Harry ji,
I accept your argument about aspiring, one has to be oneself, and find ones own centre, as a Sikh, this means stripping away the anger, the hate, the agitation through understanding rather than modelling.
Obviously I am no better than the average person in terms of accumulated tendency to kindness, morality and so on on and have no less hatred, greed, ignorance etc. In fact I have very strong attachments and get angry more easily than most people. And when I think about people like Bin Laden and Gadhafi, knowing myself, it is easy for me to imagine that I have been worse in past lifetimes and will likely be so in future ones. It just happens that the conditions in this lifetime have been such that this has not happened and probably will not.
But all this is to be expected, since change must happen very, very gradually. Indeed it has been compared to using a knife. One does not see how much the handle is worn away when observing one day after another, but only after a long time will you see that it has worn away a little. And according to the Buddha, the first step is the eradication of wrong understanding and doubt and with these, also miserliness and jealousy. And this is already aeons away for someone like me, not to mention anger, sensual desire, conceit, attachment to being and ignorance which are further down the road (although not long after). And what does this point to?
That if we think to fight sensuous attachments, conceit and anger we are in fact invariably encouraging them in other forms and towards other objects. The cause as well as what results is perversion of perception, of consciousness and of understanding. It is this latter which gives the impression not only that we should try to fight these vices, but also the illusion that we have had some success in lessening them.
So long as there is wrong understanding, other evils will not lessen one bit, in fact they are being encouraged in other forms, including to the very idea of being without particular ones. All this is the result of “attachment to self” and the illusion is due to the fact that wrong understanding feels right to the person who has it. It is also from not understanding that the root of the problem is not attachment, aversion and so on, but in fact “ignorance”.
The Buddha gave the example of a man trying to cross the flood (comparable to the flood of desire, aversion, and ignorance). If he strains, he is swept away. If he stands still, he sinks. The former is when for example, with wrong understanding we try to fight our vices, one obvious manifestation of which is asceticism. The other is when we indulge in them thinking that they are not harmful, as in hedonism. The Middle Way is that of understanding which sees the danger of all those mental phenomena and therefore also of any attachment to the idea of being without them. Hence the Path is that of understanding all the way through characterized by a corresponding level of detachment. In other words, a desire to be rid of attachment, aversion or conceit is to be replaced by detachment conditioned by the understanding that that these will lesson only by the gradual development of wisdom.
There are no shortcuts, therefore if you find yourself being attracted to some particular method to grow in morality and wisdom, this again must be due to a perversion of understanding. It is the same when we idealistically go out and try to be proactive in “doing good”, such as what we do in the name of Sewa. It all comes down to “attachment to self” and therefore must in the final analysis be all about me, mine and I. And this is not the way to enlightenment, but in fact more ignorance and more attachment.
I see Creator as a big brother who I would like to be more like, but through my own understanding not imitation. I have to accept that to want to be like someone else, even if it is Creator, is a dangerous path, one can only hope to be ones true self.
There is in Buddhism an object for the development of calm which is “reflection on the qualities of the Buddha”. But who can have such an object? Obviously only the one who does have the depth of understanding to see the true value of all those qualities? So what happens if some so called Buddhist tries to concentrate on what he thinks is a Buddha and the qualities that is possessed by such a one, but in fact is quite ignorant and does this with attachment? The result would be even more perversion of perception, consciousness and understanding would it not?
There is also the problem in thinking in terms of “persons” that this takes the attention away from the qualities themselves. So we risk ending up worshiping the person and this can't be good, can it?
I agree with your paragraph on miracles, I do not live to appease God in the hope of good things happening, I see God as quite detached from the world. I do not pray, or hope to catch a smile or a cheery nod, nor do I live in fear of a frown or a grimace, judgement comes through Creation.
You are probably being too confident. If he is up there somewhere, you will inadvertently every now and then; be seeking approval for your different acts. Just like what happens here, often we write and wonder if anyone will approve of it.
The Nihang/battle issue is murky, I think we may be at odds here, but I will concede that battles can be fought without hate and anger. I also accept that a valid contribution to a battle is to be a medic, the murkiness stems from my lack of belief in reincarnation.
But before reincarnation (rebirth), there must be belief in karma. So yes, I think this is one of the obstacles. In fact it has been pointed out as one of the main obstacles to the development of wisdom. But as I pointed out in our earlier discussions, this is not about blind acceptance, but about understanding. To not believe because one does not yet have the basis to do so is one thing, but to reject it altogether as a result of some wrong understanding about moral cause and effect, this is really harmful.
Ignorance is dark, but on hearing about the Truth a little light can occasionally come through. Wrong understanding on the other hand, is to be facing in a direction where darkness is seen as light, so how can one expect that any real light will ever come through?
Direction-normally I am at peace with myself and my surroundings, at present I feel like I am in a war zone.
We are all more or less in the same boat Harry ji. If I told you about my life, especially in light of what just happened last week, your hair will definitely stand on its ends. I am however encouraged by the fact that although there has been so much aversion (to the point of depression), understanding could still intermittently arise from time to time. But then again the problem is really our habit of thinking in terms of stories about self and other. If instead we could see things in terms of moment to moment experiences, the problems will not appear as such.
Your comments on Karma work well coupled with a belief in reincarnation, as I lack the belief in reincarnation, I cannot comment.
You have perhaps accumulated so many preconceptions about the one that this continues to be an obstacle to taking the first necessary step, namely that karma is about your experience “now”. The idea about future lives comes from understanding the nature of that which makes up your day to day experiences such as attachment, aversion, kindness, morality and so on.
I do not agree with the 'giving is always good'. When I give, I give my all, and am always let down. My wife has made the comment that firstly, I should never even expect a thank you, and secondly, I should never give so much that I am left with nothing, so I guess my idea of giving is flawed.
I am perceived by some people as the most generous person they personally know. This has put me and my family in a lot of financial trouble, so much so that I am now quite sure that I will not be able to pay for my children's college education and I fear this very much. I regret having helped all those people, but only to the extent that I did not at the time consider wisely. But was my giving bad, no, of course it wasn't. Indeed if I thought otherwise, not only will I not get my money back, I will have added more problems and much worse, namely aversion and wrong understanding.
I sense a philosophy of giving and loving and leaving the rest to Karma, is this correct?
Not really. Firstly is it about the development of understanding all the way through. This of course will include seeing the value of giving, kindness and so on, which by virtue of the very understanding are encouraged to arise.
And contrary to what some opponents of Karma think, understanding leads to less and less thinking about what the future will bring, (including what rebirth) but more the nature of the “cause” *now*.
However if one does not believe in Karma as you have defined, then the responsibility surely rests with the giver.
If this sense of responsibility comes with the perception of “me”, “mine” and “I”, how can it be good? Anyway, you will have seen from my previous comment that a correct understanding about karma actually leads to thinking in terms of cause which is this moment, and this to me *is* the only real expression of responsibility.
Thank you again for taking the time to reply, it is much appreciated, I was sitting at home taking it in turns to annoy the animals when my wife insisted I go to the shop and post, it makes you peaceful, she says....
And thank you for giving me the opportunity to sort out my thoughts and for hearing me. ;-)
