Interdependent Co-Arising and Social Responsibility

[Pathless]

From the politics board:

i find collective guilt to be a wholly unhealthy concept to begin with.


i don't hold to moral conceptions that apply group guilt when it is the beings, themselves, that are responsible for their actions.

Guilt, collective or individual, when carried to excess, is unhealthy. With this I agree. I think that guilt can be a functional emotion, though. If someone feels guilty, that should be an indication that perhaps something is wrong. Within the Buddhist tradition, it seems like such a feeling would be something to look into. After all, Buddhism is about getting to the root of things, not about brushing them aside or explaining them away intellectually or abrogating responsibility to some other being.

If all beings co-arise and all are interdependent and interconnected, where is the blame to be shifted? I am all for assigning blame to responsible parties. At the same time, I don't think it is appropriate for someone to attempt to duck out of the situation of the collectivity, of the interdependence, by simply saying "it wasn't me."

i never shall since the actions of other beings reflect upon them not upon me.

Perhaps you could explain how this fits into the concept of interdependent co-arising, or the metaphor of the Jeweled Net of Indra. Isn't the core of this teaching that we are all partaking in a collective karma? Don't then the actions of each one of us reflect upon and effect the rest?

 

[seattlegal]

Hi, Pathless.
I think so-called collective karma is applicable only where individuals are of 'one mind,' so to speak. (Like the tower of Babel?) However, I really don't know. Conjecture about the precise working out of the results of karma will bring madness and vexation... (Are you feeling some madness and vexation right now? If so, are you attributing it to collective karma, or to your conjecture?)

Acintita Sutta
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...2
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."​

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Pathless,

thank you for the OP.

Guilt, collective or individual, when carried to excess, is unhealthy. With this I agree. I think that guilt can be a functional emotion, though.

what do you mean by "functional" i.e. it's an emotional response in general or an emotional response to something in particular?

If someone feels guilty, that should be an indication that perhaps something is wrong.

why should this be an indication? it certainly could be of course but that is somewhat different than saying that it should be.

Within the Buddhist tradition, it seems like such a feeling would be something to look into.

indeed all emotional responses are part of dukkha and are subjects in various Suttas/Sutras.

After all, Buddhism is about getting to the root of things, not about brushing them aside or explaining them away intellectually or abrogating responsibility to some other being.

it is?

in any case, there is no other being that reaps the vipaka of ones karma and, more to the point perhaps, no other being can mitigate anothers vipaka.

If all beings co-arise and all are interdependent and interconnected, where is the blame to be shifted? I am all for assigning blame to responsible parties. At the same time, I don't think it is appropriate for someone to attempt to duck out of the situation of the collectivity, of the interdependence, by simply saying "it wasn't me."

i don't particularly understand the idea of "assigning blame" as it seems rather counter to the idea of being responsible and taking responsibility for ones actions. even if one were to decide that assigning blame were something worthwhile i cannot see how such actions would have any particular benefit. what happens if the person to whom the blame is being assigned rejects it?

Perhaps you could explain how this fits into the concept of interdependent co-arising, or the metaphor of the Jeweled Net of Indra. Isn't the core of this teaching that we are all partaking in a collective karma? Don't then the actions of each one of us reflect upon and effect the rest?

no and yes. they reflect upon nobody but the doer of the deed for it is them, and them alone which experiences their vipaka. clearly actions can effect other beings.. that seems so banal as to not be worth saying.

just as point of clarification, i presume that the use of the term "reflect" here is meant to indicate that anothers actions are somehow indicative or revealing about someone else.. is that how you are meaning the term?

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

clearly actions can effect other beings.. that seems so banal as to not be worth saying.

It is obvious, but the complexities of these connections might deserve some attention. Relationships often involve projections of unconscious content and afflicted emotions. It is important to recognize these in order to help ensure that the relationships will be rewarding rather than disruptive or destructive. This applies to the social environment as a whole, not just dyadic relationships.

In Path to the Soul, Ashok Bedi (a Jungian) describes how our actions are often driven by "karmic complexes." These are "conditioned patterns" which tend to be manifested "in our relationships as fascinations, antipathies, and other strong emotional reactions." The effects of these complexes become apparent from overt behavior - like when people consistently have faulty expectations and try to force others to become someone they are not, casting others in the role of reinforcing one's complexes as part of staying on a trajectory of negativity (defining one's identity and self worth almost entirely in negative terms).

When important relationship and emotional patterns (complexes) get projected (that is, they overlay what's really out there), they become our karmic debts....Resolving the complex by withdrawing the projection contributes to our spiritual growth, first by releasing us from our emotional attachment to the specifics of our past actions and reactions, and then by removing the obstacles hindering us from fulfilling our dharma.
​

I'd say this liberation is in direct interest of minimizing one's part in creating a collective karma that is more or less continually fueled by unresolved karma.

Here's a Google Books link for Path to the Soul.
Path to the Soul: The Union of ... - Google Book Search

Regarding guilt, I think there is more than one kind. I think existential guilt is potentially very valuable. The desired end goal is release from samsaric rebirth. From that standpoint, any type of karmic rebirth is punishment for a failure to take action toward accomplishing release. Since karma facilitates rebirth, it follows logically that the eradication of karma is the key to release from samsaric rebirth. The experience of guilt is part of the guidance system that alerts us to the need to stay on the path. It may actually be an expression of the Indwelling Spirit or it can help us become more open to its influences. Obviously not something to be ignored and can easily be incorporated in a working meditation and mindfulness practice.

Excessive guilty ruminations are not helpful. But an inability to experience guilt about wrong doing will virtually guarantee that the individual won't break out of the usual pattern and will continue on with what Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan referred to as a "vain, repetitive, vicious circle of recurrent birth and rebirth."

 

[Pathless]

Thank you for the sensible reply, Netti-Netti, and for addressing some of the concerns of the OP.

Vajradhara and seattlegal, you both seem to be, in your particular favorite ways, obfuscating the question at hand: sg by her trademark flourishing of some gibbering mystical oriental riddle, and Vajradhara by quibbling and intellectualizing, by trying to beg off addressing the OP by appearing to be confused by semantics.

I know that doesn't sound friendly, but let's cut the BS, if we can.



I am not going to play the line-by-line deconstruction game that Vajradhara has set us up for, but I would like to say that re: the value of guilt, Netti-Netti has addressed this in a way that I agree with.

Regarding guilt, I think there is more than one kind. I think existential guilt is potentially very valuable... . The experience of guilt is part of the guidance system that alerts us to the need to stay on the path. It may actually be an expression of the Indwelling Spirit or it can help us become more open to its influences. Obviously not something to be ignored and can easily be incorporated in a working meditation and mindfulness practice.

...an inability to experience guilt about wrong doing will virtually guarantee that the individual won't break out of the usual pattern...

My thinking on social responsibility, social action, and interdependent co-arising has been influenced and clarified by reading Joanna Macy, a Buddhist scholar and social activist. In her book World as Lover, World as Self, where she makes an argument for the Buddha being a social revolutionary as well as, or perhaps moreso than, a spiritual or philosophical one, Macy writes:

In dependent co-arising, self, society, and world are reciprocally modified by their interaction, and they form relationships and are in turn conditioned by them. The Western idea contrasts with such a view to the extent that it assumes a free association between individuals who remain basically distinct and unaltered by such association.

If we believe ourselves as distinct beings, striving towards some kind of liberation from suffering, we may be able to easily write off the actions of others in our society, the actions of our society as a whole, and the legacy of the past. Yet if we view a society as an organism, as an interdependent whole, the attempts to atomize it become a process of dissection or vivisection. Damage is done when we assume, as the western philosophical traditions might compel us to, that we are all individuals and unaffected by each other, or by the collectivity; damage not only to society--which a being may be able to decide is none of his concern--but also to the individual engaging in this fallacious practice.

We are not beings encased in karmic bubbles which protect us from the illnesses and karmic debts of the societal environment which we inhabit. We are organic and social human beings enmeshed in complex and chaotic patterns of social structures. We are conditioned by what happens outside of our own volition and our own bodies, whether we like it or not, because we are social animals. We are also conditioned by the past, whether we like it or not, because we are embedded in time. Simply because I did not participate in the slaughter of Jews, or of Native Americans, or because I never enslaved anyone, or because I haven't actively tortured anyone in the War of Terror, never bombed anyone or placed inhumane sanctions that deny necessities of life against a society, or because I didn't write the PATRIOT Act--my direct non-involvement in any of these things does not make those elements of existence less real for me. It does not mean that I am not affected by them, that society is not affected by them, or that, to take the case of the extirpation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, I can wash my hands of it while enjoying my life on the occupied soil of so many dead people, vanished cultures, and struggling impoverished Indians on reservations.

Clearly I have an emotional bias when I start typing about this sort of thing, but I do believe that the atrocities of the past are with us in the present, and only if we choose to look at them and try to understand them and, yes, be willing to take some responsibility and action, be willing to change the patterns of our cultures and individual lives, will we begin to resolve what in Buddhist terms are the karmic debts and ills.

One frequent response to this acknowledgement of and advocation of taking some kind of responsibility or action in light of these atrocities and injustices is, "Well, that happened. That is in the past. What can I do about it?" Yes, it did happen. But the fact that social injustice and atrocities have happened merits our attention and concern, no matter how distant or "over" they seem to us. In many cases they are clearly not over, I might add. At any rate, I think that Buddhist practice calls us to take seriously the fragmented landscape of history and our social structures, and begin to think of creative answers to dealing with injustices. It is enough just to begin, to acknowledge that the social landscape is blighted. From that acknowledgment, that willingness to look at reality, a process can arise that can take us to a more just and equitable social environment. But it does take a level of engagement, and any effort to rationalize that it does not will simply compound the ills.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Path

You are describing what I know as the Great Beast in Plato's Cave. The Beast is what it is and has no desire to change.

Tomorrow is made of the same stuff as today. To change tomorrow you must change today. What are you willing in yourself to change today? No one really wants to change anything other than for a selfish motive?

Hope for humanity comes from the efforts of "individuals" who have become consciously free of the Beast's influences. In Buddhism they would be the Bodhisattvas.

Because we are as we are, everything is as it is. Everything has been said and continues to be said and societies will continue in the same cycles in response to earthly and cosmic influences. It is the way of the Beast. The Beast will growl at all attempts to change what it is so everything continues at the collective level. Change only occurs for individuals that will be scorned yet so much of our future depends on them in spite of the growls. Have you ever read the story of the wolf and the sheep?

"Once there lived a wolf who slaughtered a great many sheep and reduced many people to tears.
At length, I do not know why, he suddenly felt qualms of conscience and began to repent his life; so he decided to reform and to slaughter no more sheep.

In order to do this seriously he went to a priest and asked him to hold a thanksgiving service. The priest began the service and the wolf stood weeping and praying in the church. The service was long. The wolf had slaughtered many of the priest's sheep, therefore the priest prayed earnestly that the wolf would indeed reform.

Suddenly the wolf looked through the window and saw that sheep were being driven home. He began to fidget but the priest went on and on without end. At last the wolf could contain himself no longer and he shouted: "Finish it priest! Or all the sheep will be driven home and I shall be left without supper!"

Lofty ideals are one thing but tonight's dinner comes first. To change tomorrow requires changing today and IMO we are incapable of it at the collective level.

 

[seattlegal]

Pathless, I agree with you that if we don't learn the lessons from the past, we may end up repeating them. The guilt we feel is a sign that we have to examine it more closely, and make necessary adjustments so we don't repeat the same mistake. (You can see this on the individual level in the Christian tradition of repentance and forgiveness, where your past sins become lessons you have learned.)

First, you have to realize the error, acknowledge it, and know that it is not healthy. Then you can contemplate the reasons for the error, and choose not to repeat them. However, you can't really progress past this point without forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you remain stuck in the mud, and the mud remains stuck on you. It's really difficult to progress if you are expected to carry not only your own mudpits around with you, but also the mudpits of people in the past. It's much easier to carry the lessons learned, and leave the mudpits behind. (Being forced to haul mudpits around might really be cause for madness and vexation. No wonder the Beast growls so much.)

 

[Snoopy]

Vajradhara and seattlegal, you both seem to be, in your particular favorite ways, obfuscating the question at hand: sg by her trademark flourishing of some gibbering mystical oriental riddle

I am not going to play the line-by-line deconstruction game that Vajradhara has set us up for

Hi Pathless

Unaccustomed as I am to coming to the aid of others here who are more than capable unaided; before I fail to respond in an acceptable way I think I would just like to comment as follows:

You have put an OP in the Buddhist forum. Is it then reasonable to criticise someone if they include in their post "some gibbering mystical oriental riddle" aka a quote from a Buddhist sutta?

You may view vaj's post as "a line-by-line deconstruction" but I see it as a reasonable way to provide comments/responses to points made. An alternative might be to meld it all together and then it might not be so clear as to what points were being addressed.

I am not commenting on the content, merely the means of communication.

I shall now retire to consider your actual OP, which I find interesting. Any subsequent post of mine may contain gibbering riddles, deconstructions, banal truths and intellectualisation (courtesy of the use of words). But at least you have been notified.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

After all, Buddhism is about getting to the root of things, not about brushing them aside or explaining them away intellectually or abrogating responsibility to some other being.

I've noticed that there is one sure thing with two people who use the appellation "Buddhist": there's lots that they don't agree on!

If all beings co-arise and all are interdependent and interconnected, where is the blame to be shifted? I am all for assigning blame to responsible parties.

and when blame has been assigned what next?

At the same time, I don't think it is appropriate for someone to attempt to duck out of the situation of the collectivity, of the interdependence, by simply saying "it wasn't me."

Given the all-pervading encompassing nature of interdependence, presumably then you are responsible for the collective ill-doings of us all...? (as we all are...)

I'm afraid I don't see the blame game as helpful. We all constantly create suffering and constantly are able to help end suffering. We have the choice, moment by moment, to maintain / persist in the suffering or in its ending. But I don't see that by going down the route of blame we are off to a good start. We all cause suffering through ignorance. All of us.


s.

 

[seattlegal]

First, you have to realize the error, acknowledge it, and know that it is not healthy. Then you can contemplate the reasons for the error, and choose not to repeat them. However, you can't really progress past this point without forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you remain stuck in the mud, and the mud remains stuck on you. It's really difficult to progress if you are expected to carry not only your own mudpits around with you, but also the mudpits of people in the past. It's much easier to carry the lessons learned, and leave the mudpits behind. (Being forced to haul mudpits around might really be cause for madness and vexation. No wonder the Beast growls so much.)

More words from the Buddha:

Dhammapada 1:1-6
1. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.
2. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him. 3. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease.
4. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease.
5. For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.
6. The world does not know that we must all come to an end here;--but those who know it, their quarrels cease at once.​

Now if you don't want to listen to the Buddha, you might want to check out Ezekiel 18, where he carefully lays out the logical reasoning behind the harmfulness of a culture using the collective karma argument to justify unrighteousness, and how a culture that subscribes to the collective karma argument will become degraded due to the lack of righteousness among the individuals, and will perish because of it. It reads very much like the Kalama Sutta in how the argument is carefully explained.



{Now that I think about it, the Kalama Sutta would probably be quite helpful in regarding this idea of collective karma, as well.}

 

[Snoopy]

In The Way of the Bodhisattva, Shantideva addresses the “eight worldly concerns” that we have cravings for or are averse to: praise and blame, fame and obscurity, gain and loss, pleasure and pain. These are what keep us all cycling in samsara.:

“Why should I be pleased when people praise me?​

Others there will be who scorn and criticise.​

And why despondent when I’m blamed,​

Since there’ll be others who think well of me?”​

-8.21​

We need to use compassion as the basis of how we view the words and actions of others:

“When others are at fault, I’ll take​

And turn the blame upon myself.​

And all my sins, however slight,​

Confess, and make them known to many.”​

-8.162​

Food for thought…


s.

 

[Pathless]

I've noticed that there is one sure thing with two people who use the appellation "Buddhist": there's lots that they don't agree on!

and when blame has been assigned what next?


Given the all-pervading encompassing nature of interdependence, presumably then you are responsible for the collective ill-doings of us all...? (as we all are...)

I'm afraid I don't see the blame game as helpful. We all constantly create suffering and constantly are able to help end suffering. We have the choice, moment by moment, to maintain / persist in the suffering or in its ending. But I don't see that by going down the route of blame we are off to a good start. We all cause suffering through ignorance. All of us.


s.

Maybe "blame" wasn't the correct word to use. Maybe "responsibility" would have been better. The point I was trying to make, however, is very much like the point you have made: the blame game is not helpful. At the same time, abrogating responsibility, washing one's hands of involvement, or trying to assert that "it wasn't me" who did those things--as true as that might be in the most literal and limited sense--trying to separate the individual ego out from what is happening "out there," is to me an odd approach given, as you have said, the fact that "we all constantly create suffering and constantly are able to help end suffering. We have the choice, moment by moment, to maintain / persist in the suffering or in its ending."

I wasn't attempting to "blame" a particular person for anything. The OP grew out of a thread in the politcs board where Vajradhara attempted to use the most basic kind of logic to demonstrate that he is somehow separate from many of the social ills that plague us all. I am not saying that Vajradhara is to blame for our social ills, but my point is--as it has been in various threads throughout this website--that we all share a common suffering reality, and that if we are serious about ending suffering, we need to be willing and able to look hard and deeply at the cultural fabric we are all caught up in. That is the first step. Until that is done, we really can't say much about what might happen, or what the second step might be, although I would agree with everyone here that holding ourselves in thrall to the sins of the past, torturing ourselves over past sufferings, is not wise. There are plenty of instances of suffering in the present for us to deal with. Yet--and I feel like a meandering ping-pong ball here--part of my point has been and will continue to be that the present is connected to the past, just as our individual lives are connected to many other individual lives and the larger social fabric, and that our present sufferings seem to require that we be aware and appreciative of a large context.

Is this making any sense at all?

 

[Netti-Netti]

Based on an informal survey of online books, it appears that the idea of collective karma is widely accepted in Buddhist circles.

In one illustration, people can be seen to benefit from conflict (financially) even if they are not directly involved in them and even if they were philosophically opposed. This is a particularly interesting example given the common notion that karma is associated with any direct action on the opart of those who benfit from the actions of others.

It is easy to see how inaction and negligence has karmic value in a collective sense. Somewhat more active forms would include:

1) Instigation - inciting others to commit certain acts and rejoicing in resultant harm

2) Rationalization - providing ideological justification, encouraging misplaced pride, blind nationalism, etc.

3) Interference - keeping someone from expressing compassion.

On the surface none of these behaviours see to have much karmic significance because they may not be criminal actions in and of themselves. They would neverthless be instances where karma is experienced by those who created a cause for it. They did so in a way that involved other people's actions and in that sense these relatively subtle and indirect behaviours did indeed partake of a collective karma.

I think the Buddhist idea of collective karma is perhaps less about being responsible for all past actions that others have taken and more about being influenced by group karma, national karma, family karma and so on in the current state of affairs. I think it was Jung who talked about how kids act out their parents' unresolved conflicts. Even if the kids don't necessarily directly inherit the parents' issues, they could still react to them and become karmically caught up with them.

Not to get fatalistic/deterministic, though. A person can to a some degree overcome the collective karma they're dealing with.

 

[Snoopy]

Maybe "blame" wasn't the correct word to use. Maybe "responsibility" would have been better.

Now I'm agreeing then

The point I was trying to make, however, is very much like the point you have made: the blame game is not helpful. At the same time, abrogating responsibility, washing one's hands of involvement, or trying to assert that "it wasn't me" who did those things--as true as that might be in the most literal and limited sense--trying to separate the individual ego out from what is happening "out there," is to me an odd approach given, as you have said, the fact that "we all constantly create suffering and constantly are able to help end suffering. We have the choice, moment by moment, to maintain / persist in the suffering or in its ending."

Yep.

my point is that we all share a common suffering reality, and that if we are serious about ending suffering, we need to be willing and able to look hard and deeply at the cultural fabric we are all caught up in. That is the first step. Until that is done, we really can't say much about what might happen, or what the second step might be, although I would agree with everyone here that holding ourselves in thrall to the sins of the past, torturing ourselves over past sufferings, is not wise. There are plenty of instances of suffering in the present for us to deal with. Yet--and I feel like a meandering ping-pong ball here--part of my point has been and will continue to be that the present is connected to the past, just as our individual lives are connected to many other individual lives and the larger social fabric, and that our present sufferings seem to require that we be aware and appreciative of a large context.

Indeed. The past has brought us to the here and now but we are, moment to moment, free to act, responsibly or irresponsibly, in ignorance or in wisdom and with compassion or with ego.

Is this making any sense at all?

Perfect. You caused me to fish out Macy's book on paticca samuppada and "modern science": Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Living Systems.

s.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Pathless,

thank you for the post.

Vajradhara and seattlegal, you both seem to be, in your particular favorite ways, obfuscating the question at hand: sg by her trademark flourishing of some gibbering mystical oriental riddle, and Vajradhara by quibbling and intellectualizing, by trying to beg off addressing the OP by appearing to be confused by semantics.

if you do not care for the manner in which i post then you are under no obligations to pose queries to me.

i am not confused by the terms you use pathless, that i ask for clarification on what you mean should, by no means, be used to dismiss the queries. you can do so, of course.

I am not going to play the line-by-line deconstruction game that Vajradhara has set us up for, but I would like to say that re: the value of guilt, Netti-Netti has addressed this in a way that I agree with.

i choose to respond to individual points that you raise either for clarification of your original meaning or intention and as a way of providing an answer to the point you raise. again, if you find my posting style off putting you are under no obligation to put queries to me. if you do ask there seems to be little value in complaining about the manner in which i respond other than to have something to complain about.

Simply because I did not participate in the slaughter of Jews, or of Native Americans, or because I never enslaved anyone, or because I haven't actively tortured anyone in the War of Terror, never bombed anyone or placed inhumane sanctions that deny necessities of life against a society, or because I didn't write the PATRIOT Act--my direct non-involvement in any of these things does not make those elements of existence less real for me.

i don't recall anyone raising the point that those actions were unreal. i, for instance, raised the point that if you did any of those things then you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions. since i have not done any of those things i am not responsible for your actions or anybody elses for that matter. you may well wish to have others to blame for your actions, thoughts and words yet the simple fact of the matter is that each being is responsible for them and cannot shift their responsibility to another.

intentional thoughts, actions and words are karma. clearly, and it seems to be self evident to me, if a group of beings all have the same intentional thoughts, actions or speech one could say there was a group karma. even saying this, however, betrays a lack of understanding of how karma and vipaka work for it may well be that the group has generated the same karma yet it *will* be the case that the group does not experience the same vipaka from their karma.

It does not mean that I am not affected by them, that society is not affected by them, or that, to take the case of the extirpation of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, I can wash my hands of it while enjoying my life on the occupied soil of so many dead people, vanished cultures, and struggling impoverished Indians on reservations.

yet you, personally, did not kill the First People.

do you draw the conclusion from this that you should not be aware of those actions nor work to correct them? if so then i think that you have thoroughly misunderstood my points in this discussion. i am no more responsible for the occupation of Tibet than you are yet that fact does not prevent either one of us from working to change that situation.

One frequent response to this acknowledgement of and advocation of taking some kind of responsibility or action in light of these atrocities and injustices is, "Well, that happened. That is in the past. What can I do about it?" Yes, it did happen. But the fact that social injustice and atrocities have happened merits our attention and concern, no matter how distant or "over" they seem to us.

which is a far cry from claiming that my son, for instance, is responsible for them.

that i am not responsible for the actions of the Federals that engaged in biological warfare does not mean that i am unconcerned about those things, do not feel remorse for such actions and am not concerned about the situation that the First People are currently enduring.

metta,

~v

 

[Pathless]

Namaste Vajradhara.

i choose to respond to individual points that you raise either for clarification of your original meaning or intention and as a way of providing an answer to the point you raise. again, if you find my posting style off putting you are under no obligation to put queries to me. if you do ask there seems to be little value in complaining about the manner in which i respond other than to have something to complain about.

Let us start again, then, and I will answer your questions. I realize that I am under no obligation to put queries to you, but at the same time, this is an open board, is it not? It is fair to ask questions and assume that they will be answered in a straightforward manner, and not by more questions, which to me seem to be in evasion of an actual answer. Of course, that is my perception, and I am no doubt wrong about your motives.

So, by request, back to the questions you raised in your original response.

Guilt, collective or individual, when carried to excess, is unhealthy. With this I agree. I think that guilt can be a functional emotion, though.

what do you mean by "functional" i.e. it's an emotional response in general or an emotional response to something in particular?

I'm not sure why this is relevant, and I guess it would depend on the context of the particular guilt. For the sake of your question, I will go with "an emotional response to something in particular," as I think that "an emotional response in general" is too vague, as that could be any kind of emotional response--happinesss, sadness, guilt, anger, etc. Or did you mean the emotional response of guilt to something in general? What is meant by "in general"? "What is 'is'?"

Do you see why I call these kinds of questions quibbling?

If someone feels guilty, that should be an indication that perhaps something is wrong.

why should this be an indication? it certainly could be of course but that is somewhat different than saying that it should be.

Should, could, your pick. Here you are arguing semantics and grammar. But I suppose I chose the word "should" for a reason, in order to imply that if I am intending to be mindful of my emotions, and I feel guilt, it would behoove me to take a look at where that guilt comes from. Perhaps, though, this is not necessarily a Buddhist approach. In that case, I guess it would make sense to substitute the word "could" for "should" in the statement being questioned.

Next!

After all, Buddhism is about getting to the root of things, not about brushing them aside or explaining them away intellectually or abrogating responsibility to some other being.

it is?

Well, that's my perception of it. I am going to go ahead and infer that yours is different. Please explain.

in any case, there is no other being that reaps the vipaka of ones karma and, more to the point perhaps, no other being can mitigate anothers vipaka.

Okay. I am failing to see much relevance of this comment to the questions raised in the OP.

If all beings co-arise and all are interdependent and interconnected, where is the blame to be shifted? I am all for assigning blame to responsible parties. At the same time, I don't think it is appropriate for someone to attempt to duck out of the situation of the collectivity, of the interdependence, by simply saying "it wasn't me."

i don't particularly understand the idea of "assigning blame" as it seems rather counter to the idea of being responsible and taking responsibility for ones actions. even if one were to decide that assigning blame were something worthwhile i cannot see how such actions would have any particular benefit. what happens if the person to whom the blame is being assigned rejects it?

I think you misunderstood my point. The fault is perhaps mine in not being clear in my expressions; Snoopy had reservations about this "blame" business, too, and I addressed that earlier in the thread. I will try to clarify my thoughts further for you: the above passage posted by me and quoted by you is in direct response to your glib attempts to dissociate yourself from the actions of the government that nominally represents you, and in my perception, your lack of concern with societal ills. It is entirely possible that I read too much into your remarks, but they just struck me as flippant, smug, and kinda self-serving.

Let me also clarify that I am not trying to assign blame. It is my perception--very possibly flawed--that in your response to the questions raised in the thread "What Next?" you, by attempting to demonstrate your clear conscience and innocence of involvement in many of the issues raised, also actually, in effect, shift the blame to some other parties. And that is why I typed, "I am all for assigning blame to responsible parties," in order to demonstrate some solidarity with what I thought you had professed; that is, that the average citizen has not been directly involved with many of our government's crimes. I must say that I find it ironic, in light of your insistence on your own guilelessness, that you felt it appropriate to declare, "i don't particularly understand the idea of "assigning blame" as it seems rather counter to the idea of being responsible and taking responsibility for ones actions." Well yes! My entire query here is about being responsible! Not being solely responsible, mind you, but participating in reality and sharing responsibility with the rest of America for the great ills of our shared social reality.

If you ask me, my research points to Harry Truman, the bloated military, the CIA, television, corporations, the automobile, the Bush family, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and other large institutions and powerful people as bearing a brunt of the responsibility. Of course, most of those institutions and people cannot or will not ever become responsible, no matter how much blame is assigned them. And because of that, there is all that much more work to be done!



There is one last question you posed in your first response, but it will have to wait. I am done for now. Hopefully my response here will clear up some of the questions that you did pose, and help you understand why I may have seemed rude in my original rejoinder to your response.

 

[Snoopy]

The title of your OP Pathless puts me in mind of Thay Nhat Hanh and engaged Buddhism, which I imagine you're familiar with.

"Our aim is to integrate the Buddha’s messages on wisdom and compassion for social transformation to achieve a healthy, just and peaceful world."

Inebnetwork - Home

Plum Village - Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh

s.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste pathless,

thank you for the post.

Let us start again, then, and I will answer your questions. I realize that I am under no obligation to put queries to you, but at the same time, this is an open board, is it not? It is fair to ask questions and assume that they will be answered in a straightforward manner, and not by more questions, which to me seem to be in evasion of an actual answer. Of course, that is my perception, and I am no doubt wrong about your motives.

i am unclear how the fact that this is a public discussion board has any bearing on the manner in which i respond to posts. if you do not appreciate clarifying questions then i shall happily proceed with my assumptions and respond accordingly. i would, however, prefer to know what you are actually meaning and thus attempt to clarify points which are confusing to me.

i find this is, in fact, what most people do in a conversation and do not understand the issue this has caused with you.

if my style of writing is not straightforward enough for your taste chalk it up to my lack of understanding of English.

I'm not sure why this is relevant, and I guess it would depend on the context of the particular guilt. For the sake of your question, I will go with "an emotional response to something in particular," as I think that "an emotional response in general" is too vague, as that could be any kind of emotional response--happinesss, sadness, guilt, anger, etc. Or did you mean the emotional response of guilt to something in general? What is meant by "in general"? "What is 'is'?"

you said that guilt can be a functional emotion and it is to this end that i am querying you. in what manner can guilt be functional? i.e. as a emotional response to spur one to action or as a general sort of thing without any specificity or some other way?

i don't think guilt has any positive connotations and is quite self serving which it has, really, no choice but to be.

Do you see why I call these kinds of questions quibbling?

no. perhaps you should consider that not every poster on this forum is a native English speaker, yes?

Should, could, your pick. Here you are arguing semantics and grammar.

saying something should be one way or could be one way are not the same thing, Pathless.

But I suppose I chose the word "should" for a reason, in order to imply that if I am intending to be mindful of my emotions, and I feel guilt, it would behoove me to take a look at where that guilt comes from. Perhaps, though, this is not necessarily a Buddhist approach. In that case, I guess it would make sense to substitute the word "could" for "should" in the statement being questioned.

it is always advocated to see from where in the consciousness emotional responses arise though, indeed, the Buddhist approach would first ask one to consider the "i" that is experiencing such emotions to begin with.

Well, that's my perception of it. I am going to go ahead and infer that yours is different. Please explain.

concisely; dukkha, the orgin of dukkha and the ending of dukkha. this thread, however, isn't really about Buddhism and it's teachings unless i've really misread the posts thus far.

Okay. I am failing to see much relevance of this comment to the questions raised in the OP.

karma and vipaka are part of the same thing.. vipaka is that which a being experiences from their karma. the idea of collective guilt being that one being can experience the vipaka of another is not supported in the Buddha Dharma. a being can only experience their own vipaka and no other being can mitigate this experience though the experience can be mitigated.

I think you misunderstood my point. The fault is perhaps mine in not being clear in my expressions; Snoopy had reservations about this "blame" business, too, and I addressed that earlier in the thread. I will try to clarify my thoughts further for you: the above passage posted by me and quoted by you is in direct response to your glib attempts to dissociate yourself from the actions of the government that nominally represents you, and in my perception, your lack of concern with societal ills. It is entirely possible that I read too much into your remarks, but they just struck me as flippant, smug, and kinda self-serving.

yet you would chastise me for seeking clarifcation on your posts?

i am making no glib attempts, pathless. if you think that you are responsible for the invasion of Tibet or the use of biological agents against the First People. for instance, then i suppose more power to you. i, however, shall have no part of it and shall resist such attempts to include me in such. i have plenty of karma that will yield negative fruit all on my own.

that i have not done those things does not mean that i am not concerned about those things and i cannot really imagine how one could equate the two.

you choose the word "guilt" which necessairly implies a level of personal action though, as it's becoming clear to me, some beings use terms like this to indicate whole swaths of society and groups of beings which is a very different way of understanding the term than i have. my understanding of the term is something which applies to an individual being and is more aptly termed responsbility than guilt or blame.

Let me also clarify that I am not trying to assign blame. It is my perception--very possibly flawed--that in your response to the questions raised in the thread "What Next?" you, by attempting to demonstrate your clear conscience and innocence of involvement in many of the issues raised, also actually, in effect, shift the blame to some other parties.

it doesn't shift anywhere, Pathless, it stays with the beings that generated the karma in the first place. what i am doing, however, is not allowing others to assign the consequences of their actions unto me.

I must say that I find it ironic, in light of your insistence on your own guilelessness, that you felt it appropriate to declare, "i don't particularly understand the idea of "assigning blame" as it seems rather counter to the idea of being responsible and taking responsibility for ones actions." Well yes! My entire query here is about being responsible! Not being solely responsible, mind you, but participating in reality and sharing responsibility with the rest of America for the great ills of our shared social reality.

you may well find it ironic, who can say? i've not spoken about guile one way or the other. i am speaking about responsiblity for ones actions. you would like to advance the idea that i am responsible for your actions and i reject such notions. of course, you don't say it in such a manner, you say it as if i am responsible for the actions of governmental leaders which i didn't choose, corrupt politicans that compromise their beliefs for political expediency whom i didn't choose, organized groups that would subvert the law and the constitution whom i didn't choose. yet i am not. i, like all other sentient beings, am responsible for my own actions, thoughts and words. no other being is.

If you ask me, my research points to Harry Truman, the bloated military, the CIA, television, corporations, the automobile, the Bush family, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and other large institutions and powerful people as bearing a brunt of the responsibility. Of course, most of those institutions and people cannot or will not ever become responsible, no matter how much blame is assigned them. And because of that, there is all that much more work to be done!

i'm fairly certain that a car isn't sentient nor is television so i suppose that i dont' understand what you mean. how can a car generate karma and vipaka??

There is one last question you posed in your first response, but it will have to wait. I am done for now. Hopefully my response here will clear up some of the questions that you did pose, and help you understand why I may have seemed rude in my original rejoinder to your response.

yes, your responses did clear up my confusion regarding your post.

i don't quite understand the idea that being rude in ones reply is going to generate constructive discussion yet such posts abound so there must be something that i am missing. that we disagree does not mean that we cannot be civil. of course i lose my patience as well in some exchanges but the responsiblity for such lies solely with me.

metta,

~v

 

[seattlegal]

Let me also clarify that I am not trying to assign blame. It is my perception--very possibly flawed--that in your response to the questions raised in the thread "What Next?" you, by attempting to demonstrate your clear conscience and innocence of involvement in many of the issues raised, also actually, in effect, shift the blame to some other parties.

it doesn't shift anywhere, Pathless, it stays with the beings that generated the karma in the first place. what i am doing, however, is not allowing others to assign the consequences of their actions unto me.

I agree, scapegoating is not a healthy practice at all. (That's what scapegoating is--shifting the blame. The return of the scapegoat, viewed as bad luck, in my view actually represents your conscience bothering you, prompting you to examine the situation more carefully, and learn the lesson needed so the original error won't be repeated. In this case, a guilty conscience can function to help raise awareness, but really doesn't have anything to do with 'collective karma.' The 'collective karma' view is what lead to the scapegoating in the first place, as if blame can actually be shifted around. That only leads towards greater illusion, imo.)

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

I agree, scapegoating is not a healthy practice at all. (That's what scapegoating is--shifting the blame. The return of the scapegoat, viewed as bad luck, in my view actually represents your conscience bothering you, prompting you to examine the situation more carefully, and learn the lesson needed so the original error won't be repeated. In this case, a guilty conscience can function to help raise awareness, but really doesn't have anything to do with 'collective karma.' The 'collective karma' view is what lead to the scapegoating in the first place, as if blame can actually be shifted around. That only leads towards greater illusion, imo.)

most assuredly your reply isn't a "gibbering mystical oriental riddle" and is spot on, imo.

metta,

~v