clyde wrote:I am not a Buddhist scholar, nor am I a linguist, but I can share my understanding of the phrase, “The non-doing of any evilâ€. In this context, I understand “evil†as qualifying non-doing. In that sense, “harm†(or “causing harm†which is one of the dictionary definitions of “evilâ€) may be substituted for “evilâ€; i.e., “The non-doing of any harm†or “do no harmâ€.
No matter which scholar, translation or dictionary you'd use, the underlying principle is that ultimately truth is beyond good and evil in any moral sense. Truth, or the dedication to it creates a morality where and when needed. This way, assuming Buddha has a grip on truth, he spoke about evil in the sense of error and unclarity (delusion) and cannot have spoken of 'harm' as you describe it: a moral imperative or law.
clyde wrote:You wrote that Buddha equated life and suffering (“Life is suffering according to the same Buddhaâ€), but that is not my understanding of Buddha’s teaching, nor does that conform to my experience. Buddha taught the Truth of Suffering, that suffering or the unsatisfactory nature of phenomena is our experience because we do not realize the true nature of reality and ourselves. That teaching acknowledges that we experience suffering in our life, but does not identify life with suffering.
If one would define life as experienced by humans as starting at being born, aging and then dying - as most people would define it - then when Buddha says that birth, death and aging are all suffering, he efffectively says to anyone who would be listening that life is suffering. There can be no doubt that Buddha's so-called Truths addresses life as we know it. Suffering (dukkha) is according to the teaching one of the three characteristics of existence itself. I happen to be in agreement with this line of thinking.
Any "true nature of reality and ourselves", including the cessation of suffering, is then something completely different from the life that needs to be born, age and die again. This is the what and the why that the Buddha taught.
clyde wrote: I believe the message, “do no harmâ€, may be followed by those with little or shallow understanding with benefit to all and by those with great or profound understanding with benefit to all; and that the message, if examined and contemplated with “the right viewâ€, points to the true nature of reality.
Yes, I know that you believe that from a position of some 'non-dual understanding', compassion can compel one to teach some kind of morality to the unenlightened. But compassion as I understand it is not a feeling you have to care for someone elses physical or mental well-being. It's only about truely understanding the other while patiently and skillfully teaching truth, no matter how unwelcome or hurting it might be to the ones open to it.
clyde wrote:I still do not see in what meaningful way “avoid all pain†which is a directive for action that one takes for one’s own benefit and may lead to less awareness is similar to “do no harm†which is for the benefit of others and requires mindfulness. While avoiding pain and seeking pleasure may be instincts, are you positing that not causing others to suffer is an instinct? And if it is an instinct, isn’t this an instinct one would want to promote for the benefit of all?
Instincts don't need promotion or demotion either. One could learn however to see how the following of instincts, while perhaps benefical to the well-fare of the body, has no direct relationship to truth. Actually a lot of instinctual processes are served very well by deceptions like morality, romantic love, religious thought and so on. That's why truth, if it does anything at all, hurts the initial well-being of a creature by damaging some of nature's ways of caring for it. Truth cuts into life, indeed.
clyde wrote:I was not suggesting that “do no harm†is identical to the First Bodhisattva Vow. They are similar (“much likeâ€) in these ways: both messages ask us to do what appears to be an impossible task, yet dedicating oneself to the task is a benefit to all and reflecting on the message leads to insight.
While I do think I understand why you brought it up, I don't agree on the similarities because I find the phrase 'benefiting to all' very depending on what is deemed beneficial (ie ones particular value system). And I doubt reflecting on "do no harm" will bring much more insight than any other random phrase. Actually I'd like to argue it brings less insight than a random phrase since "do no harm" seems to imply or encourage a moral outlook on life that bypasses the truth that desiring "no harm" causes just as much suffering as desiring harm, when it comes to it.
clyde wrote:Ignorance leads to attachment and attachment leads to suffering and causing suffering to others (harm). Not realizing the true nature of things and of one’s self, one may believe that things are self-existent and that one has a permanent self. Believing that things are self-existent and that one has a permanent self leads one to seek and cling to those things that give one pleasure and avoid those things that give one pain. But the true nature of things and of one’s self is neither self-existent, nor permanent; the nature of things and one’s self are interdependent and impermanent. So, one’s attachments cannot be fully satisfied; this is experienced as suffering. And because one is acting in ignorance and without mindfulness, one may cause unconsidered and unnecessary suffering to others which is harm.
This brings us back to where we started.
One may cause harm out of ignorance or one might just as well cause a blessing out of ignorance. And truth might set one free or bring harm to that what we value most, having to let things go. Ones own life is amongst them.
Wanting to experience pleasure
equals wanting
not to experience harm. This is known in Buddhist terms as the truth of Taṇhā, wanting - inseparable with
dukkha.
Edit: changed 'cause' to 'inseparable with' in last sentence - this reflects more accurately the complex relation
