I was recently asked:
[I've] been trying to comprehend, and apply, the "Art of the SELFLESS". What I realized this morning, however, is that while I have always achieved, & percieved, said philosophy through means of a courageous, SINGLE selfless act, it is indeed instead a way of LIFE. So...what would you recommend to a man seeking to arrive at this way of life?
This was my response:
This is indeed both a simple and a complex question at the same time, which one could suppose would make it complex. However, it is actually quite simple. Practice love.
That is easy for one to say. The actual action requires a lot of someone at first. It is a conscious effort to forgo the generations of instincts we have incorporated into ourselves and our cultures. It is first and foremost a sacrifice. But most importantly, it is a sacrifice with zero gain for ourselves. To someone unaccustomed to this, it might seem crazy, counter intuitive and quite self-destructive. It is, instead, the greatest thing a person can do every single day.
Love, by this one's definition, is a pure and selfless sacrifice. We often confuse love with infatuation or lust but neither of those things are actually love at all. Love is beyond a concept of self-benefit. We gain nothing from love. We can not feel love either. This may seem strange, but when you love someone, there is no way to be certain they feel it. We have faith that love is what we are doing and the other person appreciates it. When a child is told they are loved, it is not a feeling. When a parent is told they are loved, it certainly warms the heart, but their child rarely understands the depth of the words and their parent's love. This is quite a thing to think about. We have only truly felt our own love for others.
This poses quite a problem for many people. They require validation in their love. This however, is not really love at all. Recently, I was riding my bicycle to the train station on a rainy day. I was going quite fast as I was running a little behind schedule. Suddenly a young boy, maybe 9 or 10 years old, ran from the far side of the very wide walk way across my path towards his secondary school. I was aiming right for him. I never met the boy before, I never saw him again, but I loved him. I wished him well and that he would have no pain that day. So, I slid out on my bike in such a manner that we are accustomed to seeing in action films where the person slides under a trucks trailer by sharply turning sideways. I landed on the ground unharmed, but the bike slid from between my legs toward the boy. Faster than I thought I could, I caught the bike and threw it over my head so as to keep it from sliding into the child. It clipped the side of my head as it went and knocked my skull at the temple into the hard stone pavement. Mildly rattled I got up and assured the woman walking near by that I was fine and continued on my way to the train. I wasn't angry at all, I wasn't sad at all, I was in pain a bit but I wasn't going to blame the child. He's a child and I'm a grown man. After all, I had Judo training to do that night. The boy did not notice. His mother looked on from her car in horror as I got up and rode away while her child skipped into his school. I never saw the child or the mother again but I can tell you this, it was not only the right thing to do, it was love. I don't care that the child doesn't know what happened. All that matters is his well being. This. This is love. I have no benefit for the experience and, in fact, my head was swollen to the point of not being able to sleep properly for about 2 or 3 weeks. This was not a rewarding experience, it was nothing of which to be particularly proud because I was going too fast, and it was certainly not comfortable. It was however, pure and selfless sacrifice.
The next question someone might ask at this is "How does one do this in every action?" This is actually a much easier answer. Understand that every single person you ever meet has the potential to be God/Buddha/Jesus/The single most important person in human history/The cure for cancer, AIDS and world hunger/Your mother/Your sister/Your brother/Your father/Your child/The person who will align the planets and will bring peace to the planet and the rest of the universe. This understanding will lead you to encourage peace around the world as well as with every single individual you meet.
It is said that one time a great zen monk from Japan was NOT told that the emperor might visit on the day of the first snow but he prepared anyway. At the first sign of snow, he took all of the meditation pillows from his hall and placed one on each stone on the pathway to his tea house. When the snow stopped and the next day came, he went out and removed each pillow. It didn't matter if it was the emperor or a beggar who came next, they would have a clear walkway and when it happened to be the emperor, he was so impressed at the thoroughness that he built a temple for the monk to be head master. The monk just went back to the old tea house and continued to do as he had done before. There was no need for reward. He just did what he would do for anyone. He would show them love.
Show that same love to everyone. Friend, foe, family, feline or fox... That is the way of selflessness.
Osu, love and peace,
~至道
Showing posts with label Zen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zen. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Question of Morality
I was recently asked:
Osu. I was thinking about what it means to be a vegetarian; how one might perfectly justify it. I was considering the idea of morals. "What is moral and immoral," and after thinking about it long enough, besides the obvious smoke exiting from my ear canal's, I felt like morals are largely built attachment. It seems that different people have different moral codes. What do you think about morality?
This was my reply:
Morality has only to do with one's personal memory and experience . We must first separate morality from ethics. While ethics are the rules of others, morality is our own rules. Ethics and morals from this stand point are two entirely different kinds of attachments. I am reminded of a story about a great teacher. However, that teacher decided to quit teaching. He came to the conclusion that the world was too attached to one way of living even in the practices of zen. Thus he became a beggar and lived under a bridge with a few homeless men.
At that time, a student from a far away land was coming to see him. Upon arriving to the monastery where the teacher had previously resided, he learned that the master was no longer there. He decided that he would search for him. Long he looked, from temple to temple and could not find the master anywhere. One day in the middle of winter, he walked by a bridge over a frozen stream and looked over the side and the master was there looking up at him. The student waved and the master waved and walked back under the bridge. The student followed him and then asked the master to teach him. The master at first refused. The student begged and pleaded with him to reconsider and finally, he relented by saying, "If you can live the way I live here for one week I will teach you." The student was delighted. The first thing they did was remove his robes and turned them into blankets. The student was standing naked in the freezing winter. He was then given some old rags to keep him warm when not under the blankets. They slept that night and the student slept soundly with the satisfaction of finding the teacher.
The next day, they found a few places where garbage was regularly disposed and they made a meal of it. The taste was foul and the portions small but the student choked it down happily knowing that the teacher would teach him. The night was extremely cold. They had their small tents but some of the men had fewer blankets. They shared their blankets with the other men. However, it didn't keep one of them from dying of hypothermia. In the morning, they found the body and so, in the snow and ice, they dug for hours. The student was exhausted but knew the funeral rites and this was the thing they had to do. When they finally had finished the hole, the teacher stripped the body naked and put it in the grave (Note: Holes only become graves when bodies are in them, interesting.). The student was a taken aback when they put the body in the hole naked. He felt strange about doing that to this man. Then, when they had finished, they went back to the bridge. The teacher went to the dead man's tent and got his food. The dead man had had a small bit of chicken jerky. Then he began to feed it to the student. The student refused and decided to go hungry. The teacher ate the jerky staring the student in the eye and the student began to cry. "Leave! You haven't learned anything!"yelled the teacher. The student went back to the temple in tears.
My question then to you is this. What was the student's problem? Clothes are to be worn, bodies are to be buried, food is to be eaten. What is the moral imperative? Also, then, why share the food with the other beggars? These questions seem confusing initially but with a little time and meditation they become clear.
The student was morally opposed to disposing of a body without clothing. To him it seemed cruel. However, is it more cruel to deny those alive of a perfectly good thing to keep them warm that is free for the taking? The answer here is of course! Further more, the food was for eating. The student saw it as belonging to this man. However, that man was no longer there. Had an animal found it, it would have eaten it. What makes them different from the animals? Ultimately nothing. So eat it! But morally, that is difficult because we find it to be stealing from the dead. In this case, the morality is an attachment.
However, the harder question is the one about sharing. Why share indeed? The simple answer. It is the right thing to do. Morally? Ethically? No. Universally the right thing to do. Help those in need is not a moral imperative. It is in fact, a way of letting go of the self and those moral attachments. Help without fear of death, help without fear of starving, help without fear of wrong doing. These actions lead to a peace beyond the self and has nothing to do with morality. How interesting it is, though, that we lump the two together so frequently! This is the reason the steam spewed from your ears. You must learn to take things apart and look at them for what they are not for what they seem to be. Morals are based on good ideas, but become too attached to them and they will lead you astray from reality.
What do I think of morality?
Live rightly, not morally.
Osu. I was thinking about what it means to be a vegetarian; how one might perfectly justify it. I was considering the idea of morals. "What is moral and immoral," and after thinking about it long enough, besides the obvious smoke exiting from my ear canal's, I felt like morals are largely built attachment. It seems that different people have different moral codes. What do you think about morality?
This was my reply:
Morality has only to do with one's personal memory and experience . We must first separate morality from ethics. While ethics are the rules of others, morality is our own rules. Ethics and morals from this stand point are two entirely different kinds of attachments. I am reminded of a story about a great teacher. However, that teacher decided to quit teaching. He came to the conclusion that the world was too attached to one way of living even in the practices of zen. Thus he became a beggar and lived under a bridge with a few homeless men.
At that time, a student from a far away land was coming to see him. Upon arriving to the monastery where the teacher had previously resided, he learned that the master was no longer there. He decided that he would search for him. Long he looked, from temple to temple and could not find the master anywhere. One day in the middle of winter, he walked by a bridge over a frozen stream and looked over the side and the master was there looking up at him. The student waved and the master waved and walked back under the bridge. The student followed him and then asked the master to teach him. The master at first refused. The student begged and pleaded with him to reconsider and finally, he relented by saying, "If you can live the way I live here for one week I will teach you." The student was delighted. The first thing they did was remove his robes and turned them into blankets. The student was standing naked in the freezing winter. He was then given some old rags to keep him warm when not under the blankets. They slept that night and the student slept soundly with the satisfaction of finding the teacher.
The next day, they found a few places where garbage was regularly disposed and they made a meal of it. The taste was foul and the portions small but the student choked it down happily knowing that the teacher would teach him. The night was extremely cold. They had their small tents but some of the men had fewer blankets. They shared their blankets with the other men. However, it didn't keep one of them from dying of hypothermia. In the morning, they found the body and so, in the snow and ice, they dug for hours. The student was exhausted but knew the funeral rites and this was the thing they had to do. When they finally had finished the hole, the teacher stripped the body naked and put it in the grave (Note: Holes only become graves when bodies are in them, interesting.). The student was a taken aback when they put the body in the hole naked. He felt strange about doing that to this man. Then, when they had finished, they went back to the bridge. The teacher went to the dead man's tent and got his food. The dead man had had a small bit of chicken jerky. Then he began to feed it to the student. The student refused and decided to go hungry. The teacher ate the jerky staring the student in the eye and the student began to cry. "Leave! You haven't learned anything!"yelled the teacher. The student went back to the temple in tears.
My question then to you is this. What was the student's problem? Clothes are to be worn, bodies are to be buried, food is to be eaten. What is the moral imperative? Also, then, why share the food with the other beggars? These questions seem confusing initially but with a little time and meditation they become clear.
The student was morally opposed to disposing of a body without clothing. To him it seemed cruel. However, is it more cruel to deny those alive of a perfectly good thing to keep them warm that is free for the taking? The answer here is of course! Further more, the food was for eating. The student saw it as belonging to this man. However, that man was no longer there. Had an animal found it, it would have eaten it. What makes them different from the animals? Ultimately nothing. So eat it! But morally, that is difficult because we find it to be stealing from the dead. In this case, the morality is an attachment.
However, the harder question is the one about sharing. Why share indeed? The simple answer. It is the right thing to do. Morally? Ethically? No. Universally the right thing to do. Help those in need is not a moral imperative. It is in fact, a way of letting go of the self and those moral attachments. Help without fear of death, help without fear of starving, help without fear of wrong doing. These actions lead to a peace beyond the self and has nothing to do with morality. How interesting it is, though, that we lump the two together so frequently! This is the reason the steam spewed from your ears. You must learn to take things apart and look at them for what they are not for what they seem to be. Morals are based on good ideas, but become too attached to them and they will lead you astray from reality.
What do I think of morality?
Live rightly, not morally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)