This is turning out to be a really good search, L56, isn't it? I applaud your determination!
Here's L56:
"PL: A healthy body doesn't have a sick 'part,' and a sick body doesn't have a healthy 'part,'...
By this definition every single institution, group, profession, including, yours and mine... is 'sick'. Inevitably there's at least a percentage of people in every field that are corrupt, greedy, etc. therefore according to your non-dual approach the whole lot of it is bad. What you're essentially saying is that all of humanity is f#@$ed up. Should we then just pack our bags, head for the hills, pop 4 dozen Asprin and head to the great show in the sky? Where's the optimism in that? Or is optimism naive?
And why can't you say a body is sick AND healthy at the same time? Why does it have to be one OR the other?
Buddhists don't believe in clarity. They believe in seeking the truth, but not clarity. I think there's big a difference
'The absolute position, when isolated, omits human details completely. Doctrines, including Buddhism, are meant to be used. Beware of them taking life of their own, for then they use us.' - Robert Aitken Roshi (Author and Buddhist)
Moral clarity is not something that Buddhism is interested in. Your idea of assigning a body as simply either healthy or sick is an example of attempting to achieve clarity.
And PS I hope you don't think that I (or Rick) am trying to trap you into saying you're wrong. Quite the contrary, I'm enjoying the debate as it's forcing me to find out more about and refine what I believe in. I've done more research on morality, ethics, Buddhism etc. than I ever would on my own. I'm certainly not out to change your mind. I could really care less about your ego, or mine for that matter. And if I didn't think there were truths to be found, I wouldn't be wasting my time."
Here's PL:
Yes, yes, yes, L56, keep going, man! This is good stuff!
All of humanity - and certainly every institution created by human beings - IS sick/fucked up! Royally so! Certainly so, especially as long as we have egos that do more than just observe, which is what our egos were originally meant to do. Our institutions currently are manifestations of our overblown, distorted egos.
But if you're not thinking dualistically, and if you're not judging, you can also say that we're perfect and exactly where we're meant to be at the same time. I know that as sure as I know anything.
To be able to see one's fucked-up-ness is, in fact, a great cause for optimism. I have no doubt whatsoever that humanity is evolving. I lambaste certain individuals and institutions on this blog because I am optimistic about our potential for growth and change. Otherwise, why bother? Another word we might use for "illness" could be "evolving."
I am accepting the job as a spokesman/facilitator for humanity's awareness of itself, which will help to accelerate our evolution, if that's what we choose to do. That's what every teacher is charged to do. And you, L56, are obviously becoming a teacher.
Thanks PL, I appreciate your comments.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, can you find for me in any of your cited enlightenment references (especially Buddhism which I'm most interested in), any writings that contradict my approach to finding a whole truth out of the many parts. Like in my concept of how to solve the Gun problem or the Affirmative Action problem - which you state is dualistic. (And I still disagree with...) I've been looking all over the internet (especially in Buddhism) for something that contradicts this way of approaching a problem but can only find support for it. Here's a link to a Buddhist's approach to the Abortion problem. I almost could have written this myself.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/abortion.htm