Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Morality and Daily Life

A major flaw in pragmatic dharma

Threads [ Previous | Next ]
A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/19/14 11:03 AM
So, I've been reading some articles on pragmatic dharma, and I keep running into people dismissing "niceness" as a kitschy or ignorant view of buddhism.  This seems to be a common thread here as well, both in how people treat one another and how they talk about attainment. I'd like to take a moment to defend niceness - in all it's kitschy glory - as not only a fundimental part of buddhism, but the actual goal and result of practice.

If we look at the three trainings - morality, view, and concentration - two of the three are aimed at cultivating and maintaining a positive and kind state of being.  In the suttas where the buddha talks about the full method (see any of the "in brief" suttas), he begins by explaining how right speech/action/livelihood are the ground of the practice, they should be perfected to create the "tranquility of blamelessness."  From here, only after this way of living has been "handed the reigns," a person begins to practice the jhanas - which arise specifically because of the tranquility of blamelessness.  Then, after reaching the 4th jhana, this person turns their mind to insight.

I think we forget that buddhism is a religion.  It is based on the belief that we are trapped by our karma, and the only escape is to stop accumulating karma and step out of the cycle of rebirth based on desires.  People who believe this sincerely would have been more interested in how they were treating other people - and how they felt about other people - than how they experienced the world personally.  Right speech and action - which make up 1/4th of the eight fold path - specifically say that we should only say things that are pleasant, and we should only do actions that have no possibility of hurting another person.  The point of cultivating concentration and following the training rules was to ensure that the practitioner could have complete control, not only over what they say and do, but also over how they feel.  Before insight practice is even mentioned by the buddha, he says that the four divine abodes should be practiced to a level of concentration where they simply go on effortlessly.

I think this kind of training is specifically designed to facilitate concentration and ease of living.  Because there is never a time when it is appropriate to be unpleasant, being nice, specifically, becomes an easy solution.  You are no longer required to defend yourself from other people, find an insult, match wits, etc.  You are no longer required to try to convince anyone of anything, hold a stong opinion, or feel there is any reason for malice to exist.  The buddha went so far as to say that, if you were being beaten by robbers in the woods, you should endeavor to feel compassion and kindness towards them.  There is even a sutta where he talks about being skinned alive and roasted over a pit.  He wasn't messing around!

I see this as just as much the "good news" of buddhism as the concept of non-duality.  The buddha is telling us to treat out anger, malice, and aversion as completely unnessiscary.  To watch ourselves for it and get rid of it as soon as we see it.  To treat it as a cancer to be removed.

This is why I think people have the view that buddhism is about niceness.  The monks who train sincerely, are training to be nice, kind, and loving in all circumstances.  I think we're going to miss the whole point of the practice if we don't make the endeavor ourselves.

EDIT: Maybe the main reason for this is that anatta is translated to "no-self," as in, there is no self. If there is no self, there is nothing to fix.

RE: A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/19/14 12:07 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Yeah, but nice is boring.

RE: A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/19/14 12:57 PM as a reply to Howard Maxwell Clegg.
Sorry there should be a second bit.

Yeah, but nice is boring and boring is this the death of practice.

There, I'm happy now.

RE: A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/19/14 1:54 PM as a reply to Howard Maxwell Clegg.
Yeah, but nice is boring.


I actually find it to be the foundation of what makes my practice interesting. emoticon  By learning to be kind, I can let go of old reactions that cause mental disturbance - there's a very refined contentment that can come from understanding you have no aversion or malice towards anything.

EDIT:
I think the critique of niceness is part of the critique of the "mushroom factor".


Don't you think it goes a little overboard the other way, though?

RE: A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/19/14 3:10 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Florian Weps:
I think the critique of niceness is part of the critique of the "mushroom factor".


Don't you think it goes a little overboard the other way, though?


Sure. By then, it's more easily recognized emoticon It's much harder to confuse crankiness with genuine niceness. Not an excuse for being gratuitously cranky!

I think touching the taboo of "niceness" is one of the great merits of "pragmatic dharma" or whatever you want to call it. You know, calling out the shadow side of niceness, that of pretending to be nice, that of thinking that being nice is how Budddhist meditation practice is done.

So I don't think this is a major flaw at all.

Again, not an excuse for acting like an asshole. That would be just as misguided as acting like a saint.

Cheers,
Florian

RE: A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/19/14 3:15 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Yeah, but nice is boring.


I actually find it to be the foundation of what makes my practice interesting. emoticon  By learning to be kind, I can let go of old reactions that cause mental disturbance - there's a very refined contentment that can come from understanding you have no aversion or malice towards anything.

You sure you're not just copping a Jhana or someting? 

EDIT:
I think the critique of niceness is part of the critique of the "mushroom factor".


Don't you think it goes a little overboard the other way, though?

RE: A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/19/14 1:51 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
So, I've been reading some articles on pragmatic dharma, and I keep running into people dismissing "niceness" as a kitschy or ignorant view of buddhism.  This seems to be a common thread here as well, both in how people treat one another and how they talk about attainment. I'd like to take a moment to defend niceness - in all it's kitschy glory - as not only a fundimental part of buddhism, but the actual goal and result of practice.


I think the critique of niceness is part of the critique of the "mushroom factor". So it is not against being nice and treating people respectfully, but rather against the "near enemy" of genuine niceness, the make-belief niceness. It's not arguing against making an effort to be nice. It is arguing against the stance that being nice is all there is to the Dhamma, and making an effort to meditate and try to get to the bottom if it all is somehow too extreme or even misguided or wrong.

Like you say, becoming nicer is a result of the practice, and part of the practice, but far from the only part. It is more of a description (of what tends to happen) than a pre-scription (of what to pretend).

Cheers,
Florian

RE: A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/20/14 6:19 AM as a reply to Florian Weps.
Florian Weps (10/19/14 1:51 PM as a reply to Not Tao.)
"… Like you say, becoming nicer is a result of the practice, and part of the practice, but far from the only part. It is more of a description (of what tends to happen) than a pre-scription (of what to pretend)."

'Nice' is a difficult word, as in falsity in glossing-over for sake of appearances. I can't think of a single word, but there are discussions in the Pali Canon (e.g.Vinaya) about cultivating presence that encourages a sense of safety and good-will. Probably describable in a framework of external action that reflects internal mental states, presumably peace, good-will, vision & knowledge, etc. In that crowd, especially when G.Buddha was still around, artificial external 'niceness' masking not-so-nice internals was probably quite transparent and would be dealt with.

" a result of the practice, and part of the practice, but far from the only part."
Does that mean it's separable?

One can try to defend, but would be hard put to deny that a lot of verbal behavior in DhO discussion reflects mental practices that would be problematic to align with CTB (as in 'MCBT' but meant more literally).

Further at (10/19/14 3:10 PM as a replyto Not Tao.)
"… calling out the shadow side of niceness,…"

The more obvious problem is the erupting of the shadow side with less innocuous attitudes.

" So I don't think this is a major flaw at all."

Agreed, all things considered. But indication that a lot of work is yet to be done in peoples' (our) practices, and awareness (sati) needs to be kept on it.

There's a certain kind of inverse 'niceness' to the penchant for indulging in inconsiderate behavior.

Again, not an excuse for acting like an asshole. That would be just as misguided as acting like a saint.

Case in point. 1) yes, play-acting vs behaving; 2) but, on the other hand, appearing 'holy' is just as bad as doing violence?

(The two of us seem to have natural mutual triggers.)

J J (10/19/14 5:55 PM as a reply to Not Tao.)
"… without aggression, (a very subtle against-ness, competitiveness, desire to prove oneself etc), this absence of aggression leads to absence of tension in the heart, and a sense of peace."

Thanks, that's apropos -- makes me consider deleting some of the comments above… maybe next time…

RE: A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/19/14 5:55 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
See, the thing I don't like about this whole "niceness" thing is that it boils down to a policy. In other words: no matter the situation, be without aggression, or "act a certain way". I believe it's much better to be without aggression entirely, and thus act spontaneously and naturally, as opposed to restraining one's behavior.

Personally I'm entirely without aggression, (a very subtle against-ness, competitiveness, desire to prove oneself etc), this absence of aggression leads to absence of tension in the heart, and a sense of peace.

Moreover there is no need to battle myself when I feel aggression or emotions that don't match my image. This is all very fascinating for me, especially since I didn't realize some of these things until I wrote them down just now. This absence of aggression is Chogyam Trungpa's "indestructible wakefulness" or bodhicitta.

It leads to a flexibility and openness that is the opposite of seeing behavior in one's self that one doesn't like, and battling it for the sake of one's image.

Feel me?

-JJ

RE: A major flaw in pragmatic dharma
Answer
10/20/14 5:36 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
some thoughts on this topic:

-the spirit or underlying idea behind morality training is what is important, not necessarily the specific behavioral prescriptions mentioned in the texts

-in general, doing the right healthy habits or keeping the right structures in place can help with grounding which is important to prevent dark night bleedthrough

-morality training needs to be personalized/tailored to the individual... self-reliance applies in terms of using intuition, common sense and experience to figure out what is best for oneself at a given time

-shadow sides are important and major breakthroughs using psychotherapuetic methods can provide permanent or terminal release from certain forms of conventional suffering

-both the pragmatic approach of seperating/isolating the three trainings completely, and the traditional approach of more integrated development have unique merits and can be used side by side/in parallel with a little bit of ambiguity tolerance

-the insights implied by the three characteristics can be applied both on a micro-level through vipassana but also on a macro-level in shaping the content of one's attitudes in daily life... both are useful, especially in tandem

-morality training can be measurable just like the insight stages... see any Daniel Goleman interview where he talks about rewiring neural pathways related to emotional intelligence behaviors by replacing an automatic reaction with a new, better reaction at every naturally occuring opportunity in one's life... Goleman generally says that a new behavior can become automatic with 3 to 6 months of this type of effort

-I also relate this measurability with Daniel's (Ingram) talk at a Buddhist Geeks Conference where he discusses the possibility of mapping the human range of something like kindness or generosity... overall, there is definitely a need to explore more concrete, goal-oriented approaches to morality training with the same spirit of determined experimentation that so many here have done with insight training