Hi Jeremy,
I can assure you that if you do learn anything then I will have too.
Jeremy May:
I want to reword: An act done with intent for a reward is not selfless. But a selfless act may bring many rewards. Goodness is determined by intent. Wisdom determines the form and quality of the goodness. No, goodness can not be undone, even if it has bad consequences, because intent is what matters. Just like killing someone on accident isn't wrong. Intending to kill someone and failing is still a wrong.
Intent is a concept that is central to these questions. You are probably familiar with the concept of "wilful blindness" which means that our intentions need not be conscious. Imagine someone who is very egocentric, they could act in an egocentric way, without an explicit intention to be rewarded because tthat behaviour is deeply integrated.
There may be no easy answer to that. When people refer to acting "from the heart" I think it implies the intention is good and genuine. Paradoxically it feels good - so there is some immediate reward.
This has me leaning toward virtue ethics which can increase healthy intentions. It would be nice to connect acting "from the heart" and virtue ethics.
I have driven myself into that paradox and it did make it me sick. That was insightful! Also, yes thank you, It was a long time ago and I'm okay now.
I'm glad to hear your OK and I'll try to be aware of that risk, thanks.
I should be more careful. I do think I am in a position to say things about the psychology of a Buddha, but I would never expect you to believe me without knowing me for a long time.
I believe there are people who are "enlightened" or awake if we define that as living from a non-dual perspective. For example Daniel claims to be an arahant. The Buddha claimed attainments which go well beyond arahant and I think there is little chance of understanding what that means without going there. I'm not aware of anyone claiming to be a Buddha. It makes sense to me that the Buddha would have a very unique experience and that would result in a very unique psychology. In regards to the Dharma, the Buddha seems to consider that others (arahants I guess) can and have mastered it.
I don't think our discussion needs to bring the psychology of the Buddha into consideration.
In fact, I have come to where I am through a different way, and I have never been an ardent student of any school of Buddhism. But truth is universal,
I'm not sure but I suspect the notion of truth is a dualist concept i.e. it needs something else that is false. A non-dual experience could be interpreted as "the truth" but that seems to be trying to transpose the absolute into the relative when the relative is contained within the absolute.
I believe the nervous system (which includes the brain and all nerves/senses) is what gives rise to our perception. This is somewhat supported by reports of enlightened people who are aware 24hrs of the day (i.e. even when sleeping) but still loose any notion of experience when anaesthetised - even their enlightened experience requires the brain to function in specific ways.
For example we tend to think of there being two types of experience dual and non-dual. With a sort of switch being thrown upon enlightenment. A different brain my allow for both views to be held at the same time. Or maybe allow for different perspectives again e.g. full awareness of all stimuli at all times (our brains use abstraction and other techniques to give an appearance of full awareness but simple visual illusions demonstrate how we are fooling ourselves (the brain is no doubt using similar tricks in many other aspects of our experience)
My point here is that "universal truth" is perhaps a misleading term. We might be better served by a simpler model of enlightenment e.g. a better way (or maybe best way) for humans to experience the world.
and if you see a wrongness in how I say this, then you will have deepened me, but enlightenment is the escape from suffering and therefore it is the escape from karma.
Even people who are enlightened suffer - that is part of being born. The buddha suffered (Daniel has some details in his book - headaches was one thing I think). After enlightenment the individual continues to function in the relative world in an imperfect way so karma will follow too - eat too many twinkies aand you become diabetic. Enlightened people would prefer to not have diabetes. I liked Daniel's phrase which was something along the lines of - don't ignore your relative life (morality) in the search for enlightenment because when you wake up you will wake up to the life you have built.
Someone who is not awakened is likely to suffer a lot more because of the "second dart" or attachments - but removing attachments does not avoid the first dart.
It is simply seeing without interpretation or bias that all things that can arise, will fade. Seeing the ego correctly will show you that the ego is simply a set of forces that interact in such a way that they work together to form what we percieve as ego. It has its purpose. Now seeing that the ego is a set of forces, will it be destroyed? Why would it be? Would it do what it is its purpose to do? Why wouldn't it? But will an enlightened being ever again think that he is this ego? No... it exists until it doesn't, and does ego things until it no longer exists. But I have already found that yes, it diminishes over time, becoming subtle, quiet, and weak.
I think you answered most of those questions yourself there. I think the ego is very connected with a dual perspective - it is not destroyed by enlightenment (a good chunk of the Freudian ego is sub-conscious) but a non-dual view is not very supportive of lots of problems the ego can introduce.
My point in either case would be the same, trying to destroy the ego is impossible. Ignoring the ego is unnecessary. Allow without clinging, as always in mindfulness practice.
I agree it would not be good to be at war with the ego - but letting it go might be a nice analogy.
Cessation of thoughts? Why is this important? I am not my brain, so I do not need to be concerned with what it does.
Agreed you are not just your brain but it is a necessary part of your experience - destroy the brain and the subjective is gone. You'll still exist in regards to your previous actions in the world and their unfolding consequences but there is no subjective perception (either dual or non-dual) without the brain.
It is supposed to generate thoughts. That is its purpose.
That seems like a confusion between mind and brain - the "mind" has thoughts but the brain is doing a lot of things that does not involve thoughts. In fact it seems to be doing nearly everything without thoughts. The thoughts seem to come later to provide a coherent experience for the self in a dual perspective.
But If I do not try to destroy the thoughts, ignore the thoughts, but allow without clinging, and then it is as if there are no thoughts. And in this state, yes you are right, the ego has no fuel. Knowing the ego is a temporary construct, however, was enough in my early practice to never have issue with it.
The balance between concentration and mindfulness is definitely a delicate one and seems to demand a very light touch while at the same time demanding large effort. Right effort calls for intentional manipulation of thoughts.
Morality is completely subjective. A teacher may lie to bring someone closer to truth. The method is not important, only the result.
That seems like one popular framework for morality - Utilitarianism. There is a conflict in your phrase because if only the result matters then it is not completely subjective (unless you really mean the only thing that matters is the subjective result).
At the moment I think Virtue Ethics fits nicely with Buddhism. It can give a model for the sub-conscious drivers of our actions.
Ends that justify the means is a very slippery slope and probably best avoided.
But one cannot truly help others if one first needs to help himself. Sometimes, for those who suffer greatly, the best thing they can do for the world is to work toward enlightenment. For the deeply enlightened, every waking moment is dedicated to either meditation or helping people.
That fits with the interpretation I've often seen/heard in buddhism. I also think it is open to serious criticism. Helping others is a very important part of building morality it is perhaps the fast track to developing compassion.
Wisdom through insight is maybe not the most effective short-term way to improve morality, but what is the need for short-term solutions?
The fact that we are all going to die within a very short amount of time.
That is something I will think about. Perhaps you can let me know, later, what your conclusions were.
Everything else I completely agree with. The intial awakening is such total freedom that some get stuck there and never deepen their enlightenment. But always, when enlightenment deepens, it becomes impossible to do anything but consider everyone else's best interests.
These discussions do tend to focus on the divergent points of view but there is plenty of common ground.
Profound knowledge of the absolute is not going to be directly transferrable into the relative. Many people who are enlightened wonder at how other people did not even notice the change when they did. The range of interpretations of enlightenment tends to point to some similarity but also the influence of the individual's personality, culture etc.
Enlightenment is typically described as a sort of switch being thrown, I interpret that to be a shift to a non-dual view. To extend on Daniel's idea from a Virtue Ethics perspective, we could say build the character you want because that is the one you are going to wake up to.