[Adwetyren]

Hi all,

Over at a friend's house the other night, I noticed this statement on a poster in his living room --

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality."

I guess the Swiss are in trouble...

Do you agree with the statement? Is it in line with, or contradictory to, the Buddha's teachings? How should a Buddhist respond in "times of great moral crisis" -- and particularly in situations where one or more parties are behaving in ways that directly and intentionally cause suffering?

[intendepods]

Hi all,

Over at a friend's house the other night, I noticed this statement on a poster in his living room --

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality."

I guess the Swiss are in trouble...

Do you agree with the statement? Is it in line with, or contradictory to, the Buddha's teachings? How should a Buddhist respond in "times of great moral crisis" -- and particularly in situations where one or more parties are behaving in ways that directly and intentionally cause suffering?

Hi Lazy Eye,

I think first of all I'd like to know how you define "great moral crisis." Any examples?

.

[reaciciomarep]

Genocide, for instance. My friend is Jewish; it's possible that members of his family suffered in the Holocaust.

I found myself wondering how I would explain the Buddhist emphasis on equanimity to someone who had survived such an atrocity -- or, to use another example, a rape victim.

[Staillateno]

Genocide, for instance. My friend is Jewish; it's possible that members of his family suffered in the Holocaust.

I found myself wondering how I would explain the Buddhist emphasis on equanimity to someone who had survived such an atrocity -- or, to use another example, a rape victim.

...or a physical abused victim, etc.; the list can be very long

This issues are hard. Tend to lead heated argumentation. My grandmother was not Jewish. She practiced Hinduism but as many Germans she was forced to leave her country in very harsh conditions.

I can't give a thoughtful advice but just to share my most sincere feeling toward this particular issue based on very personal experience. The way I have known is to elaborate, with the tools given by Buddha, my sufferings. Become aware of the amount of pain that has been kept since the event (atrocity) happend. Recognize it. Trying to stop nourishing it and eventualy, at its proper time, letting it go. It will never be an easy practice. It will take a huge amount of time and patient practice. Hope this do not harm sensible feelings Lazy, knowing that this has relation with cherished friends of yours.

[LasTins]

None are 'neutral' - we all have agendas.

But such does not mean that we forgo equanimity.

[HaseBeceDeemy]

This issues are hard. Tend to lead heated argumentation.

Yes, that's for sure.

I can't give a thoughtful advice but just to share my most sincere feeling toward this particular issue based on very personal experience. The way I have known is to elaborate, with the tools given by Buddha, my sufferings. Become aware of the amount of pain that has been kept since the event (atrocity) happend. Recognize it. Trying to stop nourishing it and eventualy, at its proper time, letting it go. It will never be an easy practice. It will take a huge amount of time and patient practice. Hope this do not harm sensible feelings Lazy, knowing that this has relation with cherished friends of yours. Actually that is a very thoughtful answer, Kaarine! Thank you.

I guess the question mark for me has to do with the sphere of moral/political/social action. It can be possible to confuse equanimity with indifference.

Wonder if the best response to give my friend (this is a purely hypothetical conversation) might be: "Buddhism does contain moral teachings and certainly doesn't constrain one from political or social action, but these aren't ultimately the purpose of the dhamma. The dhamma is more concerned with getting to the root of existential suffering, and with addressing it via inner transformation."

I know that sounds a little new-agey, but I would be trying to present it to a non-Buddhist and thus would need more generic terminology.

[byncnombmub]

None are 'neutral' - we all have agendas.

True. But are some agendas "just"?

The struggle to end slavery, for example...

[TerriLS]

Hi Lazy Eye

I really don’t know the answer for that. But maybe you ever heard about growing a tree, not a forest, because we cannot (if not impossible for us to) do the latter. Great suffering is always out there, in every ages. What can we do to lessen it? Sure, we have to try our best. But we have our own limitations. This is also the conflict point of Theravada (Hinayana) and Mahayana. Mahayanist’s blamed that Hinayanist (literally means cramped/narrow vehicle) save only himself/herself before the others (in the sense that you have to deny even you enlightenment for the sake of the others.) But Hinayanist focuses on only his/her urgent duty: get rid of his/her suffering. How could one helps the other if he still couldn’t help himself?
But the truth is, both Mahayanist and Hinayanist are still Neutrality in one way or another when it has something to do with worldly stuffs. They have their compassions but also their limitations.

Below is some poem I like.

People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.
If you do good, people may accuse you of selfish motives.
Do good anyway.
If you are successful, you may win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.
Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable.
Be honest and transparent anyway.
What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.
People who really want help may attack you if you help them.
Help them anyway.
Give the world the best you have and you may get hurt.
Give the world your best anyway."
-Mother Teresa

I don’t know why I think she was a very Buddhist. ;-)

[secondmortgages]

Below is some poem I like.

People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.
If you do good, people may accuse you of selfish motives.
Do good anyway.
If you are successful, you may win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.
Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable.
Be honest and transparent anyway.
What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.
People who really want help may attack you if you help them.
Help them anyway.
Give the world the best you have and you may get hurt.
Give the world your best anyway."
-Mother Teresa

I don’t know why I think she was a very Buddhist. ;-)

Thanks wanderer, I like it.

Also tastes a little bit Zen where "anyway" is like "do it just because..." or Mushotoku doctrine.

[Ephejvll]

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality." I like Wanderers quote from Mother Theresa........what people do to those who act sincerely with unconditional loving kindness....when meeting someone who stands out with it....it is astonishing what people can do.. sheer hate! Somehow there is a great resistance against it. I believe that it is a sort of fear. Lazy Eyes quote about Neutrality therefore means "Not getting involved and only watch how it unfolds.....probably waiting who will be the winner..... and then join hands" There is an other word for such kind of neutrality: "hypocrisy"... . Up to now it looks like hypocrites have not ended up in hell ...It looks more to me like hypocrites believe that they have "Inherited the Earth"

[uranbigis]

True. But are some agendas "just"?

The struggle to end slavery, for example...

'Justice' is a label which inevitable invokes emotions and sentimentality.

As I said, equanimity is the better path.

[pseusawbappem]

I guess the Buddhist teachings are the best weapon against moral crises. Great human catastrophes have happened because these teachings were not respected.

Neutrality is a vague term, sometimes it is right to act, sometimes it is right to do nothing. The Swiss neutrality was an historical choice and during the war, a strategic position. For each one of us, Dharma is not an excuse for apathy nor should it be a buttress against the difficult truths of life.

Equanimity is a very easy teaching to misunderstand, I feel. It is not a state of not-feeling, some sort of an "everything is OK" state. It is when the mind is unmoving - there is not attaching to anything that happens, it is in equipoise.

In a sense everything is experienced much deeper and more intensely in this state but without a sense of being pulled along, swayed and disturbed by the happenings.

Acting from such a place is motivated very differently and carries a lot more weight.

[thehhhyips]

Equanimity is a very easy teaching to misunderstand, I feel.

Mostly in a world dominated by angry feelings, passionate stiff postures and a highly greedy perspective of life... yes... it is understandable its misunderstanding.