GENIUS FORUMS

Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.

-- from the 14th Dalai Lama’s Acceptance Speech of The Nobel Peace Prize 1989 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peac ... tance.html)

clyde wrote:

Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them.

-- from the 14th Dalai Lama’s Acceptance Speech of The Nobel Peace Prize 1989

Helping others is the key aspect of the realization of the other, and thereby the birth of the social. So the Dalai Lama is placing the social being as life's purpose? One could wonder what the difference is here with for example Karl Marx.

I'd like to answer your other questions about suffering but lets first agree on some terms. You define harm as the suffering we cause. Then you talk about minimizing suffering while you say that when there no levels, there's no suffering. Which implies there's an end to suffering when there's an end to 'levels' or differentiation. Or even basic awareness which is differentation. Are you linking here thinking or duality with suffering?

On your webpage you comment on the definition of suffering with :

If you have experienced suffering, than you know what it means and I mean just that.

And then to David Quinn you wrote:

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, however, you answered “Yes” to even one of the questions, then you know what suffering is.

Here you seem to equal suffering with a lot of different things, ranging from all kinds of frustrations to the physicality of life and death. What do you think for example Buddha was talking about when he mentioned dukkha? Can you define it, or in other words: do you know where it was exactly about?

Diebert;

I don’t know what the Dalai Lama meant. The two sentences quoted were taken from a speech which you can read at the linked web-site. And the Dalai Lama has written many books, some of which discuss suffering, compassion, etc.

I don’t know what the Buddha meant by dukkha. There have been many learned commentaries written by eminent scholars that attempt to explain the meaning of dukkha.

When discussing harm as the suffering we cause, I use the term suffering in its broadest sense to include physical, emotional, and mental discomfort or discontent. I know that some people, some times distinguish the physical component (pain) from the mental component. When discussing the suffering I experience, I often distinguish between pain and suffering.

And you asked about the relationship of suffering to duality. The point I intended was that where there is no differentiation, one cannot speak of suffering and non-suffering as that is a differentiation.

clyde wrote:I don’t know what the Dalai Lama meant.

Okay, but then why did you quote him?

When discussing harm as the suffering we cause, I use the term suffering in its broadest sense to include physical, emotional, and mental discomfort or discontent. I know that some people, some times distinguish the physical component (pain) from the mental component. When discussing the suffering I experience, I often distinguish between pain and suffering.

Spinoza defined sorrow as the decrease in the probability of your self-preservation. The Buddhist dukkha is considered to be closer to stress in meaning. And life itself stresses, imprints itself on the experiencer, forming or afflicting. This is why life as it's experienced equals suffering, at least to those with enough consciousness to be aware of the fact. Increasing consciousness then increases exposure to this existential suffering. The first sign of rising consciousness forms the question "why" and it cuts into life - in the unconsciousness state of life, which is mostly quite integrated and therefore pleasant as nature's reward.

The message of the Buddha, as well of Jesus and others was not meant for the ones suffering from their ignorance, but the ones suffering from their little knowledge. But the ignorant have made their own contradictionary version, not being hindered by any spark of understanding.

And you asked about the relationship of suffering to duality. The point I intended was that where there is no differentiation, one cannot speak of suffering and non-suffering as that is a differentiation.

Do you see any relation between differentiation and awareness (form-feeling-perception-consciousness)?

Diebert;

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:I don’t know what the Dalai Lama meant.

Okay, but then why did you quote him?

You asked, “So the Dalai Lama is placing the social being as life's purpose?” I know what the quote meant to me, you know what the quote meant to you, but neither of us knows what the Dalai Lama intended and it seems pointless for you and I to discuss what a third person, the Dalai Lama, intended when he spoke those words.

I quoted those words spoken by the Dalai Lama because I understand the words as supporting “do no harm” and believe that most people will have a similar understanding.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

When discussing harm as the suffering we cause, I use the term suffering in its broadest sense to include physical, emotional, and mental discomfort or discontent. I know that some people, some times distinguish the physical component (pain) from the mental component. When discussing the suffering I experience, I often distinguish between pain and suffering.

Spinoza defined sorrow as the decrease in the probability of your self-preservation. The Buddhist dukkha is considered to be closer to stress in meaning. And life itself stresses, imprints itself on the experiencer, forming or afflicting. This is why life as it's experienced equals suffering, at least to those with enough consciousness to be aware of the fact. Increasing consciousness then increases exposure to this existential suffering. The first sign of rising consciousness forms the question "why" and it cuts into life - in the unconsciousness state of life, which is mostly quite integrated and therefore pleasant as nature's reward.

The message of the Buddha, as well of Jesus and others was not meant for the ones suffering from their ignorance, but the ones suffering from their little knowledge. But the ignorant have made their own contradictionary version, not being hindered by any spark of understanding.

I do not understand their messages in that way. The teachings of the Buddha seem directed at those suffering from their ignorance and are intended to dispel that ignorance.

In any case, do you think that suffering is stress? Do you experience suffering?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

And you asked about the relationship of suffering to duality. The point I intended was that where there is no differentiation, one cannot speak of suffering and non-suffering as that is a differentiation.

Do you see any relation between differentiation and awareness (form-feeling-perception-consciousness)?

Yes, there is no awareness that one can speak of without differentiation and where there is awareness that one can speak of there is differentiation.

clyde wrote:...it seems pointless for you and I to discuss what a third person, the Dalai Lama, intended when he spoke those words.

I quoted those words spoken by the Dalai Lama because I understand the words as supporting “do no harm” and believe that most people will have a similar understanding.

So you don't know what the Dalai Lama intended with his own words but you 'believe' to know the understanding of 'most people' when they are reading his words.

That means you say you claim a grasp on what millions of third parties read into some words, but you refrain from claiming to understand why the author wrote it? It would seem wiser to know fairly sure what the Dalai Lama intended and forget about 'most people'.

clyde wrote:In any case, do you think that suffering is stress? Do you experience suffering?

To the degree I experience life deeply, I experience the suffering that comes along with it. The word stress is just a better way of capturing the essence of what's happening on the deepest level. It's a very active unstoppable 'violent' web of cause and effect that does all the shaping.

clyde wrote:Yes, there is no awareness that one can speak of without differentiation and where there is awareness that one can speak of there is differentiation.

So this means that when you say there's no suffering where there are no levels, that suffering would disappear in a state of unawareness or unconsciousness?

And if so, would you agree that suffering initialy rises because of awareness and would lessen if that awareness decreases?

Diebert;

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:...it seems pointless for you and I to discuss what a third person, the Dalai Lama, intended when he spoke those words.

I quoted those words spoken by the Dalai Lama because I understand the words as supporting “do no harm” and believe that most people will have a similar understanding.

So you don't know what the Dalai Lama intended with his own words but you 'believe' to know the understanding of 'most people' when they are reading his words.

That means you say you claim a grasp on what millions of third parties read into some words, but you refrain from claiming to understand why the author wrote it? It would seem wiser to know fairly sure what the Dalai Lama intended and forget about 'most people'.

You asked me why I quoted the Dalai Lama and I stated what I intended. I did not claim anything other than a belief that other people would understand the quote as I did. I confess, I wrote “most”, but should have written “other” (or “some”) as I can’t know and have no belief regarding “most people”.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:In any case, do you think that suffering is stress? Do you experience suffering?

To the degree I experience life deeply, I experience the suffering that comes along with it. The word stress is just a better way of capturing the essence of what's happening on the deepest level. It's a very active unstoppable 'violent' web of cause and effect that does all the shaping.

OK, then you know what suffering is. Since you have an imagination, you can imagine the suffering of others. Therefore, you can act to minimize suffering.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:Yes, there is no awareness that one can speak of without differentiation and where there is awareness that one can speak of there is differentiation.

So this means that when you say there's no suffering where there are no levels, that suffering would disappear in a state of unawareness or unconsciousness?

There is no awareness of suffering without differentiation and if there is no awareness of suffering, then one cannot speak of suffering.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And if so, would you agree that suffering initialy rises because of awareness and would lessen if that awareness decreases?

Awareness does not cause suffering.

clyde wrote:OK, then you know what suffering is. Since you have an imagination, you can imagine the suffering of others.

Not knowing what suffering is, would be ignorance. There's no need to add more imagination to what is already ignorance for most.

clyde wrote: There is no awareness of suffering without differentiation and if there is no awareness of suffering, then one cannot speak of suffering. (...)

Awareness does not cause suffering.

But without awareness it won't be perceived, let alone its causes understood and certainly never halted. Since you say yourself that awareness (of suffering or life in general) is required to speak of suffering, you cannot suddenly claim that it's not related to its cause.

It's the very trail of perception, imagination and consciousness, and the delusional clinging that automatically comes with it, that bring about the stress. That's why most animals cannot be said to suffer, only when we project our own degree of awareness onto them.

From here on you can choose two opposing directions: decreasing consciousness to a more comfortable stress level, where it lives in the subconsciousness out of sight most of the time but always present to delude our thinking by creating certain emotional background 'radiation'. Or the opposite way, which increases consciousness and suffering as insight grows and final "cessation of suffering" becomes a real possibility. It's a hard and narrow road and takes courage and willingness to accept pain.

This is why in the introduction of this board it reads:

It is sometimes said that genius is "the infinite capacity for giving pain." This is very apt. If one is not deliberately causing pain to the ego, both in oneself and in others, then what is the good of one's life? One might as well not exist at all. It is by challenging and overturning our cosy assumptions, habitual thought-processes, psychological refuges and mental blocks that our minds can be opened up that little bit more to the wisdom of the Infinite.

As you might realize the notion of "not doing harm" conflicts with this basic insight that suffering has to increase to get rid of delusion which creates the greatest harm in this world. If the intended audience are the ones who are not even aware of the suffering then talking about doing 'no harm' is essentially advocating the road to more unconscious life. Only for those already aware of the nature of suffering, a message about cessation would ever make sense.

Zeus, whose will has marked for man the sole way where wisdom lies, ordered one eternal plan: Man must suffer to be wise. - Aeschylus

Diebert;

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:OK, then you know what suffering is. Since you have an imagination, you can imagine the suffering of others.

Not knowing what suffering is, would be ignorance. There's no need to add more imagination to what is already ignorance for most.

This was addressed to you, personally, not “most”. And you failed to quote the concluding sentence of this short paragraph, “Therefore, you can act to minimize suffering.”

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote: There is no awareness of suffering without differentiation and if there is no awareness of suffering, then one cannot speak of suffering. (...)

Awareness does not cause suffering.

But without awareness it won't be perceived, let alone its causes understood and certainly never halted. Since you say yourself that awareness (of suffering or life in general) is required to speak of suffering, you cannot suddenly claim that it's not related to its cause.

I agree with your first sentence, “But without awareness it won't be perceived, let alone its causes understood and certainly never halted.” Perceiving something (in this case, suffering) is not the cause of its existence.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's the very trail of perception, imagination and consciousness, and the delusional clinging that automatically comes with it, that bring about the stress. That's why most animals cannot be said to suffer, only when we project our own degree of awareness onto them.

I don’t know what an animal experiences and cannot say whether “most animals” experience stress or not. You seem to have an affinity to animals and know their experiences.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:From here on you can choose two opposing directions: decreasing consciousness to a more comfortable stress level, where it lives in the subconsciousness out of sight most of the time but always present to delude our thinking by creating certain emotional background 'radiation'. Or the opposite way, which increases consciousness and suffering as insight grows and final "cessation of suffering" becomes a real possibility. It's a hard and narrow road and takes courage and willingness to accept pain.

You seem to be suggesting that increased awareness of suffering increases the quantity of suffering itself. I think that increased awareness of suffering has not effect on the quantity of suffering itself. For example, my awareness of the color red does not increase the quantity of red in the universe.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:This is why in the introduction of this board it reads:

It is sometimes said that genius is "the infinite capacity for giving pain." This is very apt. If one is not deliberately causing pain to the ego, both in oneself and in others, then what is the good of one's life? One might as well not exist at all. It is by challenging and overturning our cosy assumptions, habitual thought-processes, psychological refuges and mental blocks that our minds can be opened up that little bit more to the wisdom of the Infinite.

As you might realize the notion of "not doing harm" conflicts with this basic insight that suffering has to increase to get rid of delusion which creates the greatest harm in this world. If the intended audience are the ones who are not even aware of the suffering then talking about doing 'no harm' is essentially advocating the road to more unconscious life. Only for those already aware of the nature of suffering, a message about cessation would ever make sense.

Zeus, whose will has marked for man the sole way where wisdom lies, ordered one eternal plan: Man must suffer to be wise. - Aeschylus

I realize that you continue to understand the notion of “do no harm” in that way, even after my repeated posts that “do no harm” supports what David termed “wise harm” and which was clearly illustrated by the example of a good doctor amputating a limb to save a patient. Keeping with the doctor metaphor, but using a less dramatic, but oft used and apt example: a wise doctor recommends medicine that may initially cause the patient distress, but ultimately cures the disease. Such a wise doctor is practicing “do no harm”.

clyde wrote:And you failed to quote the concluding sentence of this short paragraph, “Therefore, you can act to minimize suffering.”

Why would one minimize it as some sort of principle? You have already left the possibility open for 'wise harm' and I talked about how pain or suffering will be important on the path to wisdom. So when considered more deeply, nothing can be really said about minimizing anything in such general way.

clyde wrote: I agree with your first sentence, “But without awareness it won't be perceived, let alone its causes understood and certainly never halted.” Perceiving something (in this case, suffering) is not the cause of its existence.

But if you remove the perception, where is the existence gone? At least logically you have created a causal relationship, don't you see? And furthermore I've tried to demonstrate with reason that less awareness relates to less stress, and greater awareness leads to greater stress until the conflict is finally resolved.

clyde wrote:I don’t know what an animal experiences and cannot say whether “most animals” experience stress or not. You seem to have an affinity to animals and know their experiences.

Would you have an opinion on what a rock or plant experiences in terms of stress? Don't you have method to establish any idea about the abilities of the objects around you? You might be torturing the chair you sit upon, you know. Do no harm and stand up.

clyde wrote:You seem to be suggesting that increased awareness of suffering increases the quantity of suffering itself. I think that increased awareness of suffering has not effect on the quantity of suffering itself. For example, my awareness of the color red does not increase the quantity of red in the universe.

Suffering is not a quantifiable object, it's a subjectivity that rises together with consciousness. This is why it can also disappear altogether. But undesired processes like death and pain will not stop while there are the desired processes of life and pleasure around.

clyde wrote:a wise doctor recommends medicine that may initially cause the patient distress, but ultimately cures the disease. Such a wise doctor is practicing “do no harm”.

In your example the distress of the patient and his disease are two different things. What you have defined as harm and suffering I've tried to explain how they are nothing but the patients distress but not the disease itself. The patient thinks the disease is all about his distress and there in lies the root of the disease: it is misindentified and the agony could become even intensified until it's understood.

Anesthetics are of course the prefered option to most.


PS: My next response might be delayed for a few weeks. Thanks.

Diebert;

Thank you for the notice regarding the timing of your next response. Perhaps others will participate in the interim.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:And you failed to quote the concluding sentence of this short paragraph, “Therefore, you can act to minimize suffering.”

Why would one minimize it as some sort of principle? You have already left the possibility open for 'wise harm' and I talked about how pain or suffering will be important on the path to wisdom. So when considered more deeply, nothing can be really said about minimizing anything in such general way.

Let me turn your question around: Why would one cause unnecessary harm; i.e., suffering that did not lead to liberation? If one action causes unnecessary harm and another action avoids unnecessary harm, I would act to minimize suffering by choosing the action that avoids unnecessary harm. How would you act?

Also, your question assumes that I have a rather short-sighted view, as if I was proposing that one minimize suffering now even if it causes greater suffering in the future. But I have not taken that position and have repeatedly stated otherwise. So why do you continue to characterize my position in that way?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote: I agree with your first sentence, “But without awareness it won't be perceived, let alone its causes understood and certainly never halted.” Perceiving something (in this case, suffering) is not the cause of its existence.

But if you remove the perception, where is the existence gone? At least logically you have created a causal relationship, don't you see? And furthermore I've tried to demonstrate with reason that less awareness relates to less stress, and greater awareness leads to greater stress until the conflict is finally resolved.

I stated that perception of a thing is not the cause of the thing’s existence. How would you answer your question “if you remove the perception, where is the existence gone?”

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


note: My signature seems to have been lost and not functioning, so I have manually added it.

Diebert;

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:I don’t know what an animal experiences and cannot say whether “most animals” experience stress or not. You seem to have an affinity to animals and know their experiences.

Would you have an opinion on what a rock or plant experiences in terms of stress? Don't you have method to establish any idea about the abilities of the objects around you? You might be torturing the chair you sit upon, you know. Do no harm and stand up.

Of course I have an opinion, but I considered the issue of what an animal experiences an aside. But since you have asked again, I’ll share my thoughts on the issue.

My observations of some animals, mostly cats and dogs, is that based on their behavior they experience hunger and thirst, heat and cold, and pain. It is also my opinion, based on my observations of their behavior, that they experience fear (e.g. – a dog may exhibit cowering behavior if a stick is raised in a threatening manner). I have also observed aggressive behavior (apart from hunting for food), but I do not know whether they experience anger. There is a wide range of opinions on what animals experience even among those who study animals. I don’t know whether an animal experiences stress, but if some animals experience fear, then I would answer: Yes, I think some animals experience stress.

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

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:You seem to be suggesting that increased awareness of suffering increases the quantity of suffering itself. I think that increased awareness of suffering has not effect on the quantity of suffering itself. For example, my awareness of the color red does not increase the quantity of red in the universe.

Suffering is not a quantifiable object, it's a subjectivity that rises together with consciousness. This is why it can also disappear altogether. But undesired processes like death and pain will not stop while there are the desired processes of life and pleasure around.

I agree that suffering is not an “object” like a chair, but it must be quantifiable (like pain for example). Previously you wrote, “suffering has to increase to get rid of delusion”? How would you know that suffering has increased, if it is not quantifiable?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:a wise doctor recommends medicine that may initially cause the patient distress, but ultimately cures the disease. Such a wise doctor is practicing “do no harm”.

In your example the distress of the patient and his disease are two different things. What you have defined as harm and suffering I've tried to explain how they are nothing but the patients distress but not the disease itself. The patient thinks the disease is all about his distress and there in lies the root of the disease: it is misindentified and the agony could become even intensified until it's understood.

I used the terms “distress” (note the ‘dis-stress’) and “disease” (note the ‘dis-ease’) to keep within the metaphor. I could have written, “a wise doctor recommends medicine that may initially cause the patient suffering, but ultimately cures the cause of suffering. Such a wise doctor is practicing “do no harm”.”

That said, you write that what I have defined as harm and suffering is (keeping with the doctor metaphor) a symptom, not the cause. Yes, of course. Suffering is not the cause of suffering. I’ve stated that suffering arises due to attachment which arises due to ignorance. I wrote,

I believe the root cause is ignorance, ignorance of our true nature and the nature of reality.

Of course, for enlightened geniuses “do no harm” is unnecessary. They have realized their true nature and the nature of reality, so they are naturally mindful and exercise wisdom and compassion. They are free of attachments and have no concern for self, fame or fortune. They manifest “do no harm” through their actions.

But not all of us are enlightened and the unenlightened are not likely to be enlightened overnight. So what are we to do? Well there are all kinds of practices that one can do to enlighten oneself and others. But while that is happening we are still acting in the world. So what are we to do?

We propose “do no harm.”

The message “do no harm” works on two levels: the practical level of action and the other level of awakening. On a practical level “do no harm” is the practice of “thoughtful consideration” (which requires the exercise of attention, understanding and empathy) applied to one’s actions in the world. This has the benefit of contributing to a more hospitable world. On the other level “do no harm” is the practice of contemplation on suffering and harm, causation and conditions, inter-relatedness and impermanence, and self and others, which leads to insight into our true nature and the nature of reality. This has the benefit of contributing to awakening.

I believe that practicing “do no harm” answers both questions: How are we to be enlightened? and What do we do in the mean time?

So, will you promote “do no harm”?

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

Dick Cheney has water-boarded this topic. Yippee! Do No Harm is now R-I-P :-)


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

Tomas;

We know Dick Cheney’s view, but what is your view of “do no harm”?

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

Clyde,

clyde wrote:Let me turn your question around: Why would one cause unnecessary harm; i.e., suffering that did not lead to liberation? If one action causes unnecessary harm and another action avoids unnecessary harm, I would act to minimize suffering by choosing the action that avoids unnecessary harm. How would you act?

The moment one introduces such relative and moral qualification of 'harm': a necessary kind and an unnecessary kind, one is effectively devaluing the proposed phrase 'do no harm'. Because the matter now becomes to determine what is necessary, what is "free will" and what is self-determination. And this even before one has addressed the deeper realities that bring about the experience of 'harm' itself that are ignored by just advertising avoidance of it.

clyde wrote:Also, your question assumes that I have a rather short-sighted view, as if I was proposing that one minimize suffering now even if it causes greater suffering in the future. But I have not taken that position and have repeatedly stated otherwise. So why do you continue to characterize my position in that way?

Your view seems to revolve around 'minimizing suffering', targeting mainly its negative connotations, while mine is about halting the underlying process, encompassing the whole duality of it. The views seem worlds apart.

clyde wrote:I agree with your first sentence, “But without awareness it won't be perceived, let alone its causes understood and certainly never halted.” Perceiving something (in this case, suffering) is not the cause of its existence.

But it's undeniable that perception is an important condition for awareness. So it can be called a cause. It's important to understand this because it makes one realize that decreasing consciousness will decrease awareness of the existential reality of life and its suffering. So one will find that people will often take this road (of decreasing awareness) as a way to 'joy' and general avoidance of harm.

clyde wrote: I don’t know whether an animal experiences stress, but if some animals experience fear, then I would answer: Yes, I think some animals experience stress.

So the ability to experience a sensation in a body, you relate to the degree of experience of stress? It seems you are saying here the same thing as I was, that is: to the degree one experiences, or becomes aware and attaches to that awareness by means of memory, to the same degree stress from the inescapable duality will be experienced with it: pleasure/pain, joy/sadness, satisfaction/desire.

clyde wrote:I agree that suffering is not an “object” like a chair, but it must be quantifiable (like pain for example).

Pain is not quantifiable. A certain neurological signal which likely stands in relation to what people experience as pain might be quantifiable but that signal is only one element of the experience. Some organisms including humans, might actually process the very same signal for different experiences under different circumstances.

clyde wrote:Previously you wrote, “suffering has to increase to get rid of delusion”? How would you know that suffering has increased, if it is not quantifiable?

Once it's realized what suffering really is, and what it's not, and its causes are known then it becomes finally possible to think in terms of increase, decrease and cessation in the right context.

clyde wrote:I used the terms “distress” (note the ‘dis-stress’) and “disease” (note the ‘dis-ease’) to keep within the metaphor. I could have written, “a wise doctor recommends medicine that may initially cause the patient suffering, but ultimately cures the cause of suffering. Such a wise doctor is practicing “do no harm”.”

In my view it's not wise to equal "distress", "disease" and "suffering" or even hint at this. Ease/disease, stress/distress are all part of the suffering. Practicing being happy or not being happy would be equally unwise.

clyde wrote:But not all of us are enlightened and the unenlightened are not likely to be enlightened overnight. So what are we to do? Well there are all kinds of practices that one can do to enlighten oneself and others. But while that is happening we are still acting in the world. So what are we to do?

Teach only the root of ignorance, not yet another morality even while it might be perceived as some universal "law".

clyde wrote:On a practical level “do no harm” is the practice of “thoughtful consideration” (which requires the exercise of attention, understanding and empathy) applied to one’s actions in the world. This has the benefit of contributing to a more hospitable world.

But you fail to demonstrate a clear relation between harm and consideration (since we established harm could be just as easily inflicted out of thoughtful consideration as well). It's also not clear how a "hospitable" world arises when changing the level of harm. Unless one equals harm with any decrease in the probability of self-preservation (Spinoza's "sorrow"). But you have brought terms like "mean' and "pain" and "damaging the environment" into it which have in themselves not any clear relation to self-preservation or preservation of the human race, or life and wisdom itself for that matter.

clyde wrote:So, will you promote “do no harm”?

Life does not need promoting, nor does it needs demoting. Consciousness encourages its own development, evolution - that is essentially: conflict, deeper understanding exposing the contradictions that our half-baked awareness generates each sleeping moment.

Diebert;

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:Let me turn your question around: Why would one cause unnecessary harm; i.e., suffering that did not lead to liberation? If one action causes unnecessary harm and another action avoids unnecessary harm, I would act to minimize suffering by choosing the action that avoids unnecessary harm. How would you act?

The moment one introduces such relative and moral qualification of 'harm': a necessary kind and an unnecessary kind, one is effectively devaluing the proposed phrase 'do no harm'. Because the matter now becomes to determine what is necessary, what is "free will" and what is self-determination. And this even before one has addressed the deeper realities that bring about the experience of 'harm' itself that are ignored by just advertising avoidance of it.

I agree that introducing any a qualifier has the apparent effect of devaluing the precept “do no harm”. I can, for purposes of communicating, accept such terms as "necessary harm" (which may be compared to the harm caused by a doctor administering bitter medicine) and "unnecessary harm" (caused by actions and communications based on ignorance of our true nature) because I believe such concepts benefit human beings. Also, the point of the message “do no harm” is not to ignore our experience of suffering, but to act with attention, understanding and empathy (in other words: with mindfulness, wisdom and compassion). In the end, I believe our disagreement here is that you see “do no harm” as a detour and I see it as a path.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:Also, your question assumes that I have a rather short-sighted view, as if I was proposing that one minimize suffering now even if it causes greater suffering in the future. But I have not taken that position and have repeatedly stated otherwise. So why do you continue to characterize my position in that way?

Your view seems to revolve around 'minimizing suffering', targeting mainly its negative connotations, while mine is about halting the underlying process, encompassing the whole duality of it. The views seem worlds apart.

“Do no harm” is not a view; it is a path for human beings and a way to relate to the universe. I think our views of the nature of the reality are similar.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:I agree with your first sentence, “But without awareness it won't be perceived, let alone its causes understood and certainly never halted.” Perceiving something (in this case, suffering) is not the cause of its existence.

But it's undeniable that perception is an important condition for awareness. So it can be called a cause. It's important to understand this because it makes one realize that decreasing consciousness will decrease awareness of the existential reality of life and its suffering. So one will find that people will often take this road (of decreasing awareness) as a way to 'joy' and general avoidance of harm.

OK, so some people do. What’s your point?

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

Diebert;

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:I don’t know whether an animal experiences stress, but if some animals experience fear, then I would answer: Yes, I think some animals experience stress.

So the ability to experience a sensation in a body, you relate to the degree of experience of stress? It seems you are saying here the same thing as I was, that is: to the degree one experiences, or becomes aware and attaches to that awareness by means of memory, to the same degree stress from the inescapable duality will be experienced with it: pleasure/pain, joy/sadness, satisfaction/desire.

clyde wrote:I agree that suffering is not an “object” like a chair, but it must be quantifiable (like pain for example).

Pain is not quantifiable. A certain neurological signal which likely stands in relation to what people experience as pain might be quantifiable but that signal is only one element of the experience. Some organisms including humans, might actually process the very same signal for different experiences under different circumstances.

clyde wrote:Previously you wrote, “suffering has to increase to get rid of delusion”? How would you know that suffering has increased, if it is not quantifiable?

Once it's realized what suffering really is, and what it's not, and its causes are known then it becomes finally possible to think in terms of increase, decrease and cessation in the right context.

We don’t need any special realization to know what gives us more pleasure or more pain.

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

I'm not sure that's really true. People gain a great deal of "pleasure" (i.e. egotistical benefit) from bad feelings and they have no conscious understanding of the fact.

Sublimated Will to Power = happiness.

Dan;

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm not sure that's really true. People gain a great deal of "pleasure" (i.e. egotistical benefit) from bad feelings and they have no conscious understanding of the fact.

Yes, some people do gain pleasure from bad feelings and aren’t aware of that, but they know when they are feeling pleasure or pain.

Dan Rowden wrote:Sublimated Will to Power = happiness.

I don’t understand your meaning. Can you elaborate and explain what you mean by “Will to Power” and how and in what ways may it be sublimated?

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

Diebert;

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:I used the terms “distress” (note the ‘dis-stress’) and “disease” (note the ‘dis-ease’) to keep within the metaphor. I could have written, “a wise doctor recommends medicine that may initially cause the patient suffering, but ultimately cures the cause of suffering. Such a wise doctor is practicing “do no harm”.”

In my view it's not wise to equal "distress", "disease" and "suffering" or even hint at this. Ease/disease, stress/distress are all part of the suffering. Practicing being happy or not being happy would be equally unwise.

clyde wrote:But not all of us are enlightened and the unenlightened are not likely to be enlightened overnight. So what are we to do? Well there are all kinds of practices that one can do to enlighten oneself and others. But while that is happening we are still acting in the world. So what are we to do?

Teach only the root of ignorance, not yet another morality even while it might be perceived as some universal "law".

Is your world so small that there isn’t room enough for both?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:On a practical level “do no harm” is the practice of “thoughtful consideration” (which requires the exercise of attention, understanding and empathy) applied to one’s actions in the world. This has the benefit of contributing to a more hospitable world.

But you fail to demonstrate a clear relation between harm and consideration (since we established harm could be just as easily inflicted out of thoughtful consideration as well). It's also not clear how a "hospitable" world arises when changing the level of harm. Unless one equals harm with any decrease in the probability of self-preservation (Spinoza's "sorrow"). But you have brought terms like "mean' and "pain" and "damaging the environment" into it which have in themselves not any clear relation to self-preservation or preservation of the human race, or life and wisdom itself for that matter.

The relationship is through us, human beings who know what suffering is, can imagine another’s suffering, and can act accordingly. Human beings know ease and unease and those who do harm create unease while those who “do no harm” allow the natural state of ease to appear and be experienced.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:So, will you promote “do no harm”?

Life does not need promoting, nor does it needs demoting. Consciousness encourages its own development, evolution - that is essentially: conflict, deeper understanding exposing the contradictions that our half-baked awareness generates each sleeping moment.

You did not answer. But thank you, I am appreciating this exchange.

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

.


clyde, for what it's worth, I've watched this entire exchange with Diebert and others since its inception and want to tell you (before I have to take off again), first, it has been one of the better, deeper discussions going on here [thanks to Diebert as well); secondly, your response to the various levels of intellectual address to this has been effective and impressive in its ability to flex this-way-and-that; thirdly, if deceived and dubious at first of the platitudinous nature of the phrase, you have shown [me] well its depth of character as well as the depth of character of yourself. I appreciate your work and unflappable patience, not to mention the value of this phrase.

.

Pye;

Thank you for your kind and encouraging words.

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

clyde wrote: Also, the point of the message “do no harm” is not to ignore our experience of suffering, but to act with attention, understanding and empathy (in other words: with mindfulness, wisdom and compassion). In the end, I believe our disagreement here is that you see “do no harm” as a detour and I see it as a path.

Not as much a detour. I regard the phrase "do ho harm" as misleading and therefore, when looking at the purpose it is supposed to serve, that is: a possible path, it becomes something to be dismissed altogether. Of course we can glue any process to almost any phrase and claim that it serves mindfulness in some meditative way because of all the associations it brings with it when attention is given. But that seems besides the point.

clyde wrote: “Do no harm” is not a view; it is a path for human beings and a way to relate to the universe. I think our views of the nature of the reality are similar.

If our views would be as close as you suggest, I wonder why we cannot agree on the validity of such a simple and fundamental phrasing. Perhaps because our agreement is superficial and the distance more fundamental?

clyde wrote:

Diebert wrote: So one will find that people will often take this road (of decreasing awareness) as a way to 'joy' and general avoidance of harm.

OK, so some people do. What’s your point?

There doesn't seem to be much between "do no harm" and "avoid harm". What I tried to show with this is how "do no harm" has more chance to lead to decreasing awareness than it would lead to increase of awareness, mindfulness and wisdom.

clyde wrote:We don’t need any special realization to know what gives us more pleasure or more pain.

But the realization however is to understand how both pleasure and pain are attachments that form the suffering. This insight doesn't come automatically during the experiencing of what we classify, on a rather individual and short-sighted basis, as personal pleasure or pain. Actually it rather distracts from the insight.

clyde wrote:

diebert wrote:Teach only the root of ignorance, not yet another morality even while it might be perceived as some universal "law".

Is your world so small that there isn’t room enough for both?

Obviously there's room but that doesn't automatically mean they are both working toward the same goal, yes, even in case of 'beginners'. If one already starts slightly off-course how much more difficult it becomes later to get back on the narrow path? Something is right on target including from any 'higher' or 'ultimate' perspective, or it's not at all and it becomes close to being meaningless.

clyde wrote:Human beings know ease and unease and those who do harm create unease while those who “do no harm” allow the natural state of ease to appear and be experienced.

A natural state of ease. How would you argue this to be something not being caught up in the wheel of duality, like pain and pleasure? Anyway, I cannot agree with you saying that 'human beings know unease'. Even the tensions commonly called 'stress' or 'anxiety' are mostly hidden out of view. How can you suggest people 'know' it without a certain level of awareness that has to be in place?

clyde wrote:Would you promote "do no harm"

Diebert wrote:Life does not need promoting, nor does it needs demoting. Consciousness encourages its own development, evolution - that is essentially: conflict, deeper understanding exposing the contradictions that our half-baked awareness generates each sleeping moment.

clyde wrote:You did not answer. But thank you, I am appreciating this exchange.

Well, it attempted to summarize most of what I had written before but I can understand it's not an answer you are looking for right now.

Diebert;

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote: Also, the point of the message “do no harm” is not to ignore our experience of suffering, but to act with attention, understanding and empathy (in other words: with mindfulness, wisdom and compassion). In the end, I believe our disagreement here is that you see “do no harm” as a detour and I see it as a path.

Not as much a detour. I regard the phrase "do ho harm" as misleading and therefore, when looking at the purpose it is supposed to serve, that is: a possible path, it becomes something to be dismissed altogether. Of course we can glue any process to almost any phrase and claim that it serves mindfulness in some meditative way because of all the associations it brings with it when attention is given. But that seems besides the point.

I don’t know what subtle difference you see between a detour and misleading, but I believe your point is that “do no harm” does not support a path (to awakening, enlightenment, and liberation). I disagree and so do others. Here, for example, is what the Buddha, whom many regard as having been an enlightened human being, is reported to have taught:

The non-doing of any evil,
the performance of what's skillful,
the cleansing of one's own mind:
this is the teaching of the Awakened.
-- verse 183 from the Dhammapada XIV
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#dhp-183)

According to Access to Insight, “Verse 183 is traditionally viewed as expressing the heart of the Buddha's teachings.”

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote: “Do no harm” is not a view; it is a path for human beings and a way to relate to the universe. I think our views of the nature of the reality are similar.

If our views would be as close as you suggest, I wonder why we cannot agree on the validity of such a simple and fundamental phrasing. Perhaps because our agreement is superficial and the distance more fundamental?

I don’t believe that is the case. My understanding, based on reading your posts in this thread, is that your view is non-dualistic and ignorance is the root cause of suffering. If that is so, then we agree on those fundamentals.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:

Diebert wrote: So one will find that people will often take this road (of decreasing awareness) as a way to 'joy' and general avoidance of harm.

OK, so some people do. What’s your point?

There doesn't seem to be much between "do no harm" and "avoid harm". What I tried to show with this is how "do no harm" has more chance to lead to decreasing awareness than it would lead to increase of awareness, mindfulness and wisdom.

“Do no harm” is a precept regarding one’s actions and the effect one’s actions have on others while “avoid harm” is about self-protection. The former focuses our attention on our inter-relatedness with others and the world while the later leads to withdrawal from others and the world. These seem quite different to me with “do no harm” requiring an increase of mindfulness and the later not.

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