If you read the comments on this blog more than occasionally, you will surely have noticed the pugnacious comments of Thill (aka T.R. Raghunath), by far the most prolific commenter this blog has ever had. I note with pleasure that Thill has now begun a blog of his own, entitled The Baloney Detective. The approach he takes there is almost diametrically opposite to my own, in many ways; but that sort of clash is exactly what helps to generate the best ideas, and I welcome the arrival of this new blog. I welcome Thill’s timing, as well; since I won’t be regularly updating again until February, I hope readers looking for interesting philosophical thought in the meantime will be well served by the Baloney Detective. If you enjoy Thill’s comments, make sure you check it out!
New blog of related interest
30 Thursday Dec 2010
Posted in Blog Admin
I appreciate this, Amod. I will be responding to some of your posts, past and present, on my blog.
You certainly played an important role in drawing me deeper into the world of blogs!
I have started a new blog http://ordinary-wisdom.com
to complement my existing blog The Baloney Detective.
When you return to active blogging, I hope to see your interesting comments on my new blog as well. Thanks in advance!
Amod,
I found your site and would like to comment on your “One and a half noble truths?
But I don’t know how to do it.
So I am leaving my comment here, I hope you don’t mind.
Some comments and a slightly different point of view.
Congratulations on your marriage, and I wish both of you all the happiness.
It is good that you question what has been told to you
You write, that most contemporary introductions to Buddhism list the 4NT as follows….
1 Everything is suffering (dukkha).
2 Suffering is caused by craving.
3 There is an end to suffering.
4 One can reach this end by following the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path.
I agree that this is the form most people use when they are attempting to explain Buddhism, but I would also add that it is not just a contemporary device but also an historical one.
I have understood the 4NT a little differently,
The Truth of Suffering
The Truth of the cause of Suffering
The Truth of the cessation of Suffering
The Noble Eightfold Path
All Buddha offered was that he would teach you about your suffering.
He also said it is right for you to doubt anything he says, anything you read and any traditions that have been handed down to you.
The 4NT as you and others list them, makes them sound like a Buddhist Doctrine of Suffering, and that this Doctrine is the Truth. Presented as a Doctrine it becomes a theory which can be investigated conceptually and objectively. The Buddha is notorious for refusing to get into theoretical arguments or discussions, he is all about practice, just do it.
My read on the 4NT is that they are an outline, an overview, a method he uses to deal with the problem you bring to him.
The talking about your problem is a practical means for you to understand your problem, subjectively, not theoretically.
Buddha is not a preacher of Doctrine, he is a teacher in the sense that the answer you are looking for is in you, and all he can do is guide the discussion (your investigation) until you realize your answer. The answer is in you, and only you can access it, it is not something Buddha can hand to you. The “answer” is a subjective experience.
If it were some “thing” the Buddha could write down and hand to you, don’t you think that somewhere, sometime in the past few thousand years someone would have already done this?
The truth of suffering.
When you bring your problem to the Buddha, he doesn’t rattle off the 4NT and send you on your way.
When you bring your problem to the Buddha the first thing he has to know is what you think your problem is. If you have no problem, there is no reason to be talking to the Buddha. So the first thing to do is for you and the Buddha to be absolutely sure that you both understand your problem. He is not a mind reader, you have to convince him that you have a problem, and once you can both agree on what that problem is then you can go onto the second step.
If you do end up understanding the 4NT, your attitude and point of view towards your self, others and the cosmos will have shifted.
Thanks for letting me reply.
Charlie N
Thank you for your comment, Charlie, and welcome to the blog. I am away right now and don’t have time to respond to such a long comment, I’m afraid, but I appreciate your thoughts. You can’t comment directly on the noble truths post because it’s more than three months old. I have closed comments on older posts, primarily because of comment spam, alas – it is hard enough to deal with the spam I receive on comments in the past three months. So posting here is just as well.
On Wishing George Bush Well
“Fine, that’s the easy part. But then he said: wish your enemies well. Think of your enemies, and devote wishes to their being happy. So I thought: who is my greatest enemy? As a lifelong leftie, in 2005, it didn’t take me long to identify George W. Bush. And so, as part of the practice, I tried sincerely to wish that man well.”
Ought we to consider first why we think someone is our enemy and whether this thought or belief is rational?
Are we diminishing or destroying the moral difference between a friend and an enemy by playing this mental game of wishing the enemy well? Doesn’t this actually undermine the importance of friendship?
I recall a point in the Analects about responding in kind to goodness but with justice to badness or evil.
One must respond with prudence to an enemy, avoiding the extremes of exacerbation and naivete or foolishness.
Is wishing the enemy well actually a case of masochism since the enemy is a person who wants to harm us?
“Think of your enemies, and devote wishes to their being happy.”
What if the enemy is a sadist whose happiness consists in seeing you suffer? Then, wishing this enemy happiness is tantamount to wishing one’s own suffering! Not very rational, one must concede.
Thill, your conclusion is faulty because you assume that wishing someone well equates to wishing that the desires of a murderer or a sadist should be fulfilled.
Wishing that a sadist be happy could more plausibly be the wish that the sadist might discover compassion — or happiness that is more profound than momentary gratification from yielding to strong passion or aggression. Surely you don’t think that acts of sadism improve the moral character or long term happiness of a sadist?
Similarly, you assume that taking on suffering for oneself is irrational. While no one would wish for suffering for themselves in the abstract, there are many situations where suffering is gladly accepted because it benefits others. You only have to look at the example of a mother caring for her child — or a father working a double shift to pay his child’s college tuition to understand this. Are these irrational acts? Of course not.
The next logical step is to extend that compassion to others who are not so close by blood or affection. Wishing happiness for one’s enemies is extraordinarily rational.
No, the conclusion was based on an assumption on what it means to wish your enemy happiness. You have started with a different assumption on what it means to wish your enemy happiness – essentially, that it means wishing your enemy moral improvement. But it is not plausible to restrict happiness to just moral improvement. There are also external goods and internal states necessary for happiness. So, you would have to wish your enemy those things too. Perhaps, wishing your enemy all that in conjunction with moral improvement is rational. But note the element of self-interest in all this. In wishing all that for your enemy, you are also wishing a change in your enemy’s attitude towards you. It is all tantamount to wishing that he or she is in a condition in which he or she ceases to be your enemy!
I think we agree!
Let’s rethink the issue. It won’t do just to play the mental game of wishing your enemy happiness. If you are sincere and serious, you will also need to act to promote your enemy’s happiness. And now this is just the Christian ethic of cultivating love for your enemy and behaving in ways required by this ethic. This is also Gandhian stuff. It is contrary to common sense, and hence, irrational, to behave in this way toward your enemy. By definition, the enemy is out to get you and will take advantage of your loving behavior to crush you. Your loving behavior will be interpreted by your enemy as a ruse or trap.
The more ruthless your enemy, the more foolish it is for you to engage in loving behavior toward him or her.
Common sense requires you to assess your enemy’s strength and nature carefully and act accordingly by cultivating alliances, etc., and acting swiftly to destroy him or her if he or she is bent on destroying you. So, if Arjuna had not killed Karna at a vulnerable moment in the Mahabharata war when the latter’s chariot wheels were stuck and he had got down to push the wheel, Karna would have continued to wreak destruction on Arjuna’s side.
So, it is irrational to act to promote the happiness of your enemy if he or she is recalcitrant and bent on causing you harm or destruction.
The mental game of wishing your enemy happiness is not going to change your enemy’s behavior toward you, but it is bound make you behave in irrational ways toward your enemy. Think of the consequences of “loving behavior” toward people who try to invade your home!
So, I must revise my earlier “agreement” with you and conclude that it is deeply irrational to start wishing happiness to your enemy.
Damn. I thought we agreed on something!
Let me explain the approach a little more — maybe it will makes sense to you.
First of all, this view is grounded in the Buddhist teachings on relative truth — specifically Mahayana teachings. However, as one might hope would be the case with teachings on wisdom, there is (as you point out) consensus on this approach in various wisdom traditions such as Christianity and Gandhi’s approach to non-violent social action. In that sense, this is not an approach that is proprietary or exclusively Buddhist or Christian.
In your rethinking of the question you seem to assume that a person’s status as an ememy (at least a ruthless enemy) is intractable and implacable or unchanging. That is demonstrably never the case. In fact, relationships are constantly changing. An ememy can become a friend and a friend can become an enemy. Given this fact, it is not a great leap to conclude that we need not leave change to chance — it is possible to combine intelligence with compassion.
Actually, according to the Buddhist teachings on the subject, three elements are necessary. First, there needs to be be the motivation of kindness or compassion (bodhicitta). Second, there needs to be intelligence (prajna). Third, there needs to be exertion (virya). If these three are combined, a person is in a position to accomplish a great deal of good in the world.
The action that is required will be based on the conditions — both the ability of the enemy to receive help, the purity of the motivation (compassion) of the aspiring bodhisattva, and the skillfulness of the bodhisattva in working with the situation. As bodhicitta moves from aspiration to action, intelligence is essential. “Loving behavior” does not require permitting someone to invade your home! What it requires is a careful assessment of where the enemy is solid and aggressive and where the enemy is gentle — and then using intelligence to find skillful ways to cultivate gentlemness.
It is not easy. However, mistakes are permitted — and it is probably necessary to be willing to make mistakes. If the motivation is pure, the action tends not to make the situation worse — even it is unskillful.
““Loving behavior” does not require permitting someone to invade your home!”
It certainly does in Christian and Gandhian ethics. Recall Gandhi’s inane “advice” to European Jewry to allow their Nazi persecutors to take what they want!
Let’s “cut to the chase” here: In concrete terms, leaving aside vague invocations of “intelligence”, “skill”, “bodhichitta” and such, how does a Buddhist respond to a home invasion in which the perpetrators are ready to kill? How would it be different from the response of someone like me who thinks that all you need to defend your family and property before the police arrive is a loaded shotgun? LOL
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was once asked the hypothetical question: “If you were in the room with a person who had their finger on the button and was about to start a nuclear holocaust — would you kill that person?” His answer was: “With great joy.”
In some sense, the question is not a hard one. If someone is about to murder you or your family — the result of that act is so negative both for the perpetrator as well as for the potential victims that even violent action to stop it may be the most compassionate act. That is why there is the Buddhist concept of four karmas — or skillful, compassionate actions. These are pacifying, enriching, magnetizing and destroying.
However, the key is intention — that the act be based on compassion.
It is probably fair to say that it would rarely or never be the case that killing would be appropriate to defend property — but that doesn’t mean that a home invasuion or other illegal or unjustified action can’t be opposed.
Of course, any muddle-headed “Master” or charlatan can respond like that. How is “killing with joy” different from the attitude of a sadistic killer? Other than contexts of “mercy killing”, how can compassion be the ground for killing?
We also have a product differentiation problem here. If both killing and non-killing can be based on compassion, what difference does compassion make?
Let me put that differently. If both compassion and indifference can be the basis for killing, what difference does it make whether you have compassion or indifference? If both compassion and hatred can be the basis for killing, what difference does it make whether you have compassion or hatred?
Again, I would like to exclude contexts of “mercy killing”.
If we are talking about killing in contexts other than “mercy-killing”, how is compassion-based killing morally different from hatred-based killing from the standpoint of the (moral status of) agent and the victim?
The difference is in intention. I am not sure that morality is the best term to use in the context of a discussion about Buddhist views, but intention is the primary distinction.
Even in conventional contexts intention is recognized as affecting culpability. In the law, there is a gradation of views as to the culpability for killing ranging from no culpability for killing in self-defense or in war time, to negligent homicide, to manslaughter, to murder without or with premeditation.
It seems that the question you are really asking is whether there is a difference not only from the point of view of the killer but from the point of view of the victim (in the case of the hypothetical, a victim who was about to murder a family in their home). It is a tenuous position to argue that preservation of one’s own life at all costs is always to the benefit of the individual. Certainly, individuals sacrifice their lives for others and that act can be noble and virtuous. Is it much different to say that the killing of a person who is about to commit premeditated murder benefits the person who will be saved from becoming a murderer?
Perhaps thoughts on the subject depend upon whether one believes in karma or that death results in final extinction of consciousness and expunges the effect of previous actions.
“you seem to assume that a person’s status as an ememy (at least a ruthless enemy) is intractable and implacable or unchanging. That is demonstrably never the case.”
The last sentence is hyperbole. The enmity of Hitler and Stalin toward their victims or opponents was demonstrably “intractable and implacable or unchanging”.
If a person’s intentions and behavior are demonstrably and consistently inimical to your well-being, then common sense dictates that you come to the sensible conclusion that this person’s enmity is “intractable and implacable or unchanging” and act accordingly to defend yourself, and, if necessary, to destroy or render them incapable of causing you harm.
It is not hyperbole. Even Hitler was an infant — he grew into a monster. And even at the height of his power and in between murders he likely had moments of love and compassion for family. And if he had lived to old age, he might have changed further.
As I mentioned in the previous post, certainly resistance — even destruction — may be appropriate in some situations. But when the act is based on aggression, hatred and defending personal territory, it will have negative consequences even if the target of the action is a criminal or a Hitler.
The issue whether Hitler was an implacable enemy of certain peoples and persons. The fact that he hugged and kissed German children, etc., was nice to Eva Braun and Winifred Wagner, and so on, is irrelevant.
You are also assuming that defense of personal territory is unreasonable. I am quite sure you don’t really believe this yourself since a very simple test would show that you don’t. Why do you assume that defense of personal territory is unreasonable? What would be the point of resistance to home invasion or attempted theft if you really believed that defense of personal territory or property is unreasonable?
I am hope you haven’t bought some Marxist or Proudhonian nonsense on “private property”!
It might be clearer just to say that actions that accommodate others (generosity, patience, etc.) tend to have positive results and cultivate positive states of mind. Actions that are selfish or mean spirited (aggression, avarice, slander, etc.) have negative consequences. It is not a novel idea — or limited to any particular philosophy or religion.
Earlier you focused on intention and seemed to say that if the intention or motive is compassion, then the action will bear good results whatever form it takes, including killing.
Now you seem to shift to the action itself and announce that the nature of the action determines the effects or results. However, curiously, you mention “generosity”, “patience”, and “avarice” which are not actions but dispositions of character. “Aggression” is ambiguous. It can refer to an action or behavior or disposition or both.
The intentions are efficacious with respect to actions, but it is the actions which produce effects or impacts on others and the agent. The intention may shape the character or disposition.
Thus although the intention can shape the agent’s own dispositions or traits, it is the actions which are more since they produce results or effects which bear on the agent and others.
So, whether you kill with the intention of eliminating a threat to your interests or with compassion doesn’t matter to the effects or results of the actions. Those who love and depend on the person you have killed will suffer regardless of your intention in killing that person. However, the intention you had will leave its effect only on your own dispositions or character.
“it is the actions which are more” should read “it is the actions which are more significant or important”.
Intention is very important (perhaps even most important), but other elements also influence the consequences of an action. Specifically, intention, intelligence and exertion are required. For example, in the case of a negative action, if a person forms the intention to steal and pursues the goal very energetically but ineptly — he may be unsuccessful or be caught — in which case the action will have fewer negative consequences. Similarly, if you have a criminal with an intention to steal and a brilliant method but who is very lazy, the act may never occur.
It is worth noting here that thoughts that are not carried into action also have consequences, but the consequences are lighter and less negative or positive (depending upon the intention behind the thought). For example, an aggressive thought will tend to mold habits of thought so that a person will have a tendency in the future to be more aggressive. But the effect if the aggressive thought is light. If the thought is turned into aggressive speech, it will have much greater negative consequences — it will tend to illicit an aggressive response in others. And if it escalates into action, it will have even greater negative consequences.
In terms of killing out of compassion, this extreme example came from a hypothetical case that you posited with regard to a murderer in the act of committing murder. My response was that it is not necessary that the act of killing must be an act of aggression. However, given the confusion in most of our minds and our tendency to move from thought to action in the moment based on self-interest and self-preservation, it is a rare situation and a rare person who will be able in that moment to act out of compassion for a murderer. Furthermore, because (except in hypotheticals) prospective murderers are not automatons and killing fundamentally runs counter to human nature and tends to require either extreme rationalization or a surrendering to extreme emotionality, it is rarely the case when there aren’t alternatives to killing.
Your first paragraph actually tells us that intention is irrelevant in determining the consequences and the efficacy of an action. It is the nature of the action, how it is executed, the skill in its performance, which determines its consequences and efficacy in achieving the intended result.
One may have compassionate intentions, but if the nature of the action is such that, given the regularities of causation, it is bound to cause pain and suffering, then the intention is irrelevant.
Intention and Skillfulness in action are logically independent. Bad intentions may accompany skillful, efficient actions and good intentions may accompany unskillful, inefficient actions.
It is important to avoid the delusion that good intentions will guarantee skillful, efficient actions. Good intentions also do not guarantee that actions will produce good results.
I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree. Let me give an example that might further the conversation.
Assume an identical situation where there are two friends, one of whom has fallen on hard times and needs money. The solvent friend writes a $1,000 check to his hard luck friend — but imagine in one case that he writes the check as a gift with intention only that his friend prosper and be happy. Alternatively, imagine that he writes the check solely with the intention of gaining personal benefit (making his friend morally indebted to him or with the expectation that his friend will provide him with a quid pro quo).
Gifts create connections — bonds between people. That is why gifts to politicians are viewed with suspicion (although the concern here is with “gifts” made with bad intentions). Alternatively, loans or actions with intention to acquire personal benefit create separation. That is why, when parents want to encourage a twenty something child to move out of the basement and into the world — they sometimes decide to charge a nominal rent.
The difference here is one of intention. The intention clearly and dramatically affects the giver of the gift / loan. I would argue that it also affects the recipient of the gift — even if the self-motivated intention is not explicit in the terms of the transaction and is unstated. People are intelligent and intuitive and understand motivations. And motivations are critical to the outcome of actions.
I should clarify. Gifts create connections between people. Whether it is a positive or negative connection depends on the intent of the gift. Altruistic gifts create bonds of affection and love. Gifts made out of a self-serving motivation create obligations or “moral debts” if there is an expectation of something in return.
I suppose there is also a category of self-serving gifts where the giver expects enhanced self image or reputation even if nothing is expected from the recipient. These gifts, I think, are also less positive than an altruistic gift — as a result of less pure intention.
You may be interested in this news of the death of the Dalai Lama’s nephew on a coastal highway. Good intentions do not necessarily lead to good results if the actions they accompany lack skill and good sense, e.g., ensuring that you are out of harm’s way when walking in the dark on a highway.
Dalai Lama nephew hit by car, killed on Fla. walk
MIKE SCHNEIDER
Associated Press
PALM COAST, Fla. (AP) — The Dalai Lama’s nephew was smiling, radiating energy as he tackled the first leg of a 300-mile walk to promote Tibet’s independence from China. He insisted on finishing the last two miles on his own, even as darkness fell.
“For the cause,” Jigme K. Norbu said, as he had on so many similar journeys before.
Norbu was alone on a dark coastal highway Monday when was struck and killed by an SUV. He was headed south in the same direction as traffic, following a white line along the side of the road, according to the Highway Patrol. The impact crumpled the vehicle’s hood and shattered the front windshield.
Authorities said it appeared to be an accident and the driver, 31-year-old Keith R. O’Dell of Palm Coast, swerved but couldn’t avoid Norbu. The Highway Patrol was still investigating, but didn’t expect any charges. O’Dell and his 5-year-old son were not hurt.
Norbu, 45, had completed at least 21 walks and bike rides, logging more than 7,800 miles in the U.S. and overseas to support freedom for Tibet and highlight the suffering of its people. He completed his most recent 300-mile trek in December in Taiwan.
He lived in Bloomington, Ind., where his father had been a professor at Indiana University and he owned a restaurant that served Tibetan and Indian cuisine.
He had set out Monday with a group of friends, but insisted he would continue on his own after one of his companions tired and they decided to take a van to a restaurant. Norbu planned to meet them there.
About an hour before the accident, Norbu met a Florida couple, Gary and Damian Drum Collins, who had heard about his jaunt through town.
“He was smiling and happy. He had as much positive energy as you could imagine,” Gary Collins told The Associated Press.
His wife took a picture with Norbu, who was wearing running shoes, a dark pullover and a white sandwich board-like sign that said, “Walk For Tibet Florida.”
The couple was troubled by the fading sunlight and urged Norbu to stay at their place for the night. He was already behind schedule, they said, and agreed to change his plans.
“It was becoming dusk. We were worried and we were concerned he wasn’t going to have daylight,” Gary Collins said.
They suggested Norbu stay inside their condominium, about three miles from their Hammock Wine & Cheese Shoppe, but he wanted to spend the night under the stars.
So the Collinses made preparations for Norbu and his group to spend the night outside the cheese shop. They left a towel, bar of soap, three bottles of coconut juice, a can of stuffed grape leaves and crackers on a table outside. The back door was also unlocked so the travelers could shower and use the restroom.
A note for the group read: “Hi! Please make yourselves at home. It is an honor to have you here.”
Norbu was killed just a quarter of a mile from the shop. On Tuesday, a vase with seven roses marked the accident site on the side of the two-lane State Highway A1A, where the speed limit is 55 mph and there are no traffic lights.
A woman who identified herself as the mother of the SUV driver said her son didn’t want to talk to the media.
“What more is there to say? He was wearing dark clothes. It was an unfortunate accident. He hasn’t been charged. That’s all we’re going to say,” said the woman, who would not give her name.
A dishwasher at a nearby restaurant was killed in September along the same stretch of road where Norbu died.
“It is such a sad thing,” Damian Collins said. “I was honored to see him. I said, ‘I’m sorry to stop you,’ but he said he didn’t mind because he wanted to raise awareness for his cause.”
Norbu, the son of the Dalai Lama’s late brother, Taktser Rinpoche, had done several other similar walks, including a 900-mile trek in 2009 from Indiana to New York.
After that four-week journey, his feet were full of painful blisters. He had lost nails and the feeling in one toe.
“But I feel energized, because the cause itself energizes me,” Norbu told AP then, after emerging from New Jersey through the Lincoln Tunnel.
That walk marked the 50th anniversary of the failed Tibetan rebellion against Chinese rule that resulted in the exile of his uncle, who is Tibet’s top spiritual leader.
Thupten Anyetsang, owner of Anyetsang’s Little Tibet Restaurant in Bloomington, said he once joined Norbu’s father on a 60-mile walk between Indianapolis and Bloomington to promote awareness of Tibet. He said the hazards posed by passing cars were evident.
“There can be dangers, especially when you’re walking on the highway or rural roads,” he said.
On the outskirts of Bloomington Tuesday night, about 40 friends and fellow Buddhists prayed for Norbu. They sat on maroon cushions aligned in rows on the floor of the ornately decorated shrine room of the Tibetan Mongolian Buddhist Cultural Center that Norbu’s father founded.
Center director Arjia Rinpoche led three other monks through a series of prayers in front of a framed photograph of Norbu lit by three burning candles. The prayers came amid the monks’ rhythmic chanting and pealing of bells.
“He was so full of life, full of energy, and very, very dedicated to his father,” said Mary Pattison, a Bloomington resident who was an assistant to Taktser Rinpoche, who was committed to the Tibetan cause.
“He (Norbu) grew up drinking that in,” she said. “He was carrying forth, carrying the torch for his father.”
Taktser Rinpoche was a high lama who was abbot of a monastery when the Chinese invaded. The brothers fled into exile following the 1959 uprising. Rinpoche, who died in September 2008 at 86, was a professor of Tibetan studies at Indiana University in Bloomington and the Dalai Lama’s U.S. representative.
David Colman, whose son has an arts store near Norbu’s restaurant, said he had shown some wild behavior during his youth but had come into his own in recent years and embraced the Tibetan political movement.
“He was maturing. Jigme was growing into being a full-fledged figurehead for Tibet,” Colman said. “It’s really tragic that this happened just as he was hitting his prime as the nephew of the Dalai Lama.”
In northern India, officials at the Dalai Lama’s office in Dharmsala could not immediately be reached and the Tibetan government-in-exile had not commented as of late Tuesday.
China claims Tibet as part of its territory, but many Tibetans say Chinese rule deprives them of religious freedom. Beijing accuses the Dalai Lama of pushing for Tibetan autonomy and fomenting anti-Chinese protests.
Norbu talked about his relationship with his uncle in an interview with the Chicago Tribune published in 1995.
“It’s hard sometimes,” Norbu told the newspaper. “I don’t get next to him that often. I can’t just hug him or anything like that. You don’t do things like that. Sure I have an audience with him. Sure I see him. I respect him to the point where if I’m in India I don’t go see him every day. He’s got more important things to do. He’s got 6 million Tibetans to worry about.”
Perhaps, Buddhist delusions about “guardian Bodhisattvas” and such also played a role in instilling a false sense of “protection” in the unfortunate Norbu’s mind as he walked his way to death wearing dark clothes on a dark highway!
Religious belief in protection by supernatural agencies can lead to grave dangers and harms.
What a sad story! At least the boy who was driving the SUV had no intention to do harm — so his action have less of a negative effect than would be otherwise.
It is not certain from the story that Jigme Norbu is a Buddhist. However, even if he considered himself a Buddhist, it is not clear that he held the simplistic and theistic view of dharma protectors that you describe.
It’s tragic alright, but one in which foolishness in the form of negligence of grave risks played a crucial role.
If I unintentionally but foolishly set off an explosion which killed people, how is this supposed to have caused “less of negative effect” than intentionally doing the same act which results in the same effect?
It is but a religious superstition that the universe has some moral order which in which good intentions have some privileged status and special causal powers.
The notion of a supernatural “protector” is theistic to its core and it is irrelevant whether or not this protector is omnipotent and/or omniscient.
Of what use is a “protector” if he or she cannot avert serious harm to those in his or her protection? Of what use is a “Dharma protector” (Why is the “dharma” in need of protection?)who cannot protect the sincere adherents of “dharma” against harm?
“If I unintentionally but foolishly set off an explosion which killed people, how is this supposed to have caused “less of negative effect” than intentionally doing the same act which results in the same effect?”
Let me revise this to read:
“If I have good intentions, but foolishly set off an explosion which killed people, how is this supposed to have caused “less of negative effect” than intentionally doing the same act which results in the same effect?”
Intention makes a great difference. If a plane had accidentally flown into the World Trade Center, we would still have 3,500 people killed — but we would likely not have had tens of thousands killed in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention a great increase of hatred of Arabs and Muslims in America — just to highlight a few of the negative consequences of bad intentions.
Aggression fuels aggression. Compassion generates good will and peace. Intention makes a great difference.
But supposing the hijackers had botched it or failed to crash the planes into the Twin towers and had then decided to simply land the planes in an airport somewhere. Obviously, this would not have led to the deaths of those 3500 people caught in those towers. The lives of these people would have been saved despite the evil intentions of the hijackers because of a simple fact: the planes did not crash into the towers.
So, it is not the intention which brought about the effect but the successful execution of the action in accordance with the intention. This also applies to what actually happened. Those 3500 people lost their lives and the Bush-Cheney administration used that as a pretext for the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and war crimes because the hijackers actions succeeded in executing their intentions.
My main point is that intentions are not enough. The nature of the actions and their actual effects are crucial. Nice guys end up as losers to the bad guys if this central fact is overlooked.
Let us also not forget that good intentions also produce bad results, e.g., compassionate actions can make someone dependent on external help instead of being self-reliant. Good intentions have paved the road to hell. How do you explain that?
“Intention makes a great difference.”
Sure, it does. Just take a look at the infernal Catholic Inquisition! All in the wake of the noble intention to save souls from damnation!
Thill, I think we agree! A bad intention that is not carried into action has a very light negative effect — perhaps just limited to disturbing the state of mind of the actor.
Likewise, I would agree that good intentions that are not put into effect intelligently can cause trouble — or even have opposite effects to what was intended.
So, intention, intelligence and exertion are necessary. I tend to focus on intention as the most important — but the others are quite important.
Here is the link to an interesting Tricycle interview, on beliefs pertaining to supernatural protectors in Tibetan Buddhism, with the late Thubten Jigme Norbu , brother of the Dalai Lama and father of Jigme Norbu who was killed a few days ago:
http://www.tricycle.com/special-section/an-interview-with-thubten-jigme-norbu
Amod, when are you going to start posting on your blog? I’m getting worried!
First new post coming on Sunday.