Lecture four - (an apology)

[Amida Podcasts]

Dear All,

Due to my human error, we don't have a recording of the fourth lecture in this series, in which Prasada spoke about real world ethics, using the examples of the cooks precepts and of the Amida socially engagement formula: Resist oppression, assist the afflicted and demonstrate and alternative.

[Susthama]

That's too bad - I wonder if someone could give a summary of it here. If not, then perhaps, someone who was there could write some of their thoughts or questions that this lecture generated. Perhaps there is room for discussing the cooks precepts and the socially engagement formula found in Amida?

[caroline brazier]

Hi,
yes, I'm afraid this talk suffered impermanence. I'll try to reconstruct some of the themes I covered, though I did not entirely follow the notes I drew up in advance.

The theme was practical applications of ethics.

INDIVIDUAL PRACTICE & ETHICS
I began by talking about ethics in terms of sila (drawing on my Tuesday talk) and ways we can form our ethicality through practiced. As example I talked in some detail about the cook's precepts - which I have now posted on the Amida Kitchen group. These give examples of incorporating awareness, reverence and devotion, ethical considerations and training/practice into our daily work (exemplified by the kitchen)

I then talked about how everyday activity often involves making choices which are in fact ethical. For example when we had been doing walking meditation in the morning, it had started to rain. The person leading the walking would be faced with a dilemma. He might think: I don't want to get wet, I'll hurry up. or he might think, walking in the rain is good for my practice. He might think, it is good for the group to experience the rain or he might think, I do not want our guests to get wet and catch cold. Are the second two thoughts more ethical because they take the others into account? or are they simply imposing assumptions on the group, which may or may not be true? As we can see, either thinking of self or thinkiing of others may result in either outcome (going faster or not). Does the outcome matter, or is it the pattern of thinking? As we cannot know the 'right' answer, is our thinking always self centred? From a Pureland perspective, we are always going to get it wrong (or at least mostly) because we are bombu, yet thinking about things from a less self-centred perspective is probably seen as more ethical. It's complicated. Such considerations are central to a training in ethics. They are important both in determining what to do, but more importantly perhaps in training ourselves to be aware of our nature with its layers of self-invested thinking.

Exploring intentionality is important from a buddhist perspectiove as intentionality drive karma. But what do we mean by intentionaliity - the deeper we look the less clear it often becomes.

COLLECTIVE PRACTICE AND ETHICS

[Robert McCarthy]

Dharmavidya recently spoke of us all being actors in the dharma. I have felt also that the script of all i think and know is given as grace, i am in the audience of the play i act in and it teaches me. Thought and speech are not scripted by me, very much my experience, they appear. That radically challenges any sense of self ( or perhaps is radically deluded perception itself?) The problem is that I may take less responsibility for my actions, what is good is that it shows me how I am not at all special. So this suggests there is only partial reality in this perception. We make choices all the time. Sometimes there are conflicting issues, well most times. But we feel contrition when we choose unwisely. The feeling is what is important, the heart. Sometimes there seems to be no element of choice, when our mind is spinning out in pain or in wanting. But again is there choice- intention? In self we are in delusion. Of the mind poisons, delusion seems the cause of greed and hate.
To me there is mind intention and there is spiritual intention. The feel of mind intention is tightness and attachment to outcome. It is intention in wanting. Spiritual intention is lightness and is often enough only felt and known of in retrospect.

[caroline brazier]

Ning seems to have cut off part of my text I'll continue in further commentds..

COLLECTIVE PRACTICE AND ETHICS
Whilst we may work individually on improving our behavious/awareness, the route of self-development poses problems. We may become self-absorbed and avoid situations which challenge or disturb our personal 'calm'.

In the remainder of the talk I therefore focused on socially engaged work and the role of this and shared activity in Buddhist practice.

Collective working is itself an important principle. At Amida we have used the formula
- Resist Oppression
- Assist the Afflicted
- Demonstrate an Alternative
Our way of working is important, and based on a friendship model - we meet others in encounters which are founded on respect and mutuality. Much of the work comes out of the first two - we are invited to be involved in situations eg the Zambian project. This leads us to see bigger issues such as global factors causing poverty about which we start to campaign (Assisting > resisting) or we are asked to join in protests eg about refugee's plight and so get involved in helping too. (Resisting>assisting) Both take place in the bigger context of demonstrating alternatives of friendship and co-operation.

We use a reflective process. The action-reflection-learning cycle.
By doing we encounter. In reflecting we look at our experience and listen to the experience of others. This is a phase of witnessing. We then draw learning and theory from this. Our model does not have an overt planning phase (as some similar models do) because, in many cases, we tend to trust the process to naturally throw up the next step. Sometimes we need overt planning but often we proceed in faith, trusting that our reflection will lead us into the next stage of encounter with a refined view.

In all this, we may not always find our path runs smoothly. We repeatedly encounter our bombu nature and are drawn into difficult situtions. In pureland we see this encounter with our reality important in reminding ourselves that we are not yet Buddhas! It is in itself an ethical realisation.

[caroline brazier]

ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND PRACTICAL ENGAGEMENT
The aim of demonstrating an alternative raises issues. Buddhist practice often seems to bring the dilemmma that if we practice cut off from the world, we can often achieve a calmer mind than if we practice in the world, yet the world is in need of help. The Bodhisattva ideal sends us back into the world even if our involvement is imperfect.

Interacting with organisations we have opportunities for encounter, but may find our values at odds.

Exploring examples from chaplaincy:
The big questions of life an death are ioften less interesting and a bit over-discussed. From a Buddhist perspective for example, some view abortion as wrong because they put weight on not killing. Others purt more weight on compasssion and support the woman in making her choice. This dichotomy between sila (upholding specific precepts) and compassion is common to many issues and in theory echoes to some degree the Theravada/Mahayana split I spoke of Tuesday. In practice people withing the same traditions often disagree.

Everyday dilemmas are often more interesting - faced with a fundamentalist Christian patient, do I tell him I am Buddhist? If I do, it may alienate him, if I do not we may get into a false position. The issue may be seen simply in terms of professional practice but it has ethical implications too as it deals with honesty, compassion and respect.

Some issues arise from the differences of values working in a secular setting. What do I do if I am told about something I feel to be bad practice. In some cases I may have a duty to report, but often the matter is minor - patients not getting a cup of tea because staff are 'too busy'. There may be all sorts of protocols which prevent me discussing these. I may be invited to think in a medical model rather than seeing spiritual issues (especiallly in mental health chaplaincy). As a volunteer, I may risk losing my position in the team if I 'rock the boat' All these political and structural issues arise in any organisational setting and struggling with them leads us to address the ethical questions. As with the walking meditation there may not be 'right answers' but our manner of operating will affect what happens. Sticking in the situation itself conveys a message to others and raises ethical questions for them, so even if we do little, our visibility in society has a potential to affect.

So as a community these matters raise questions about the role of Amida Trust. How far should we involve ourselves, how far should we create our own 'Amida world' as an alternative?

Involving ourselves and co-operating with others we often create a stimulus and we have often taken a role as a 'ginger-group' to get things going or influence social process. At the same time such involvement always risks assimilation. Many idealistic movements of the past have now become arms of the state.

Creating a more closed system may demonstrate an alternative better and preserve the culture we are trying to establish 'in the dark ages to come'. At the same time it risks isolation, elitism and irrrelevance.

For this reason we need a balance - some going out, some creating our own process, both processes feeding each other.

[Katrien Sercu]

When i read this, Prasada, the difference comes up between 'right' and 'limited'. Limited is not 'non-right'. Limited is just limited, as all in (human) life is limited, for instance the field of vision, the capacities, the possibilities in a concrete sitation. When someone is drowning, we all know (right?) that it's the right intention and action to save this person, but what when one cannot swim and no one else sees the drowning person and one cannot call for help; or ..one can swim, but the water is really so dangerous, that both persons would surely drown. For me it seems the right action to stay out of this too dangerous water and to be as present as possible for this person, calling Amida with passion and compassion for the drowning person. Is this self centred and not right or is this limited, what is very difficult to accept and to live with?
Or in the example that Prasada gave: is there a right choice in this situation or is there just a choice in a series of (right) choices, in which one limited can experience? An other time we have to choice an other possibility, with other consequences.
In your words Prasada, i also taste that ones thinking is mostly self centred, that from a Pureland perspective it mostly will get wrong because we're bombu...I agree we're imperfect, limited, influenced by our 'self', self-conditioned, foolish, bombu...but thus this means that we're mostly wrong or must we say it more neutral: we can be wrong and we can be right or neutral, as bombu? We don't know and we're too little to understand life! I miss here a little trust in human nature...Amazing: I see here written what i always do with myself.

Is it possible that we feel in our heart what in essence is really right and really wrong, when we're following the Path, learning what the Path asks to us, but... that we're limited in this concrete 'right'? So the 'Right' becomes right or even a little bit not-right or even a mistake.
We never know the 'one' right answer befor we start to act, being aware what happens. This right answer is limited, so the result and effect is also limited, but it still can be a right answer in this situation. Thinking about it, we'll never know. As you say Prasada: the deeper we look, the less clear it often becomes.
What i learned on ning is to put not too much questions and to trust and have faith in the process of life, when we take refuge in Amida...as you write Prasada in the following comment: 'collective practice and ethics.
Why do i express all this words here?
Because i got a little sad, when i read 'individual practice and ethics'...sorry... and namo Amida Bu

[caroline brazier]

Hi Katrien

I'm not sure if I've got all your points here - is the sadness about my including the section on individual practice? If so, it was included partly because I wanted to give an overview of practical ethics, but also because I believe we cannot get away from reflecting on our actions. We are bombu and we get things wrong. We have responsibility for what we do, and inevitably we sometimes act unwisely. Faith and collectivity are good bases for acting, but thinking about what we are doing can also help.

I think what came over for me in reflecting on practical situations was not about having a 'right' answer, but about the way we think about things. As in the example of the walking meditation, most life dilemmas are dilemmas because the answer is not obvious. There are pros and cons. I think the ethics are really in the process - how do we make a decision? Do we act out of faith or fear; out of altruism or self-interest? Self-interest is always a component because we are human, but can we sometimes get beyond it? Too much deliberation, however, is itself a problem as it can paralyse us and stop us doing anything. That is why sometimes I think it is good simply to think about what is the 'right' thing to do (as best we can see). Acting is often better than trying to be perfect.