Do No Harm

[clyde]

.

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.


.

Rhett;

No. How does what I wrote above lead you to understand that I think “some attachments are okay in some circumstances”?

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

[Rhett]

.

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.

Rhett: 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: No. How does what I wrote above lead you to understand that I think “some attachments are okay in some circumstances”?

Attachment is a specific behaviour that, in and of itself, is specifically inconsistent with doing least harm. Attachments arise from mistaking the infinite for finitude. Unless this is understood attachment is rife and so too is harm.


.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Clyde wrote:

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.

I was using the grammatically incorrect statement in reflection of the traditional phrase and the theme of your movement.

The grammatically correct way of saying this is "Don't do any harm." The grammatically correct verson is a more accurate reflection of whether or not something is being "done" per se.

[clyde]

Rhett;

Yes, I agree.

I believe that ignorance is the primary cause; that not understanding the inter-relatedness of all things and that not understanding the impermanence of all things gives rise to attachment and thereby is a cause of harm.

If ignorance is the primary (or root) cause of suffering, then perhaps the precept should be: Don’t be stupid! But as true as that may be, it would be even more challenging to understand, ever more challenging to follow, and does not convey a clear ethical directive.

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

[clyde]

Elizabeth;

Grammar aside, as long as a human being is alive they are doing something, even if it is sitting quietly or sleeping. Our choice is doing something to minimize suffering or doing something that does not.

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

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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

The human instinct is to avoid pain. The message of pain screems: "avoid!". Whatever my philosophy would be, the message of pain will be still the same. Pain is its own message, that specific message or signal equals pain. There exists no pain with another message, because that would form a contradiction.

Saying "do no harm/bad/evil" seems quite similar to saying "avoid all pain". It's a description, by means of tautology, of a basic instinct. But other equally powerful and present instincts could be tautological phrased as "chase pleasure" or "grow power". I still don't see a direct connection with thoughtful consideration, with deep knowledge or understanding. The whole exercise reads really more like a childish form of self-knowledge: yes we do have a tendency to wish suffering would be gone, a tendency to care for those we look upon as closest to ourselves, we do have a tendency to submit to pleasureful things, just like we have the tendency to be ignorant of the 'why' of our actions, the tendency to protect violently what is deemed most important, etc.

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.

It should at least reflect the core of what is being taught. But in this case by going for the easiest slogan, what's conveyed here isn't the approach of thoughtful consideration, but the mindset of the group that created the initiative. It tells something about their psychology; there is no connection with the wisdom contained on the other webpages. The link is forced, a square piece in a round hole.

There's no way to explain this further without going in-depth into the nature of suffering and the true meaning of cessation of suffering. How are you interpreting the meaning of these concepts?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

clyde wrote:

If ignorance is the primary (or root) cause of suffering, then perhaps the precept should be: Don’t be stupid!

Why yes, I think that's a much better precept!

clyde added:

But as true as that may be, it would be even more challenging to understand, ever more challenging to follow, and does not convey a clear ethical directive.

Actually, I think that all but the hopelessly stupid would not understand, and since the results of stupidity are at least as self-evident (and often more so) than harm, I think it would be easier to learn how to understand and practice following "Don’t be stupid" - especially after it is pointed out to the individual a few times how something going wrong was a result of their own stupid action or inaction. The ethical directive would become more clear as the practitioners behave more intelligently, but even the initiates will see benefit right away. Rapid pay-off is a great motivator for people to stick with a plan.

The way to improve on that is to be more directive ratehr than anti-directive. Perhaps "Be Smart!" That is also less insulting, and implies "don't be stupid" while being more specific about how to accomplish that.

More instruction would be needed to gain the finer points of "Be Smart" - but I bet this "do no harm" thing is requiring a bit more discussion than you originally anticipated.

[Rhett]

.

I believe that ignorance is the primary cause; that not understanding the inter-relatedness of all things and that not understanding the impermanence of all things gives rise to attachment and thereby is a cause of harm.

Understanding need go deeper than this, to the realisation that there aren't really any things.

If ignorance is the primary (or root) cause of suffering, then perhaps the precept should be: Don’t be stupid! But as true as that may be, it would be even more challenging to understand, ever more challenging to follow, and does not convey a clear ethical directive.

When one holds to an objective and undertakes with great effort towards it realisation, one is necessarily drawing numerous data together, experiences that relate to the goal, to craft and crystalise it. If the goal is yet another petty attachment, there won't be any significant progress towards enlightenment, meaning much effort is wasted. Indeed, "do no harm" is the cry of those wishing to protect and coddle stupidity.

Let the ultimate goal be known, and lets have everyone head in that direction, with single-minded focus upon their own realisation. Helping others weaker than oneself flips this dynamic, it strengthens the ego.


.

[clyde]

Diebert;

I am pleased that you found some “wisdom contained on the other webpages”. Those other web-pages were written as contemplations on “do no harm”.

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

[clyde]

Elizabeth;

I was not surprised that “do no harm” generated discussion on this forum. After all, people come to this forum to present and debate “ideas”. I welcome exploration of the message.

As the ‘movement’ is relatively new (the web-site has been available for only a few months and we are now distributing free “DO NO HARM” bumper stickers for only a few weeks) I can only speak of my relatively limited experiences promoting the message to date. The people I meet and speak to about “do no harm” seem to understand the essential message and support it without much need for explanation. For example, this weekend I went to several locations (bookstores, libraries, and grocery stores) and asked if I could leave “DO NO HARM” bumper stickers. After assuring the managers that it was free, that it is not associated with any organization or religion, and that it was to promote a kinder, gentler world, they were, without exception, accepting and encouraging, taking bumper stickers for themselves and inviting co-workers to do likewise. Of course, they may not be analyzing “do no harm” as the guests here do.

The message “do no harm” is meant for everyone, not just ‘smart people’. And I can (and many parents do) explain “do no harm” to young children. It’s simple: You ask, “Do you know what ‘hurt’ is?” Children have experienced hurts of various kinds and know what ‘hurt’ is. You ask, “Can you imagine someone feeling hurt?” Children can do this. Then you gently instruct, “Don’t do things that hurt other people.”

How would you explain “Be smart”?

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

[clyde]

Rhett;

And after you realized “there aren't really any things,” then what do you do? And do you still see “others weaker than oneself”?

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

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert;

I am pleased that you found some “wisdom contained on the other webpages”. Those other web-pages were written as contemplations on “do no harm”.

You're so easy to please...



Take care
http://take.care.com :)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

clyde asked:

How would you explain “Be smart”?

The better that you know, the better you think things through, and the better that you do, the better your life becomes and the better you can help others live a better life. The better everyone lives, the better they make life for everyone around them - including you.

[clyde]

clyde asked:

How would you explain “Be smart”?

The better that you know, the better you think things through, and the better that you do, the better your life becomes and the better you can help others live a better life. The better everyone lives, the better they make life for everyone around them - including you.

How do you define “better”?

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

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

clyde asked:

How do you define “better”?

the same way the dictionary does.

[clyde]

clyde asked:

How do you define “better”?

the same way the dictionary does.

Cute :-)

from Merriam Webster

Main Entry: 1bet•ter
Function: adjective comparative of GOOD
Pronunciation: 'be-t&r
Etymology: Middle English bettre, from Old English betera; akin to Old English bOt remedy, Sanskrit bhadra fortunate
1 : greater than half
2 : improved in health or mental attitude
3 : more attractive, favorable, or commendable
4 : more advantageous or effective
5 : improved in accuracy or performance

But that is no guide to thinking or acting :-(

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

[Tek]

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

Why do you believe this?

The reason why I say this is because it is so. I do not

expect you to take it, for it is on the table, will you take it? I

have another message. You can not achieve Englightment

through arguing what it is, but through your own means and

reality.


A simple way to start is thinking “ All you need is love”.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Clyde- Okay, I'll spell it out.

Re:
1 : greater than half
2 : improved in health or mental attitude
3 : more attractive, favorable, or commendable
4 : more advantageous or effective
5 : improved in accuracy or performance

The better that you know, the better you think things through, and the better that you do, the better your life becomes and the better you can help others live a better life. The better everyone lives, the better they make life for everyone around them - including you.

Does roughly translate into (and strangely enough, in about the same order the dictionary listed the definitions of "better"):

Greater quantities of knowing that is improved in health or mental attitude which is favorable, commendable, adventageous and effective which results in improved accuracy and/or performance further leads to a more favorable or attractive life which is more effective and adventageous to all.

Okay, it's defined - but the way I originally put it has a better ring to it, is more memorable, and more pronounceable.

[clyde]

Elizabeth;

I do appreciate your effort, but your rough translation seems vague to me. Do you think you could explain “Be smart” so a child (or I) could understand it?

Regardless, I hope you see the value in the simple to understand phrase, "do no harm".

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

[cckeiser]

clyde wrote:

If ignorance is the primary (or root) cause of suffering, then perhaps the precept should be: Don’t be stupid!

The way to improve on that is to be more directive ratehr than anti-directive. Perhaps "Be Smart!" That is also less insulting, and implies "don't be stupid" while being more specific about how to accomplish that.

More instruction would be needed to gain the finer points of "Be Smart" - but I bet this "do no harm" thing is requiring a bit more discussion than you originally anticipated.

Why not just "Think!"

Yes, it would seem the minds on this board have a tendency to over analyze just about everything.

Here's a puzzle for you all. Let's see if you can figure out the puzzle.
I'm assuming most of you have taken a few IQ tests, so you should all be somewhat familiar with this one.

Which does not belong?

boat
airplane
bus
train

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

clyde wrote:

I do appreciate your effort, but your rough translation seems vague to me. Do you think you could explain “Be smart” so a child (or I) could understand it?

What you asked for before was the definition of better, and you later proved you can look it up in a dictioary as well as anyone else. Then you claimed to not understand how that could be a guide to thinking or acting. I believe you are "playing dumb" to try to "win" by attrition - then again, my greatest fault is in overestimating people.

One must address anything to the developmental level of the person being addressed. An average adult can understand "be smart" pretty well. Since you have now asked for an explination that you or a child could understand, I will give you an example that children have repeatedly understood:

Child: (enthusiastically as if he thinks he has the right answer) I think the best way is to shoot people. Anybody gives you any trouble, just shoot them.

Me: What happens to people who shoot people?

Child: (hangs head, sadness replaces enthusiasm) They go to prison.

Clyde, how do you think this conversation would have gone if you had just told this child "do no harm?" This example child represents multiple who have spontaneously and seriously suggested shooting as the best solution (and children can, and do, get guns - so this isn't just a harmless misconception that we can just expect a child to grow out of). At least many, if not all of these children, came up with their answers from their personal life experiences (not just TV). Telling a kid whose family member or multiple family members have been shot is not going to understand "do no harm" and isn't going to understand why it isn't okay to shoot whoever it was that shot the one they loved. Many adults don't quite understand that either. Kids whose big brothers or other people they respect who are in gangs, so those kids are not going to be influenced by someone (or some bumper sticker) saying "do no harm" (in fact, in some neighborhoods a bumper sticker like that would get a car vandalized). The people who are there for them, the ones who they see love them, their personal heros believe in shooting people.

Reason can overcome the influence of even the closest people in their lives because reason comes from something closer - their own heads. Teaching people to be smart not just by thinking (they thought they were thinking when they thought that shooting people was a good idea, and they could give a lot of examples of why shooting people is a good idea) nor even just by thinking more intelligently, but by being smart by doing the right thing as the final result. Why right is right is a long process of maturing and teaching people to think clearly for themselves, so that they can more fully understand by realizing for themselves what all of this means. Clearing up unclear thinking can take awhile for the less mature.

I'm not going to try to explain the more mature versions to you because I have hashed this out long enough. I do present things differently to teenagers and adults depending on their ability to understand. Once a person really understands the more basic version, he can understand the next level up of how to be smart. He may require guidance from people who are already smart, but the first step in being smart is getting smart.

The guidance should come from parents or schools, but that doesn't always happen. If a person doesn't get it from those places, he is responsible for himself to learn how to be smart from other places and seek other mentors.

I'm not saying that "do no harm" is useless. Barney the big purple dinosaur, as annoying as he is to most adults, has a wonderful function fro small children. If you feel that this is worthwhile, go for it. As you said, this is just a discussion board.

I'm feeling like I'm working for free again, and I already put in enough volunteer hours for now. I do appreciate that you are asking questions, which is good, but I have to take care of myself too by not getting "burned out" because that is the smart way to be able to contribute my best to peace over the longest period of time.
************************
(edited because I am getting burned out and didn't phrase some of this as well as I ought to have the first time. My apologies to anyone who read the unedited version).

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

cckeiser wrote:

Here's a puzzle for you all. Let's see if you can figure out the puzzle.
I'm assuming most of you have taken a few IQ tests, so you should all be somewhat familiar with this one.

Which does not belong?

boat
airplane
bus
train

I was just going to ignore that, but the thought that someone might fall for this brought me back.

Yes, we know the answer - that is actually one of the easier ones. Are you trying to fake a higher IQ score by getting someone to tell you the answers?

[clyde]

Elizabeth;

I understand how answering questions with obvious (to you) answers can be tiresome. It was not my intention to cause you to feel “burned out”. I am not stupid, but neither am I a genius, so if that is required here or to have a dialogue with you we should stop.

You wrote,

Greater quantities of knowing that is improved in health or mental attitude which is favorable, commendable, adventageous and effective which results in improved accuracy and/or performance further leads to a more favorable or attractive life which is more effective and adventageous to all.

I believe that if another had presented the above to you, you could easily analyze and criticize the statement, including requesting clarification of terms. (What is favorable and to what or whom? How is that determined and by whom? What is advantageous? What is effective? Etc?)

I chose to ask the broader question; i.e., how would you explain “Be smart” to a child. Here, you and I disagree. You think my explanation of “do no harm” is lacking and I think your explanation of “Be smart” is not helpful. For example:

Child: I want that (pointing to some thing in another’s possession), so I’m going to hit them until I get it.

You: What happens to people who hit others to get things?

Child: I have it and they don’t.

But this, like your example, is hypothetical and there is no end to such examples and counter-examples.

As has been noted by another in this thread, I am easily pleased and I am pleased that you see some value in “do no harm”. And I certainly support your effort “to contribute [your] best to peace over the longest period of time.”

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

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Clyde wrote:

But this, like your example, is hypothetical and there is no end to such examples and counter-examples.

My example was not hypothetical. My example was an exact quotation of one particular exchange that I had with a child. "Representative" means that I have had similar exchanges with other children.

In your hypothetical example, the exchange could have been further coached by "Then what happens when he tells his Mom?" Kids understand about getting in trouble.

Thank you for understanding that this is getting tiresome to me. Not everyone on this board is an IQ/IP genius. I recognize that it took a good deal of recognition on your part to notice that some things are obvious to me that are not obvious to others, and that I do not always notice that things that are obvious to me are not obvious to everyone. That recognition shows intelligence on your part.

I see that we have different ways of recognizing what is "best" and that is actually a good thing. One should not try to teach what one does not thouroughly understand and if we all taught exactly the same thing, there would not be enough diversity to expand enough awareness in as many people. What is best for you to teach is simply different from what is best for me to teach.

Good luck with your endeavor.

[David Quinn]

Clyde,

DQ: 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.

Clyde: 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.

So what do you make of Jesus's words when he says things like:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— your enemies will be the members of your own household.’ Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. Matthew 10: 34


"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed!" Luke 12: 49


"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell." Mark 9: 43

Would you say that Jesus was in tune with the Infinite when he said these things? Or was he being deluded?

-