- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This one is an interesting question, and a little more answerable, I think. I clearly remember Bruce addressing this one a while back. He said that basic meditation techniques like concentration practices do not in themselves produce compassionate, good people. Concentration is a skill that can be applied to doing evil, as well as doing good. There are probably many meditation techniques that this applies to. Do people use them intentionally do harm? I guess I would say most of the people that are drawn to meditation seem to have a desire to be good people to begin with, or at least that’s been my experience.
Even if someone is not intentionally desiring to cause harm, I think it’s easy to become misguided in meditation, sometimes to the point of causing harm to onself or others. That’s why teachers are important, especially teachers who will be honest enough to tell their students when they are heading in the wrong direction. As an example, Chogyam Trungpa, one of the first Tibetans to bring meditation to the Western world once said to his students “You all think you are on your way to enlightenment. You are really on your way to having massive egos”. Increasing instead of decreasing sense of ego is probably one of the most common, and easiest to explain ways of heading in the wrong direction in meditation. CT wrote a book called “Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism” that specifically covers this topic.
Guy, have you read Bruce’s book, Relaxing into your Being? The chapter on Taoism might be helpful to you, as well as a story Bruce tells near the end of the book called “The Root of the Mind”.
Hi Catherine, good to hear from you again – thought I’d killed the conversation dead to be honest with you!
Your answers tantalise me! What is the sense of saying the ‘wrong direction’ in meditation? Wouldn’t an evil person say that being morally righteous and ‘good’ was the wrong direction?
And eradicating evil? Quite sure I never mentioned anything remotely like that!!
Thanks Catherine, good to hear from you, where do you teach?
Hi, Guy.
I think you’ll enjoy Bruce’s lecture on chapter 5. He mentions several things we’ve been posting about.
No, you didn’t scare me off, Guy! I was just out of town for the week. I do some teaching in Farmington, Maine. You’re right, right/wrong is a perspective that depends on the person. But from the point of view of what meditation is/isn’t supposed to do classically, and from the point of view of any genuine teacher, there is a right vs wrong direction, and it was that I was referring to. Even in the most fanatical and violent religious groups today, there is a book behind them somewhere that says people should be good to each other. That part just seems to get overlooked.
I do think the problem of proper direction in meditation is addressed in all deep and genuine traditions. Again, this is from the perspective of the original tradition itself, and the teacher(s). I know Taoism talks about the dangers of wanting power, and succumbing to the temptations of personal power is highly discouraged. I would think at that point, if a student really had intentions that were contrary to the ethical position of meditation, the teacher would just stop teaching them. And then there’s always the possibility, if the person is not too malicious, that whatever glimpses of internal peace or equilibrium were gained in practice might begin to steer them to a different course. Just a guess, I’m sure there are a million different possibilities as each person/situation is unique…
Good, I’m glad I haven’t caused offence! Wow Maine, what a place!
Surely we have reached the crux of the problem?
If there is always a book that commands good, or that genuine and deep traditional teachers see a right and wrong direction in meditation, and that meditation has an ethical poisition, then does not the dualist view break down in this particular case?
Because if dualism is true, then right and wrong, or good and evil, have no inherent meaning. You could say that you happen to prefer the ‘good’ or ethical method, but you would have to admit with the same breath that, from a dualist perspective, it is just as valid to teach meditation as a means of gaining power or other nefarious means. Because of course there would be a whole group, of an opposite and equal persuasion, who think such ends are the highest ‘good’. From a dualist point of view, this is perfectly right. Right?
What, then, can you say against evil?
Guy,
Given that the ultimate goal of all spiritual development is to reach oneness with the Tao, which is BEYOND good & evil, it is my understanding that the path of “the good” is a surer, faster way there for all of us caught up in the field of opposites. In other words, it causes a lot less hassle for you the traveler on the journey, generally speaking and is therefore the recommended route by spiritual teachers of all kinds.The path of “evil” is available to us all but it apparently tangles you up in the lust for power and lots of karma that slows the progress toward “oneness” but may be entirely necessary in your case. So if you prefer “the scenic route” and/or want to experience this for yourself, then that is your choice to make. From the Tao’s perspective, it matters not.
Then again, trying to understand something from a point of view that is beyond all opposites, all qualities and all definitions with a mind conditioned by and caught within that very dualistic realm it gives birth to may not be a puzzle that can be solved from inside of it.
So to some extent, I believe this is the reason for faith. Without a certainty something will work, you have to give it a try until you know for yourself.
Hi James
I get your terminology: “good path” and “evil path”.
But surely, from a dualist perspective, both paths will lead equally to oneness. Why surer and quicker? Why would the entanglements of lust for power, and so on, slow progress? Surely it is simply an equal and opposite route to the “good path”?
And yes, I do believe that we as human beings can understand what lies beyong the dualisitic realm. Otherwise, how can you talk about experiencing “oneness”?
And do not presume to make an impersonal discussion personal, if you would be so kind…
Hi Guy,
Sorry for making this seem personally about you. I should have said “in any individual case” instead of “your case”.In reference to your suppositions, I do not believe either path would be equal and opposite or equally quick routes to oneness or that we can understand fully what lies beyond the world of opposites from within it.
I guess it’s faith that what my teachers are saying is correct and my own experience that when I see the results in my own life from taking “the evil path” it takes things longer to clear up and reach peace.
But then, by resorting to saying “I believe”, “faith in my teachers”, and “my own experience” I can’t keep this conversation completely impersonal and theoretical. I can only speak from what I know and have learned. But since I am no authority on this subject, I am unqualified to provide you with a satisfactory answer.
No James, really, no need to apologise – it’s just that when I keep banging on about how the “evil path” is equally good etc., it may be misconstrued!
What is evil?
That’s a good question, and should have been asked at the very beginning: “definition of terms” – you must have something of the classical scholar about you.
What is evil in and of itself (if that has any meaning)? Who knows? I am sure some claim to know.
But the conversation has not progressed that far. I am only talking about evil actions in the present and throughout the past. Aren’t these undeniable? Undeniably recognisable?
You could quite easily claim some sort of generalised “evil” environment or situation which we find ourselves in….
Any thoughts Alex?…
Humans were given care and concern but are faced with the brutal meaninglessness of life. Through many methods we try to give it meaning to avoid despair. Taoism is one method. Sometimes I think of the Tao as Time. Good and evil don’t matter, unless your chosen method to give meaning to a life says they do. Some Taoist literature I’ve read is very Machiavellian while other texts call you to look within. I’m not an ordained Taoist or part of any order so I really couldn’t say for sure that acting morally is a required practice to be a good Taoist. The Confucians were more interested in the moral and legal stuff weren’t they? Didn’t Chuang Tzu muckrake the Confucians?
Hi Ted,
So the world is brutally meaningless, and Taosim is a system for creating a meaning? How can you truly believe in the meaning it provides if you know that you created it and it is totally artificial?
Before we (the talking apes) evolved, was there ‘good and evil’ on this planet?
Lol…got to love that: “talking apes”. Great turn of phrase!…
This is an archived forum (read only). Go to our active forum where you can post and discuss in real time.