Sila in the Age of No Self and Emptiness

I have a minor, undeveloped thought which I wanted to present to you.

Recently we have been hearing a lot of the more metaphysical side of practice, from practitioners who have been developing insights about the illusory nature of self and various other pretty high-level truths. In such a context, where concepts like 'mind' and 'self' seem to be almost quaint, do you think there's still a place for sila, that is, ethics, or hiri-ottappa—moral sensitivity; the twinge we feel when we're exposed to misdeeds and unskillful behavior, by ourselves or others?

A friend of mine told me, a while ago, when he first wanted to started practicing and asked for some pointers, that he wanted, in no uncertain terms 'to be a better person'—and the more that I practice the more I have to return to this basic mechanism, that the bulk of the suffering I currently feel can only be traced to my own unskillful behavior, and that every hard-fought bit of ethics I can instill in myself develops the sense of peace of mind and balance that the ajahns discuss. That as much as I develop my powers of concentration and learning, the mechanism that still most directly determines my sense of well-being is the ethical mechanism of karma.

You who are further on the path, or more mystically inclined, or maybe just more pragmatically—do these questions sit with you? Do you ever feel hiri-ottappa? Do you think this is a relevant area of dharma practice, or just a conditioned thing to be let go of?

Good one!

I actually got into Buddhism to some extent because it was mentioned so often on vegetarian/vegan websites and discussions. Of course, there is only a very thin, tenuous overlap between veg*n concerns and Buddhist ones, but that was enough back then to get me interested.

No-self and sila and a sense of moral shame do seem to have a certain disconnect at first, don't they? You might want to consider that, just as there is no "see-er" who sees things by pulling them into itself, making them its own or even itself in some way, there is no "shame perceiver" who upon encountering a bad situation will pull it into itself to make it its own.

Perceiving something is part of what's perceived, not a copy in or part of a perceiver (which incidentally can't be found). That's as far as no(t)-self goes here. And it holds for moral shame (and other mental perceptions) just as well as it holds for seeing, or tasting.

It is possible to train or refine the sense of moral shame, just as it is possible to train the visual sense. And as far as my own experience so far is concerned, each and every shift in my perception threshold was accompanied by a clearer sense of moral shame.

Cheers,
Florian

Zach, my current ponder on this are that it seems that traditional practices include the array of pointers they do in large part to set the practitioners mind up in as close an imitation of awakening as possible. So by sitting like the Buddha sat, consciously trying to cultivate equanimity, skillful speech, compassion and practicing all the other elements of the tradition it's almost like trying to get everything right to the sweet spot where the ground is perfectly fertile for awakening.

In my own experience from very early in my meditation practice I found certain things falling away, such as my tendency to carry a lot of inner anger towards certain people, which manifested as harshness in my speech when talking to them and wishing ill on them. It seems to me that the deeper my practice goes, the more that kind of thing just fades and fades, so that now I can talk to the same person and just have a pleasant and kind-hearted conversation rather than one that leaves us both irritable and hurt.

There is another level at which I am tending to be more honest with myself and others, which also affects moral behavior. That is I have gradually lost the fear/shame reaction that comes from worrying that other people might not like you or that you might be scolded by your parents or that you might be socially excluded for being stupid or nerdy or whatever. I think people think if you take away that social punishment threat, everyone will just act like an ass. But I don't have much desire to do anything that would make someone else uncomfortable or unhappy, certainly not for its own sake. Sometimes I do or say something that makes someone else uncomfortable, and I tend to feel concerned for their feelings and sorry that I hurt them, but not concerned for my own, if that makes sense? Again I feel like this is something that started early on in my practice in small ways and continues to develop and deepen as time passes.

So in conclusion I think that moral training (and most other aspects of practice) are very useful, serve a purpose, but in the end are replaced by naturally arising tendencies that are fruits of practice. Besides, given the prevalence of cruelty in the world, it certainly is a nice gesture towards making life a bit better for the people around you to cultivate ethics, compassion and other "nice' behaviors. Again, this is just based on my own experience and current opinion.

Thoughts?

Just to wander on (and Zach, clarify if there are specific types of moral behavior and ethics that you are thinking of in this context), but seeing a guy sleeping in a box on my walk this morning reminded me of how much baggage we often bring to our reactions to a sight like that, and how often it's more about "me" than the person in the box. For example I might have had family members, or I myself might have been homeless or at risk of being homeless, it might have related to unemployment, lack of education, a drug or alcohol problem. The sight of this particular man then triggers those memories and my reactions of resentment and anger or fear about my own life context... Then I am not looking at a man sleeping in a box, I am looking at a representation of my own fears and memories. From that place I cannot then interact with him as a fellow human (who has his own stories and needs) but only from a place where my hidden priority is coping with my own baggage.

I think the deeper you go in practice, the more you are clearly aware of your own stuff, and can respond from a place of more authentic and natural compassion rather than from your memories, emotions and family history. Does that make sense? I think the same applies to a great many ethical and moral actions and concerns.

I have the view that practice can change our relationship towards our self and thus can (I picked the word "can" on purpose) reduce suffering based upon our ignorance of the fact that our self is fluid, continuously created, and unfixed while at the same time never ever eliminate our feelings and actions as a self. It is us who practice, it is us who get up from the cushion and act in the world, it is us who have relationships with each other. Barring death and certain injuries and diseases, there is no getting away from Zach and Mike and Chris and Florian and Ona.

Thus, shame and any effects of bad or good behavior on our conscience/peace of mind are always going to be a factor in our lives. Always, whether one practices or not.

I think to get all of the benefits of buddhist teachings one needs to take the entire eight fold path seriously and allways be developing each part. Somehow mastering any one or two or three of the folds will never eliminate the importance of the remaining five or six. However, I think a lot of us can get a huge benefit from developing our moral behaviors and character. I guess I say it a lot -- most of the more peaceful, happy, good people I know are people I know through Christian churches. These people I'm thinking of have developed a life through their devotion, service, community, prayer, faith, etc. that promotes a certain peace of mind while never dealing with "high level truths" about the nature of self. I also think that some "advanced" practitioners appear to act in immoral ways on a regular basis, and I am sure that dealing with their shame is not easy and causes even more damage to themselves and those around them.

I guess I was less concerned with the specific relationship between the doctrine of no-self and moral action, but more whether you who do find your practices in rarified places like self-pointing, or other big-time large scale insight elements, still find it relevant or effective to think in terms of your interactions with others, and whether you're behaving ethically, whether you're acting in accordance with the precepts, and specifically in terms of the karma you're creating for yourselves with either skillful or unskillful interaction with other people.

I guess I was less concerned with the specific relationship between the doctrine of no-self and moral action, but more whether you who do find your practices in rarified places like self-pointing, or other big-time large scale insight elements, still find it relevant or effective to think in terms of your interactions with others, and whether you're behaving ethically, whether you're acting in accordance with the precepts, and specifically in terms of the karma you're creating for yourselves with either skillful or unskillful interaction with other people.

-cruxdestruct

It's probably arrogant of me to insist that my post made your questions moot



There is no "rarified" place in which actions/morality become irelevant. Doesn't exist, it's just something you are imagining.

I guess I was less concerned with the specific relationship between the doctrine of no-self and moral action, but more whether you who do find your practices in rarified places like self-pointing, or other big-time large scale insight elements, still find it relevant or effective to think in terms of your interactions with others, and whether you're behaving ethically, whether you're acting in accordance with the precepts, and specifically in terms of the karma you're creating for yourselves with either skillful or unskillful interaction with other people.


-cruxdestruct

I think with sufficient deepening of practice it simply becomes less relevant, not because ethics are irrelevant, but because acting ethically and skillfully tends to become more and more the natural place from which we move, rather than something we have to ponder, plan, struggle with or believe in.

Right, but what I find interesting is that that sentiment seems to naturally exclude sila from 'deepening of practice'.

This very interesting topic is being the subject of my meditation teacher, Steven Tainer's, Wednesday night class in Berkeley. So, for a couple of weeks now, I've been contemplating the subject.

My out-of-the-gate 'take' is much like yours, Chris. It starts with the training-wheels, beginner level of a few simple [if not easy!] rules to attempt-- and to allow to reflect your actual, rather than intended, practice. You know, if you're believing you 'have' equanimity but find it necessary to tear someone a new one over something they said or did-- it should raise some questions.

Then I was finding the correspondence between precept--> paramitas, and commandments--> beatitudes interesting; and suggestive that there is a natural development cultivated by practice [i.e. engagement]. You start out getting clear what is not to be done; on down the road [best-case scenario] you find virtuous action to be the most natural behavior.

And I was further concluding that 'ethics' is what differentiates practitioners from speculative philosophers. It's what truly grounds Buddhist practice in the body and the life-- it's not what you say, it's what you do. Otherwise all this 'emptiness' and 'no-self' is just sophistry to justify anything you care to justify.

... whether you ... find it relevant or effective to think in terms of your interactions with others, and whether you're behaving ethically, whether you're acting in accordance with the precepts, and specifically in terms of the karma you're creating for yourselves with either skillful or unskillful interaction with other people.


-cruxdestruct

thinking in terms of my interactions with others: yes, relevant. Over the past years, I've been making life unpleasant to myself and the people around me, for dumb reasons, and that habit seems to be running deeply, so it pays an awful lot to watch that closely.

behaving ethically: hmmmm. a bit tautological.

acting in accordance with the precepts: I do drink alcohol now and then, in a social setting. Not eating meat puts enough of a strain on invitations to dinner. Apart from that, I find the precepts to be good, useful guidelines, and it usually pays to get a clear picture of the reasons for breaking one.

... in terms of the karma I'm creating: karma=intention? Sure. Always pays to get a clear picture of my intentions, see previous point.

My formal practice isn't particularly rarified, by the way: it consists of the mindful mental repetition of a simple word.

How about you? How do you answer your questions?

Cheers,
Florian

This week's sound file 20110921.mp3
is particularly good is elucidating how ethics practice is part of the larger meditation practice-- maybe an unexpected take on the matter.

http://media.berkeleymonastery.org/steven/2011.asp