The Buddhist bane of social obligation

[Loren Booda]

Buddhists consider "social duty" a sin, antithetical to acts of compassion toward others. Do you find this position somewhat contradictory, a koan of sorts? Is the crux here actually between selfishness and selflessness?

 

[Jikx]

I'm not sure what you mean... but doing your 'social duty' seems like you are doing the act, not out of compassion for the cause, but because you must.

Is this sort of like the difference between someone saying "It is my duty to do so", and another saying "I want to do so" ?

 

[Polly]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Buddhists consider "social duty" a sin, antithetical to acts of compassion toward others.

Hello Booda,
Would you tell me the reference? Because I don't seem to have ever come across such a view.
Regards,
Polly

 

[Canute]

Nor me.

 

[Tiberius1701]

I too have not heard of this position, but admit I'm not an expert on Buddhism by any means. But as for doing good deeds out of compassion vs. social duty I have some thoughts...

It seems to me that the ideal would be that individuals do good out of having a good character. But there is a functional purpose for humanity as to why we want "good" deeds to be done in general. And, given that individuals vary in their level of "good character" then it is important for society to reinforce the value of certain behaviors through concepts such as "duty". This presents a net of sorts for those who may be lacking in personal character and increases the likelihood of such people doing good. So, it's good for society. Secondly, it also shows by example that this is something important and children need to see that example growing up. Later as they mature, such duties become "internalized" by properly maturing people and at that point take on more of a personal meaning.

In fact, I'd say that the position of being against "moral duty" is itself a red herring. Because when you think about how such a child would be raised in that system, they would simply being saying in effect that it is your "duty" not to do things out of duty but out of compassion. This is true, and incidentally happens to reinforce the importance of the concept of duty as well - funny.

 

[Loren Booda]

Maybe "social conformity" is one of five or six cardinal sins in Buddhism? I can't recall the source.

 

[Royce]

Just as a good person with good thinking does not need laws, regulations or commandments to do good a good person with right thinking does not do good because of duty but because it is the natural thing that s/he would do. It is not a matter of even doing good for goods sake but a good person will always do good or the right thing naturally without thought or purpose. In a very real sense s/he would have no choice in the matter as to do other than good would be unnatural or uncharacteristic.
Being and doing what is and comes naturally without thought or purpose is the "goal" of the Buddhist. As a true Buddhist is good and has good thinking all of the time it is only natural that s/he would do good with or without duty or law.
Being compelled to act a certain way for whatever reason is the bain of Buddhist as it should be for all of us.
I don't know the source of this either but this is my understanding of it.

 

[Canute]

Nice post.

The source of this sense of right behaviour is purported or affirmed to be a certain knowledge of the truth about who we really are. This truth is said to entail a way of being and behaving. Whether this is true I suppose everyone has to decide for themself.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Canute
Nice post.

The source of this sense of right behavior is purported or affirmed to be a certain knowledge of the truth about who we really are. This truth is said to entail a way of being and behaving. Whether this is true I suppose everyone has to decide for them self.

Thanks,
According to Buddhist teaching once one reaches enlightenment there is no behaving or acting only being. One is who s/he is and simply does without thought or purpose as all actions would be being true to ones self and ones being.
There is of course varying degrees of enlightenment along the way and at first it is a matter of self discipline in controlling ones thoughts and actions until they become habit and natural. This is supposedly changing ones self as one gains in enlightenment and grows toward knowing and becoming one with the Buddha within, of becoming and being one's true self.
There are of course as many ways to this enlightenment as there are Buddhists sects and in my opinion religions in the world. Buddhism is just one way. I have found that virtually every major and a lot of minor religions use and encourage meditation to achieve the same thing which amounts to enlightenment, inner peace, knowledge of ones true self and become one within with this true self that some Christians believe to be their soul or the spirit of God.
My point being that, like golf, what ever works for you is the right way for you.

 

[Loren Booda]

Actually, according to Joseph Campbell, the Buddha underwent three temptations, one of which was social duty ("doing what you are told").

 

[Canute]

Thanks,
According to Buddhist teaching once one reaches enlightenment there is no behaving or acting only being.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it. With enlightenment comes a particular kind of behaviour, derived from the truths which enlightenment reveals.

 

[TENYEARS]

Yes and no. In the moment of giving it may or may not have been born out of a response to give which may or may not been influenced by a social mandate, but like buddism itself, it can lead to a deadening form life perception. This can be true of any social formation or preset acts toward a predetermined end. If the mind of the individual exists where it is when it is, it is satisfied. If it is not, would it be satisfied even if there was none, if you can answer this question, lighting will move in slow motion for you.

 

[Canute]

Sorry - don't understand that.

 

[Scott Sieger]

From what I understand Buddhism is mostly about seeing through the fog of subjective existence and seek and become an objective existence. To behold and be rather than to see your own reflected subjective image but the objective image of yourself being that of the entire universe.

Of course like all theosophies it can become restricted by traditional and cultural ideologies that can prove counter productive to the ideal. Thus "throwing off" of the societal responsibilities is part of "purifying" the path by reducing the distractions that normal life present.

Material possessions, money, social duty, lust, even personal loves, comforts, or anything that distracts from the objective ideal...

This is my take on it anyway...

 

[Royce]

I think that's the wrong way to look at it. With enlightenment comes a particular kind of behaviour, derived from the truths which enlightenment reveals.

Our understandings are different. It may be merely semantics. One of the aspects of enlightenment is living in the moment. Behavior is usually considered learned or in a sense contrived or influenced by the past and therefore may not be relevant or appropriate to the moment.

Being in the moment is free of these restraints or learning and an enlightened person does whatever is appropriate for the situation of the moment. This is not considered behaving or acting but more in line with reacting to the reality of the moment.

This is why social obligation is the bane of buddhism. It is not free, unconstrained, unihibited action in the moment. Social obligations makes one a slave to its society. Society's demands reduces our freedom, the more severe and strict the demands the more our freedom is reduced and the less we are allowed or able to be ourselves, being, in the moment. Some societies demand all, everything, from its members and they are thus literally slaves to their society.

 

[Royce]

From what I understand Buddhism is mostly about seeing through the fog of subjective existence and seek and become an objective existence. To behold and be rather than to see your own reflected subjective image but the objective image of yourself being that of the entire universe.

This is my take on it anyway...

Again I may be disagreeing only with your choice of words or semantics.
If by objective existence you mean physical material existence then I could not disagree more as the Buddhist think that the objective material universe is the illusion and subjective, and to some the spiritual, reality is the true reality. As to the being one with and of the entire universe you are IMHO correct.

I have yet to figure out how Buddhist can believe the above yet not believe in spirit or soul. It is possible that they simply do not address it and refuse to discuss it as it is not relevant to living life in the moment on this world.

 

[Canute]

Our understandings are different. It may be merely semantics. One of the aspects of enlightenment is living in the moment. Behavior is usually considered learned or in a sense contrived or influenced by the past and therefore may not be relevant or appropriate to the moment.

Being in the moment is free of these restraints or learning and an enlightened person does whatever is appropriate for the situation of the moment. This is not considered behaving or acting but more in line with reacting to the reality of the moment.

This is why social obligation is the bane of buddhism. It is not free, unconstrained, unihibited action in the moment. Social obligations makes one a slave to its society. Society's demands reduces our freedom, the more severe and strict the demands the more our freedom is reduced and the less we are allowed or able to be ourselves, being, in the moment. Some societies demand all, everything, from its members and they are thus literally slaves to their society.

There's some truth in that, but it is an oversimplification. If you notice Buddhists do not ignore their social obligations.

 

[TENYEARS]

Our present society demands in a subtle way, a conditioning way, a relentless way. We are all part of the system of destruction, the walls are a mile high, is there a way out? We need not worry of weapons of mass destruction, the structure and fuctioning of modern day soceity all ready has all the components.

 

[Scott Sieger]

TENYEARS,

WE all have at our fingertips the ability to destroy, to deconstruct, to kill, to mutilate, to disintergrate, we also have the ability to create, to improve, to enhance and to transcend...It is up to you which ability you wish to employ.

The fact is "it is a hell of a lot easier to destroy something than to create something"

It takes centuries to build a city and less than 5 seconds to destroy it.

 

[to_son]

Again I may be disagreeing only with your choice of words or semantics.
If by objective existence you mean physical material existence then I could not disagree more as the Buddhist think that the objective material universe is the illusion and subjective, and to some the spiritual, reality is the true reality. As to the being one with and of the entire universe you are IMHO correct.

I have yet to figure out how Buddhist can believe the above yet not believe in spirit or soul. It is possible that they simply do not address it and refuse to discuss it as it is not relevant to living life in the moment on this world.

I don't think it's right to say they are illusions as such... Because, they exist kinda...- But what Buddhists try to do is to grasp their true nature...

Like, for example (in reference to no spirit), we are told that what we perceive to be "self" (soul/spirit) is in fact composed of something called the Five Aggregates... None of these aggregates along constitute a self, but their combination results in a perceived-self...

Think of it like... a book... You have basically, atoms and bonds... lots of them too.. No single atom by itself, can be said to be a/the book... but putting them all together, you get something that we do call a "book"

My two cents.. =)

 

[Canute]

Royce - I have yet to figure out how Buddhist can believe the above yet not believe in spirit or soul. It is possible that they simply do not address it and refuse to discuss it as it is not relevant to living life in the moment on this world.

Just to add to what To Son said - What Buddhists think about 'soul' and 'spirit' depends on how you define the terms. They are such central concepts in Christianity (as currently taught) that the terms have come to have a Christian meaning. By this meaning Buddhists (and other non-dual doctrines) deny them (more or less). However if you define 'spirit' or 'soul' as ones core of Being then there's less of a problem.

 

[Royce]

Just to add to what To Son said - What Buddhists think about 'soul' and 'spirit' depends on how you define the terms. They are such central concepts in Christianity (as currently taught) that the terms have come to have a Christian meaning. By this meaning Buddhists (and other non-dual doctrines) deny them (more or less). However if you define 'spirit' or 'soul' as ones core of Being then there's less of a problem.

A number of Christian denominations do not believe in a spiritual soul nor do Jews. Yes, I was referring to soul as the core of one's being. As for being over simplified I was simply answering Loren's question that started this thread with my understanding of Buddhism.

I have often wondered how most Buddhist can believe in reincarnation yet not believe in our soul. I consider myself a Christian Zen Buddhist or at least a student of this and have not differentiated between ones core of being and ones soul. To me they are the same thing.

 

[to_son]

I have often wondered how most Buddhist can believe in reincarnation yet not believe in our soul. I consider myself a Christian Zen Buddhist or at least a student of this and have not differentiated between ones core of being and ones soul. To me they are the same thing.

We don't... Because in the first place, there isn't a soul to start with... I think what you might be talking about is the "transmigration" of karmic energy from one lifeform to the next, after the former dies...

I might take a moment actually, to try explain this... Buddhists deny the existence of a soul, as we do not believe that a permanent, unchanging identity exists. So, what passes from lifeform to lifeform isn't a soul..

It's actually very difficult to simplify this... and to try to give a brief explanation wouldn't do justice to the problem and will result in more confusion...

I might suggest reading up on Karma though... because rebirth is related to that...

 

[Scott Sieger]

I think I read somewhere that what the buddhist refer to is more a personality string, an essential aspect of the "soul"; the aspect that identifies your uniqueness...

 

[TENYEARS]

In order to become enlightened, you must pass the boundry of the above posts. Reding or believing will not suffice. That bounry will be on the edge of the abyss.

 

[Polly]

Part 1 of 2

Greetings, very glad to be amongst old friends and new friends. I happen to have a copy of the book Consciousness At The Crossroads Conversation with The Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism (ISBN 1-55939-127-8) in which HHDL discussed consciousness with leading philosophers, neuroscientists and psychiatrists. The following paragraphs (P. 37-47) seem pertinent to the discussion.

HHDL: There are a great many varieties of awareness, and degrees and qualities of consciousness. Some, which are of a grosser nature, are entirely dependent on the brain. In respect of them, unless the brain functions, these grosser mental experience will not occur.
...
According to Buddhist theory, there are some things that belong to subtle consciousness, or subtle mind, that are independent from the body, from the brain. There is no assertion in Buddhism that there is a thing called a soul or a thing called consciousness, some thing that exists independently of the brain. There is no such thing existing independently of the brain or being dependent upon the brain. But rather, consciousness is understood as a multifaceted matrix of events. Some of them are utterly dependent on the brain, and, at the other end of the spectrum, some of them are completely independent of the brain. There is no one thing that is the mind or soul.

I am uncertain about Buddhist philosophy or psychology here in terms of the relation between the brain and the body. Although in the traditional Buddhist context there is no specific reference to brain in respect to conceptual thinking, there is reference to the physical activities, faculties and organs involved in perception. Vision is understood to be a subtle form of matter which is in the eye, but I don't know of a specific reference, apart from the eye, for connections back and forth with the brain.

There is a distinction between sensory awareness and mental awareness, and in terms of mental awareness, there is conceptual as well as non-conceptual mental awareness. And certainly it is a fundamental theory of Buddhism that there is disparity between appearances and reality.

So what criticism do you have of the position I have outlined here?

Allan Hobson: I would like to respond directly to the stated theory. I would say the claim that the part of mentation which is independent of the brain is "subtle" is a function of our ignorance of the subtlety of the brain.

HHDL: When we speak of mental awareness, it does not always refers only to the subtle awareness. From the time of conception to the time of death, the body is obviously functioning in some way, but when the body ceases to function as a body, there is still a very subtle form of consciousness and that is independent of the body. The fact that the body is able to act as a basis of mental events is dependent on the pre-existence of a subtle form of consciousness.

What you call consciousness has its basis in a subtle type of awareness. There is a capacity for awareness, a kind of luminosity which is of the nature of awareness itself, which must arise from a preceding moment of awareness. In other words, there is a continuum of awareness that does not itself arise from the brain. This basis capacity exists right from the initial formation of the conceptus, prior to the formation of the brain itself.

Allan Hobson: Western science would obviously not agree with that part of Buddhist theory. We would assume that conscious awareness arises at some stage during brain development, when there are enough neurons with elaborate enough connections to support consciousness activity. We would hold that there is no prior consciousness. Consciousness, therefore, is not infinite in our view. It originates in brains, and it is essentiallly expandable according to the number of brains that have been sufficiently evolved biologically.
...
Allan Hobson: What is the evidence, from your perspective, that subtle aspects of consciousness are independent of the brain? That's one question. A second question is: Are you really sure about this?

(To be continued)

 

[Polly]

Part 2 of 2

HHDL: When this world initially formed, there seem to have been two types of events or entities, one sentient, the other insentient. Rocks and plants, for instance, are examples of non-sentient entities. You see, we usually consider them to have no feelings: no pains and no pleasures. The other type, sentient beings, have awareness, consciousness, pains and pleasures.

But there needs to be a cause for that. If you posit there is no cause for consciousness, then this leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and logical problems. So, the cause is posited, established. It is considered certain.

The initial cause must be an independent consciousness. And on that basis is asserted the theory of continuation of life after death. It is during the interval when one's continuum of awareness departs from one's body at death that the subtle mind, the subtle consciousness, becomes manifest. That continuum connects one life with the next.

At this moment, we are using the sense organs at the grosser level; then when we are dreaming, a deeper level of consciousness manifests itself. Then beyond this there is deep sleep without dreaming, with a still deeper level of consciousness;

On some occasions, people faint. Even when your breath temporarily stops, during that moment, there is a reduced level of consciousness. Consciousness is most reduced late in the course of dying. Even after all physical functions cease, we believe that the "I", or "self", still exists. Similarly, just at the beginning of life, there must be a subtle form of consciousness to account for the emergence of consciousness in the individual.

We must explore further the point at which consciousness enters into a physical location. At conception, the moment when and the site where consciousness interacts with the fertilized egg is something to be discovered, although there are some reference to this in the texts. The Buddhist scriptures do deal with it, but I am interested to see what science has to say about this. During this period we believe that without the subtle consciousness, there would be a life beginning without consciousness. If that were the case then no no could ever recollect experience from their past life. It is also in terms of Buddhist beliefs relating to this topic that Buddhism expounds its theory of cosmology: how the universe began and how it later generates.

Based on this metaphysical reasoning and other arguments, and based on the testimony of individual who are able to recollect their experiences in past lives very vividly, Buddhists make this claim. I am a practitioner, so based on my own limited experiences, and the experiences of my friends, I cannot say with one hundred percent certainty that there is a subtle consciousness.

You scientists don't posit consciousness in the same sense that Buddhist do. At the moment of conception, however, there has to be something that prevents the sperm and egg from simply rotting, and causes it to grow into a human being. When does that occur? Why does that occur?

Antonio Damasio: Biological properties...

Patricia Churchland: Of the cell and DNA. It is an important problem, but it has an explanation that we now understand. It requires no special forces, no supernatural process, no ghostly interventions.

 

[TENYEARS]

Why do you all quote meaningless crap? It is crap you know true or untrue. What we are a witness to is the only thing that counts, for in that can real change occur, for in that real knowledge transfer from our actions from our words, from our joys and from our pain. Run the other way, in this place you will neither be able to speak or shut your mouth. Many want to enter, but no one wants to pay the price.

 

[Polly]

We all have to start somewhere, and I think it is a bit unkind to hold back onto something I have at hand knowing that people could be plagued/tormented by the question. I admit that intellectual contemplation is not the best way to attain the truth, but the way I see it knowing a bit more about the philosophical basis would not hurt.

Alright if you must know what I believe in, and yes I guess I have been tiptoeing around for long enough now, I think people, intellectual contemplation will not help you attain the truth. Compassion is the key, live it out and you will be able to purify your karma and therefore what you see. Live it out and you will have wisdom, live it out and you will have peace in your mind and in the relationship you have with others. Live it out and you will be able to invoke all the gods and enlist all the help you need. Live it out and you will have all sorts transcendental experience.

Compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion, I cannot say it enough.

 

[to_son]

Alright if you must know what I believe in, and yes I guess I have been tiptoeing around for long enough now, I think people, intellectual contemplation will not help you attain the truth. Compassion is the key, live it out and you will be able to purify your karma and therefore what you see. Live it out and you will have wisdom, live it out and you will have peace in your mind and in the relationship you have with others. Live it out and you will be able to invoke all the gods and enlist all the help you need. Live it out and you will have all sorts transcendental experience.

Compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion, I cannot say it enough.

Compassion yes... but that alone will not get you the truth.
I think in Buddhism it's called Insight... developing Insight. It's different to logical reasoning, or like... um, sitting down and pondering a topic. That won't get you very far... But Insight is more, like discovering the truth yourself.

A point on Karma... developing good karma and not bad karm is beneficial to one, because, it may (although not necessarily always) place you in a position that is more favourable to developing this Insight...

 

[Canute]

Polly

Thanks for the extract. I've got the book it but forgot what it said. Ignore TenYears' insults. (In that book I felt the HHDL sounded a lot more plausible than the scientists at the meeting, who just waffle techno-babble if I remember right).

I agree with ToSon that compassion is not the same as insight. I suspect that insight is knowing the cosmological reasons for practicing compassion.

As to subtle consiousness beyond brain I feel it has to be the case. The 'problem of consciousness' seems insolvable otherwise. As I may have already said (getting my threads muddled), the problem is such that even a 'scientific' philosopher like Colin McGinn now argues that consciousness may have originated in a pre-spatial reality prior to the BB.

Jesus said: "If the flesh was produced because of of the spirit, it is a wonder. But if the spirit was produced because of the body, it is a wonderous wonder." Gospel of Thomas

 

[Polly]

Thank you. I received my first lesson from Ivan Seeking on egolessness when I first bummed into the forum two months ago, and now I thank Tenyears for his chastising lesson on selflessness. Everything happens for the best.

Yes I am sure you and To Son are right about Insight. It was just that you being a super intelligent lot I never felt it necessary to point out what you all have been doing so well .

 

[TENYEARS]

Polly, if you think anyone on this forum is super intelligent you are lost. If you think anyone ont his forum is not are you are still lost. The truth will come from within you around you. To think is good, and to think with single hearted desire is what creates the vacuum for the truth to be experienced. To hell with all authors if what you have is belief, but if your path is different, who am I to say it cannot be found in this way. There are many spokes to the hubless hub. Find your true way and when you are high on life, close all the doors and accept nothing but the truth. The truth will show itself.

 

[Polly]

Thank you Tenyears. I shall not pretend I fully understand what you are talking about but this is what I felt. I take stock of my spiritual development every now and then. Just when I was getting a bit disapointed with the progress in the past two months, I got you! Thank you. What you said was shattering, I was red and shaken while and after reading it, but it advanced me some lengths ahead. There is no Polly, no Tenyears, no Ole Drunk and yes no Canute. I do need to have that realisation hit hard on my head every 3 minutes, every one minute. What To Son said about the aggregates was also a power reminder.

I shall remind you as I constantly remind myself. Be patient, be patient, we are all in the process of getting there, all in the course of getting there. Be patient.

 

[Canute]

Polly

Have you read any Thomas Merton or Agnes Martin?