| | I've been thinking about morality a lot lately. In particular, I've been trying to integrate insight practice and the implications of insight with morality. So here at the DHO, generally speaking, there is a particular tendency towards hardcore practice (obviously). Many post-path practitioners describe attaining path through merciless, hardcore noting of literally everything that enters into the field of perception. While I agree that this approach can bring on insights and path moments rapidly and effectively, there is a potential shadow side. That is, there seems to be a tendency for these types of meditators (or at least myself) to deal with problems by noting them away, reminding ones self that the sensations that make up any issue are subject to the 3 C's, and that one ought to regard the situation with equanimity. This leads to an interesting question: is it always best to approach all situations as though one were practicing insight? During periods of intensive practice, it makes perfect sense to just keep noting and striving towards equanimity no matter what comes up, for sake of continuity of practice. But how hard should we bank on this approach?
In practicing this way, obviously one shouldn't block out or exclude negative (or positive) sensations. One should alway be aware of potential shadow-sides, such as relaxing mindfulness when times are good but then trying to note one's way out of negative experiencing, creating a complex where one simply regards mindfulness as a way to escape from negative experiences. But assuming one is practicing without preference or to the exclusion of sensations, and equanimity towards all possible scenarios, externally and internally, what is left for morality and conventional solutions to deal with?
For example, if you have relationships that are not perfect (so basically all of them), is one to express frustration, anger, dislike, and disagreement in a healthy way to try to make the scenario better, or is one to simply be as compassionate as possible while acknowledging all the feelings and thoughts that exist with equanimity and mindfulness? If one is able to exist compassionately and mindfully amidst contention and imperfections, barring functional impediments, what need is there to try to change the scenario? Is there a level of mindfulness and equanimity that makes the need to address minor situational frustrations and insignificant imperfections less? Obviously, there are things that just need to be addressed and dealt with, but at what point is it safe to just accept the things in life that give us minor inconvenience? At what point does attempting to modify your surroundings and relationships become something that demonstrates lack of equanimity and acceptance? At what point does practicing equanimity and acceptance in place of modifying your relationships and surroundings demonstrate overcompensation in the wisdom department and lack in the intrapersonal skills department?
I find myself practicing compassion towards others amidst contention, and a tendency to view things from an insight point of view. "This suffering is not occuring to any agent, so why should I attempt to modify the situation to get rid of non-personal, impermanent sensations?", "Attempting to change this scenario is just a way in which I am reinforcing the notion of someone who is trapped within or receiving this " etc...
I'm curious to learn how others practice morality in the context of things they feel are unjust, ways they feel wronged, etc..., especially in context of how insight into impermanence and agencylessness have changed their practice of morality. |