harming each other. Sounds like the philosophy of a dog beaten once too often. What I find way more important is to understand the cause of all suffering. And thereby eliminating it. Why starting to confuse it with a term that relates to "injury", "wrong' and "evil", or in other words: mostly moral or relative terms.

Most people I meet would learn way more by learning to be more assertive, find the courage to hurt people's feelings, to become an outcast if that's the result of speaking out. To live and think a bit more dangerously. To grow a healthy and strong ego or sense of self before undermining it.

[David Quinn]

Clyde wrote:

DQ: What specific behaviour do you think is consistent with a good understanding of the Infinite?

Clyde: There is no specific behavior that I can name, because any action, in and of itself, may or may not be consistent depending on one’s present understanding and the circumstances of the moment; i.e., it is the relationship of understanding and action.

And because we do not know the understanding another has or the circumstances they face, we do not advocate specific “do’s and don’ts”. We are advocating the each of us acts in accordance with our understanding to cause the least suffering.

Okay, let's examine this a bit more closely.

Why do you believe that the principle of "causing the least suffering" is consistent with a good understanding of the Infinite? You haven't really spelt this out yet.

Earlier in this thread, you wrote:

“Do no harm” challenges us to exercise “thoughtful consideration”, which requires us to apply mindfulness, wisdom and compassion to the process of determining the best possible outcome for all concerned.

What happens if the "best possible outcome for all concerned" requires people to go through a great amount of suffering?

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kevin:

I've been earning my own income for about the last eight years, but only because I've been able to do it with only a tiny bit of work. My good fortune probably won't last forever, and then I'll go back to being on a government benefit.

Not everyone in society is the same. Not everyone is made to go out and earn an income. Different people have different skills, and some skills are valuable even though nobody wants to pay for those skills in the marketplace. It is important to recognize this, and not be swept along by the religion of capitalism, where worth is measured only by what other people are prepared to pay.

I agree - I think the most beneficial work I have done has been for free. Are you sure you posted this on the right thread, though?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It is impossible to do no harm.

It might be literally possible, but one would have to do absolutly nothing in order to do no harm. By becoming inert, one also does not do any good.

Doctors are taught "First, do no harm." but all drugs have side effects, surgery requires a form of injury to the patient - and the goal of curing an infection is to harm (actually to kill) the invading bacteria. Taken literally, it does become hypocracy.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Diebert wrote:

Basically what I'm not agreeing with is the apparent wish that people should stop harming each other. Sounds like the philosophy of a dog beaten once too often. What I find way more important is to understand the cause of all suffering. And thereby eliminating it. Why starting to confuse it with a term that relates to "injury", "wrong' and "evil", or in other words: mostly moral or relative terms.

Most people I meet would learn way more by learning to be more assertive, find the courage to hurt people's feelings, to become an outcast if that's the result of speaking out. To live and think a bit more dangerously. To grow a healthy and strong ego or sense of self before undermining it.

A person can hurt another without harming them, and it sounds like you are referring to a helpful hurt rather than actual "harm." It hurts to remove a sandspur, but there is more harm to leaving it in than taking it out - which is helpful hurting.

This does not contradict my earlier post statement that doing nothing is the only way to not harm anyone, because by leaving the sandspur in, although is a harmful condition, no one is "doing' the harm by leaving it in.

[Rhett]

.

I will address both of your questions together as I think my responses are related.

There is no specific behavior that I can name, because any action, in and of itself, may or may not be consistent depending on one’s present understanding and the circumstances of the moment; i.e., it is the relationship of understanding and action.

And because we do not know the understanding another has or the circumstances they face, we do not advocate specific “do’s and don’ts”. We are advocating the each of us acts in accordance with our understanding to cause the least suffering.

This means you think that some attachments are okay in some circumstances. The problem with this is all attachments harm the mind in one way or another.


.

[clyde]

Diebert;

We seem to be covering the same ground again. I’ve acknowledged that the phrase may not be for everyone and I understand that you may prefer some other message or phrase.

You wrote,

Basically what I'm not agreeing with is the apparent wish that people should stop harming each other.

Are you then in favor of people harming you? Is that the message you wish to promote?

The phrase “do no harm” is a motto or slogan, a way to convey an approach (“thoughtful consideration”) in a simple to remember phrase. A phrase cannot explain. That is why I referred to the “reflections” page ( http://donoharm.us/_wsn/page3.html ), as I believe the writings there may address some of your concerns and questions.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[clyde]

Why do you believe that the principle of "causing the least suffering" is consistent with a good understanding of the Infinite? You haven't really spelt this out yet.

David;

Excellent question.

Let me start with this question(s) to you: Have you in the past experienced suffering, such as a tooth ache or the prick of a thorn, sadness at a loss or anger at a slight, or confusion or uncertainty? Or do you now experience suffering? Or do you think you may experience suffering in the future, perhaps during the dying process? If you answered “No” to all those questions, then you do not know suffering and “do no harm” is meaningless to you. If, however, you answered “Yes” to even one of the questions, then you know what suffering is.

If you know what suffering is, then you can imagine another’s suffering. And if you can imagine another’s suffering, then you can act accordingly.

Why should you act to minimize suffering? Because if we understand that we are all inter-related and part of the Infinite (as you wrote in The Wisdom of the Infinite, “Separation is ultimately an illusion.”), then we understand that all suffering is equally ours.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde

[clyde]

A person can hurt another without harming them, and it sounds like you are referring to a helpful hurt rather than actual "harm." It hurts to remove a sandspur, but there is more harm to leaving it in than taking it out - which is helpful hurting.

This does not contradict my earlier post statement that doing nothing is the only way to not harm anyone, because by leaving the sandspur in, although is a harmful condition, no one is "doing' the harm by leaving it in.

Elizabeth;

I agree that some suffering prevents or ends greater suffering, such as your example of the sandspur.

I disagree with your analysis of “doing nothing”. Even as you state it, it is a doing. And doing nothing to prevent or end a greater suffering is a “doing” that causes suffering.

Do no harm < http://donoharm.us/ >,
clyde