Like the third precept about sensual misconduct, this is another of the precepts that generates a lot of interest, both in myself and among those in my peer group. It seems most obviously to be an admonition against substance abuse (be that substance alcohol or any variety of other intoxicating substances). Moral guidance with regard to intoxicating substances does rightfully belong with this precept, no doubt, but I see a subtler and broader view as well.
As with the other precepts, I find a rule-making view such as "don't drink alcohol or do drugs" to be too rigid and easily grasped, though that can be regarded as good advice. On one hand, I like a drink now and again and I haven't found enjoying such to be a moral quandary, neither for myself nor for many of my friends and acquaintances. I've even enjoyed a modicum of recreation and relaxation via intoxicating substances with and in the company of people whose religious practice and sense of moral awareness I deeply admire, and I still do from time to time.
On the other hand, I have also known many people whose lives (and often the lives of those around them) have been literally destroyed by the abuse of intoxicating substances. At the same time, it has not escaped my notice that I've also seen similar destruction waged by means of intoxication with work, with various avocations, with excessive religiosity and by excessively ardent political views. I've seen people do real harm because of being dangerously intoxicated with Buddhism. I suppose one could even get dangerously intoxicated with the precepts themselves.
Welcome to human life. This is the mushy and dynamic netherworld in which we find ourselves with regard to this and every other moral question. One intoxicating notion that I think it is very important to disabuse one's self of is the notion that there are moral absolutes. There are none, not even that one.
The word intoxicant contains the word "toxic." I think that's the point here. For example, in my practice as a nurse I've been ardently drilled in the awareness that every single pharamcologic agent that I administer, no matter how life-saving and comfort-inducing it may be in the proper dosage, can also kill if administered by the wrong route, in the wrong dosage, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason, or to the wrong patient.
That is, there is no absolutely safe substance, not even water itself. You can kill someone with too much water, you can arrest someone's heart and breathing with too much oxygen. One can save a life with a single administration of a single drug one single time, and one can give the same drug in the same dosage to another person at the same time and end their life. That is, there are no pharmacologic absolutes either. Every drug is potentially a poison.
Similarly, every idea, every construct to which one can grasp, is potentially intoxicating. I read Tricycle magazine, an American magazine aimed at Buddhists. Periodically, they will run some recipe for something seemingly wholesome and innocuous like chicken soup. Inevitably, in the very next issue there will be some outraged letter to the editor demanding an apology, that they cease associating themselves with Buddhism, a immediate retraction of the recipe, or at the very least reminding them that an action like publishing a chicken soup recipe is tantamount to torturing innocent animals solely for the satisfaction of one's own selfish, misguided desire for a warm, savory broth.
I suspect the editors publish these recipes and the resultant letters for their amusement (I certainly find them amusing). They usually remind these outraged readers intoxicated with vegetarianism that the Dalai Lama eats meat (which contains the intoxicating notion that this is some official Buddhist imprimatur for meat-eating, but that's neither here nor there) in their editorial reply. I imagine (but do not know) that there are people out there who have summarily canceled their Tricycle magazine subscriptions over a chicken soup recipe. As a see this precept, this action would be a violation of it.
Similarly, there are people on very limited incomes who will miss their rent payments next month because of a first-of-the-month bender when the social security check arrives. This is also a violation of this precept. I know of a pastor in a small Baptist church in Texas who dismissed his own niece from the congregation and from further association with his immediate family because she admitted to seriously considering a premarital affair. This banishment is also a violation of this precept.
In each of these cases, someone attached themselves to a notion or an experience so tightly that they caused harm. Toxins cause harm. The fundamental moral guidance for me in my life is to live for the benefit of all beings (NB: I did not say "all other beings"). This seems wholly consistent with my direct experience of Reality. Harmony is our natural state of existence.
So, what I think the use of the concept of intoxication in this precept points towards is this notion that when there is something that when present in some measure may bring some comfort one must be careful. This very same thing, be it bourbon, vegetarianism, or Buddhism, can also be indulged in to the point where it becomes poisonous and harmful. The problem isn't out there. Addiciton is not dissolved in bourbon, it is contained within the mind. Intoxication is not non-tee-totaling. As any honest student of a 12-step program will tell you, a dry drunk is still a drunk. I find a modicum of comfort in the warmth and relaxation found by sipping a limited quantity of bourbon from time to time, this is not intoxication.
However, I also know people for whom even a single sip of bourbon seemingly inevitably brings about a cascade of events in their life that is harmful. They should not drink bourbon in any amount. I have a similar relationship with jelly beans. I seem unable to consume them in moderation, I will continue eating them until they are gone, no matter what quantity I have on hand, so I don't consume them at all. That seems like a silly example, but I used to be a rather severe diabetic, jelly beans were just as serious a situation for me as bourbon was for my friends who can't consume it in moderation. There are no absolutes here, really.
I don't offer my alcoholic friends a drink. I also don't lecture people endlessly about the wisdom of zen practice, or about how much I support a particular political persuasion. I used to do each of these things, I've made mistakes just as you have, but I seek to return to a state of being I enjoyed, and still can enjoy, before I grasp hold of the notion that alcohol is always okay, or zen practice is always wise, or that arch conservatives are always greedy hatemongers. There is a place one can exist before these notions arise, and one can return to that place at any time. This is also called Reality, some call it by other names, but it is always available to us at all time. It marks the Way,
So, a follower of the Way does not intoxicate oneself or others.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
A follower of the Way does not speak deceptively.
Don't tell lies. Like the first precept, this one is pretty clear as a moral standard. But, also like the first precept, it is problematic for people when applied too narrowly, and the mind is especially prone to crafting hypothetical scenarios in order to seemingly thwart it or disprove it.
The classic scenario goes something like this: Anne Frank is in your attic. The Gestapo stops by and asks you if you are harboring any Jews. Is it okay to lie? If it is, then what about this precept? If it is not, then this precept is bullshit. Again, this is your mind at work, doing it's thing. Just watch it.
What is at work there is your persistent dissatisfaction with not having a definite, concrete, eternal concept to which to cling. How easy it would be to just be able to decide "I will never lie" and have boundless confidence that every situation will magically work out peachy-keen! This is what your mind is in pursuit of here.
Anne Frank is actually not in your attic, and she never will be. The precepts are not rules to apply to solving abstract ethical puzzles, they are reminders for us as we make decisions about the conduct of our real, actual, everyday lives. They are not absolute, unchanging, concrete and definite. But, take a moment to notice something here--your real, actual, everyday life is not absolute, unchanging, concrete and definite.
When I have lied, I have done so because I bought into the idea that I would be better off if someone else understood the world in a different way than I knew it to be. This is the grasping, this is the delusion that this precept reminds us we can get caught by. However, there is a broader view still of this precept. Speaking deceptively can be much more subtle than outright lying, it can mean representing an opinion as fact, and this process can be entirely internal. That is, you can speak deceptively to yourself. As with all the precepts, this is where the mistake is really made, I.e., in your own mind.
I have several close friends who are couples. That is, I am friends with two people whom I met independently of each other who are now pair-bonded, either by marriage or some other similarly primary relationship. So, I can find myself in a situation where I am getting too sides of the same story, two versions of a single event. Now, I long ago decided to never step in the middle and this precept points to one of the reasons why.
Even after I have heard the accounts from both sides I don't really know what happened. I often believe I do, I often have a very concrete concept of where the misunderstanding lies, and who is at fault, and all that stuff. This precept serves me by reminding me that what I really have is a third version of the story, one step abstracted from the actual event (unless I was there) and to represent that to anyone, including myself, as the truth is to speak deceptively.
Of course, it is fine for me to discuss my view, or my opinion of a situation as long as I represent it as such. This doesn't mean that I can never talk about anything. But much of the speech in which I used to engage was some version of me trying to convince someone that the world really is as I see it. If I had limited myself to only things I knew to be true I would have really been a very quiet person all those years.
In fact, among people who have only met me recently, I actually have a reputation for being quiet. This may be because I do stop myself from simply babbling on these days some narrative being cooked up in my mind, because I see it for what it is--so much meaningless mental white noise. I endeavor to limit my speech to things I know to be true, helpful and kind. It never ceases to amaze me how little of what I want to say actually satisfies those criteria. Try it for yourself.
While this precept does represent an admonition against actual lying, and that is good advice, the real issue here is seeing what your mind does with an event as you relate it later. Whenever you speak to anyone about anything you are conceptualizing reality. You are extracting items from the whole picture, which means some things are inevitably left out.
There's nothing to do about that other than see it for what it is. You can never tell the whole truth about something. The only Truth is what is going on at this very moment, and that can't be spoken. But, as a beloved teacher in my lineage is known to have said, you have to say something or there will be no understanding. This is the double-bind we find ourselves in here, so what we can do is be vigilant to represent ourselves with speech as faithfully and truthfully as possible.
So, a follower of the Way does not speak deceptively.
The classic scenario goes something like this: Anne Frank is in your attic. The Gestapo stops by and asks you if you are harboring any Jews. Is it okay to lie? If it is, then what about this precept? If it is not, then this precept is bullshit. Again, this is your mind at work, doing it's thing. Just watch it.
What is at work there is your persistent dissatisfaction with not having a definite, concrete, eternal concept to which to cling. How easy it would be to just be able to decide "I will never lie" and have boundless confidence that every situation will magically work out peachy-keen! This is what your mind is in pursuit of here.
Anne Frank is actually not in your attic, and she never will be. The precepts are not rules to apply to solving abstract ethical puzzles, they are reminders for us as we make decisions about the conduct of our real, actual, everyday lives. They are not absolute, unchanging, concrete and definite. But, take a moment to notice something here--your real, actual, everyday life is not absolute, unchanging, concrete and definite.
When I have lied, I have done so because I bought into the idea that I would be better off if someone else understood the world in a different way than I knew it to be. This is the grasping, this is the delusion that this precept reminds us we can get caught by. However, there is a broader view still of this precept. Speaking deceptively can be much more subtle than outright lying, it can mean representing an opinion as fact, and this process can be entirely internal. That is, you can speak deceptively to yourself. As with all the precepts, this is where the mistake is really made, I.e., in your own mind.
I have several close friends who are couples. That is, I am friends with two people whom I met independently of each other who are now pair-bonded, either by marriage or some other similarly primary relationship. So, I can find myself in a situation where I am getting too sides of the same story, two versions of a single event. Now, I long ago decided to never step in the middle and this precept points to one of the reasons why.
Even after I have heard the accounts from both sides I don't really know what happened. I often believe I do, I often have a very concrete concept of where the misunderstanding lies, and who is at fault, and all that stuff. This precept serves me by reminding me that what I really have is a third version of the story, one step abstracted from the actual event (unless I was there) and to represent that to anyone, including myself, as the truth is to speak deceptively.
Of course, it is fine for me to discuss my view, or my opinion of a situation as long as I represent it as such. This doesn't mean that I can never talk about anything. But much of the speech in which I used to engage was some version of me trying to convince someone that the world really is as I see it. If I had limited myself to only things I knew to be true I would have really been a very quiet person all those years.
In fact, among people who have only met me recently, I actually have a reputation for being quiet. This may be because I do stop myself from simply babbling on these days some narrative being cooked up in my mind, because I see it for what it is--so much meaningless mental white noise. I endeavor to limit my speech to things I know to be true, helpful and kind. It never ceases to amaze me how little of what I want to say actually satisfies those criteria. Try it for yourself.
While this precept does represent an admonition against actual lying, and that is good advice, the real issue here is seeing what your mind does with an event as you relate it later. Whenever you speak to anyone about anything you are conceptualizing reality. You are extracting items from the whole picture, which means some things are inevitably left out.
There's nothing to do about that other than see it for what it is. You can never tell the whole truth about something. The only Truth is what is going on at this very moment, and that can't be spoken. But, as a beloved teacher in my lineage is known to have said, you have to say something or there will be no understanding. This is the double-bind we find ourselves in here, so what we can do is be vigilant to represent ourselves with speech as faithfully and truthfully as possible.
So, a follower of the Way does not speak deceptively.
Friday, February 11, 2011
A follower of the Way does not engage in sensual misconduct.
This precept is often stated as "A follower of the Way does not engage in *sexual* misconduct" and because of that it generates a lot of interest. I'm guessing that is because a lot of people have really definite ideas about what sexual misconduct is, or they are struggling with their own definition of the boundaries of proper sexual behavior in their own lives.
I think probably most of that rumination properly belongs to this precept, but my application of this precept is much more broad. *Sensual* misconduct is much closer to the mark. I think most sexual misconduct arises from an abuse of the senses. Most people get focused on sex because of the sensations that arise from sexual behavior. However, that idiot blaring the loud music at 3 am in the apartment next door is also engaging in sensual misconduct, as is someone who habitually overeats.
It is easy to miss the point here by focusing too much on the term misconduct, as if this were a punitive declaration. Misconduct in this context just points to doing something unwisely. A person chanting sutras who so enjoys the tonality of their own voice that they distract and disturb those chanting with them is engaging in sensual misconduct. It's not all about frankly violent or antisocial misbehavior.
The problem here is grasping at sensual experience as if there is something there within that experience which you desperately lack. Again, you might be seeing a pattern to my approach in these essays, it this the projection of your focus outward to some external thing in an effort to make up for some feeling of lack you experience within yourself. That feeling of lack is real, it is what Buddhist teachings address in the Noble Truths, but you lead yourself astray when you buy into the notion that there is something out there, separate from you, that can somehow solve that problem. This grasping at an external solution for the persistent dissatisfaction you are experiencing can cause people to bring rise to harm, the extreme case would be rape, and that is what this precept reminds us of.
In the movie "Spinal Tap" there is a famous scene in which the guitarist shows off his amplifier. He calls attention to the panel around the volume knob, which often has markings on it from one to ten. His panel has eleven as the highest number. It is a joke, and a really clever one, because it elucidates this very grasping at extremes. Of course, painting a different number on the panel of the amp doesn't make it any louder when turned all the way up, but ten wasn't enough for this guitarist. He had to have eleven.
Customizing the front of an amplifier isn't misconduct, at least not in my book, but the thing at which he was grasping, needing his guitar to be just a little louder in order to achieve something, is the same kind of desire that gives rise to the conduct addressed by this precept. A love affair that violates a promise of fidelity, engaging in sex with someone unable to freely give their consent because of age, their position as an employee or some other subordinate context, or of course forcing someone to have sex against their will are all actions that arise from the notion that some sensual experience is worth causing harm to another.
It isn't. Not only is it wrong, but there's actually no solution there. There is a way to address this persistent dissatisfaction in our lives, but it can't be done by hurting someone else, it can't be done by getting something somewhere. We all know this before we jump to the conclusion that our senses really can satisfy us, the knowledge actually precedes our mental conception of some sensual experience as a solution, so a follower of the Way, that is, one who does not indulge these concepts, does not engage in sensual misconduct.
I think probably most of that rumination properly belongs to this precept, but my application of this precept is much more broad. *Sensual* misconduct is much closer to the mark. I think most sexual misconduct arises from an abuse of the senses. Most people get focused on sex because of the sensations that arise from sexual behavior. However, that idiot blaring the loud music at 3 am in the apartment next door is also engaging in sensual misconduct, as is someone who habitually overeats.
It is easy to miss the point here by focusing too much on the term misconduct, as if this were a punitive declaration. Misconduct in this context just points to doing something unwisely. A person chanting sutras who so enjoys the tonality of their own voice that they distract and disturb those chanting with them is engaging in sensual misconduct. It's not all about frankly violent or antisocial misbehavior.
The problem here is grasping at sensual experience as if there is something there within that experience which you desperately lack. Again, you might be seeing a pattern to my approach in these essays, it this the projection of your focus outward to some external thing in an effort to make up for some feeling of lack you experience within yourself. That feeling of lack is real, it is what Buddhist teachings address in the Noble Truths, but you lead yourself astray when you buy into the notion that there is something out there, separate from you, that can somehow solve that problem. This grasping at an external solution for the persistent dissatisfaction you are experiencing can cause people to bring rise to harm, the extreme case would be rape, and that is what this precept reminds us of.
In the movie "Spinal Tap" there is a famous scene in which the guitarist shows off his amplifier. He calls attention to the panel around the volume knob, which often has markings on it from one to ten. His panel has eleven as the highest number. It is a joke, and a really clever one, because it elucidates this very grasping at extremes. Of course, painting a different number on the panel of the amp doesn't make it any louder when turned all the way up, but ten wasn't enough for this guitarist. He had to have eleven.
Customizing the front of an amplifier isn't misconduct, at least not in my book, but the thing at which he was grasping, needing his guitar to be just a little louder in order to achieve something, is the same kind of desire that gives rise to the conduct addressed by this precept. A love affair that violates a promise of fidelity, engaging in sex with someone unable to freely give their consent because of age, their position as an employee or some other subordinate context, or of course forcing someone to have sex against their will are all actions that arise from the notion that some sensual experience is worth causing harm to another.
It isn't. Not only is it wrong, but there's actually no solution there. There is a way to address this persistent dissatisfaction in our lives, but it can't be done by hurting someone else, it can't be done by getting something somewhere. We all know this before we jump to the conclusion that our senses really can satisfy us, the knowledge actually precedes our mental conception of some sensual experience as a solution, so a follower of the Way, that is, one who does not indulge these concepts, does not engage in sensual misconduct.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Snow follows rdewald to Texas
I know, it doesn't look like much, but there is a nasty wind and it is just starting. Blizzard in MN, Snowmagedden I and II in NYC, and now The Super Bowl Ice-Storm in Texas! All in 7 weeks....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)