Expert: Joe McSorley - 6/29/2008

Question
QUESTION: I'm not a Buddhist, and forgive me, but my knowledge of Buddhism is rather limited. I was wondering, if the goal of Buddhism is to go beyond the man-made ideas of good and evil, where does moral decisions come into play? and how do you decide what your doing is the most beneficial to all parties (keeping in mind the consequences of your actions)?

Hope that makes sense, thanks!

Abe

ANSWER: Dear Abe,
 Thank you for your question.  The goal of Buddhism is to realize that our minds create an illusion of reality rather than to see true reality.  From here the goal is to overcome that dualism or schism that our everyday mind creates.  We live in a world of relativity where we only know things as opposed to one another.  We know darkness as the opposite of life and good as opposed to evil.  We do not know things as they are but only know them in opposition or relative to their opposite.  We don’t know anything as it is to itself.  In fact, the idea to know something automatically means that it stands apart from us to be known; it is the separation of that which is known and that which perceives it.  So from this standpoint all that we know is a relativistic dichotomy.  A tree is a tree because it is not a rock or my car, etc. but we never know it as a tree itself.  There is always this separation and Buddhism seeks to remove this split from the mind.  
   When we talk about morality we make the assumption of what morality is and that it has some universal definition for all people at all times.  This is a topic that would take a book to fill but here is a good essay on it: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
 When we try to confine that definition to one time and place or one source we often have great conflicts.  For many Westerners the Bible is considered the source for moral conduct.  The problem here is that there is much conduct in the Bible that we would consider today to be immoral from Joshua’s genocide of the families of the armies he conquers, Moses admonishing his men because they didn’t take female slaves to the death penalty for taking the lord’s name in vain and not observing the Sabbath are examples of this.  Jesus casting the demons into the pigs and then casting them into the sea would not be accepted by the ASCPA today.  There are many moral and great writings in the Bible too, one of the greatest being  ‘ do unto others’ but the Buddhist concept would be ‘do unto all sentient beings’. So to find some universal definition of what morality is that is good for all rational people at all times is almost impossible.
  Nature does not have a morality but does what it does to promote life and the natural harmony.  Nature does not conform to a moral code but has its own rule and harmony that makes it work.  When this balance is lost there is disarray.  Animals do not kill more than they need to eat nor do they indiscriminately kill others of their own or other species.  Humans do this all the time.   Animals might seem to be more moral but in fact they are just doing what is right for their nature.  If a human reaches the point of realizing their true nature then they naturally see the ‘way’ or ‘tao’ of things.  Since they see themselves as an expression of all nature they then have compassion for all nature and act in a balanced and responsible way.  It is not that they are conforming to a rule but they are living the way of nature.  This natural way might be considered a morality but it is not a stated morality but a natural order of things.  Here you can do the right thing at the right time because it is necessary and not because you are holding to a particular custom or law.  When you realize the suffering of others as yourself you behave responsibly and compassionately because now it is your nature to do so from your source.
 I hope this has helped you.  Take care,
         Joe



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Joe,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. But I am still struggling with the idea of "natural" morality - or rather The idea of finding our "true nature" out the nature inherited by culture or society = which as you have stated is not harmonious (ie- killing for sport rather than for survival). It seems what comes natural to us is against harmony. It's easier to steal than to earn, it's easier lie than be honest, and so on. I have heard this best described as our "sin nature". So if this is not our "true nature" how do you decide the "Tao" of life without having a split mind to discern order vs. chaos, right vs. wrong. I understand animals and all other sentient act in harmony to nature but animals don't transcend their own consciousness. They don't have dreams of aspiring new thoughts, or traveling to distant lands or creating anything. So with this precious gift of self-realization, how do we find harmony without some moral absolute? How do we know killing and stealing is wrong if no one told us it was?
The point I'm trying to make, Joe, is how do find this "true reality" without opposition? I'm trying to understand how you can overcome the split when every action you make is either for or in opposition of something. I know this sounds very vague, but I just would like to know why Buddhism differs from Hinduism or Wicca which to my knowledge (and forgive my ignorance if I am wrong) follow the same principle.

Thank you again for your time,
Sincerely
Abe  

Answer
Dear Abe,
  Our inherited nature is not nature at all but a contrivance of cultural mores.  It is not our original nature but what a society does for its survival ahead of other societies.  So we are fundamentally broken from our true nature and an intrinsic knowledge of what is good for us.  Animals do not need to be told what is right for them or good for them, they just live that way.  That nature still exists within us but we don’t see it because it is blocked from the cognitive mind.  There have been things that people have figured out over the years of what is good or bad for them and passed that down as either law or religion.  They are also things passed down from the ancient past as moral law that are no longer relevant today.  I really don’t think for most people it is easier to steal or lie.  There have been several studies done about this and some people do have an innate proclivity towards these things but not most people.  Subconsciously we know it does not do good for ourselves and society.  Humans have been around long before the Bible was written and have had magnificent empires and civilizations.  What ever wrongs or horrors were committed by them are no different than post Bible societies.  The bloodshed in the name of the biblical God is no different than the bloodshed in the sun gods name.
  Another point for intrinsic consciousness is the few cases of feral children that have occurred throughout the world.  They somehow manage to live in nature without the guidance of any moral laws.  There was recently such a case in Vietnam where a young woman was discovered in the wild.  She had been lost as a small child and was found 20 years later as an adult woman and living fine.  She was taken back to civilization and last I read constantly wept because she wanted to return to the jungle.  They have to keep her shackled to stop her from returning.
 You hit a good point about being self-realized and then going beyond just the self to learn or explore our world.  It is this brokenness that creates us as individuals.  Our fall from nature is also our rise from nature.  We are nature seeking itself.  To overcome the split is not to be nothing but to realize yourself both as nature and an individual expression of nature simultaneously.  We are freed from the bonds of the ego yet still able to express nature through this form.
       D.T. Suzuki has the analogy of a wave on the ocean as symbolic of man’s sense of self.  A wave arises on the ocean and looks down and sees the ocean all around.  It says, “ I am know that I am because I am not the ocean nor am I all the other individual waves, I exist separate from them”.  It has separated itself from the ocean to know itself as an individual wave.  This separation actually creates the ‘self’; it is both an act and a fact of this separation.  Now it makes all its judgments as a separated self.  In this act it is also separated from itself, it knows that it is but not who it really is.  Now it tries to go outward to find itself but it cannot.  When it goes inward it is also problematic, why? Because the act of going inward is still the act of separating from the ocean to be able to go inward.  So this wave is alienated from itself, it’s surroundings and the ocean.  But the fact of the matter is, who is the wave fundamentally?  Is it the individual wave?  No, there’s really no such thing.  So who is looking for this awakening?  The fact is that the wave is really just a manifestation of the ocean; it never was separated in reality but only knew itself as separated.  It has to stop the ego process, the act of separating, in the hope that the ocean can rise up to see itself as both the wave and the ocean.  It is one hundred percent wave and one hundred percent ocean, not at any point ever separated.  The wave seeking the ocean/enlightenment/nirvana is the ocean seeking the wave.  When the breakthrough occurs it is not new or just starting but a realization of what always really was.  This is a non-dual duality.  Both itself as wave and ocean.  Pure non-dualism would have just been the ocean with a wave never arising.  We rise out of nature and now ourselves as separate from it but in fact we are nature in search of itself.
  The tools used to overcome this schism of self are generally the right practice of zazen, mindfulness or koan practice.  There are many ways to do it and they all essentially strive to stop the mental process of separation.
  I don’t know a lot about Wicca though I know two people who claim to be Wiccan priests.  My understanding is they are more pantheistic and do see an individual self.  As far as Hinduism goes there are parts of  Hinduism that are virtually identical with Buddhism.  The Atman Anatman non-dual dualism is clearly this.  Many of the writings of the Upanisads and Vedas are clearly talking about what Buddhism talks about and Buddhism was most likely influenced by these teachings.  The folk religion of the Hindus might not reflect this but the core of the philosophy does.
 Let me know if this has answered your question.
        Joe