Friday
Aug072009
The State of "Mindlessness"
August 7, 2009 We practitioners ought to relinquish our attachments all the time so that we would be free of secular concerns toward the end of our lives.
If you continue to indulge yourself, there is the grave danger that you may go astray at this crucial moment of rebirth. Therefore, try to maintain the serenity of your mind while discarding all distinctions between good and bad. You will then attain the state of "mindlessness."
This, however, does not mean that you have become indifferent; rather, it means that you have let go of your sense of discrimination. The attainment of such a state will then be a clear indication of your genuine prowess in practice.
~ Analects of Master Kuang-ch'in
Reader Comments (3)
For the last four years I have had the pleasure of knowing you and coming to learn more about Buddhism. Through you I know that Buddhism is not a religion or a philosophy but a way of living. The Buddha teaches that we should do good, avoid evil and purify our minds. This trinity accords with the Hippocratic tradition which teaches to help and to do no harm. Through reading what you have written and listening to your tapes and your dharma talks I have learned much about how being a Buddhist can help me lead a fuller, richer and more useful life. Unfortunately your last dharma talk and the August 12 Buddhist Perspective have raised concerns that disturb me greatly. Let me tell a story and then look at some questions that trouble me.
Surgeon A was asked by the Department of Surgery to review a case of a patient who nearly died during a twenty hour operation as well as to review ten other patients operated on by the same surgeon, Surgeon S. The facts demonstrated that the first patient did very badly because Surgeon S and the Chief of the Medical Staff of the Hospital misdiagnosed her and lied about it. Of the eleven patients revied, two died, four became partially paralyzed, four were left in severe chronic pain and one went through "the worst summer" of his life before getting better. When Surgeon A asked what could be done to protect patients from being killed, paralyzed or otherwise harmed by surgeons who treated patients dishonestly and incompetently the Chairman of the Department of Surgery received widespread support when he said that "surgeons don't have to tell the truth to their patients." When Surgeon A subsequently asked an outside organization what it could do to protect patients, his privileges were revoked and he was subsequently banished from the hospital and humiliated. Having learned from Buddist practice that "violence only produces violence" Surgeon A responded by staying in his community and used his talents to treat patients in scientific and compassionate ways in hopes that some physicians would see this as an effective alternative to dishonest incompetence.
Recently, Surgeon A was asked by a dear friend, Martha, what she should do for her elderly father who has a serious back problem and is seeing Surgeon S. Surgeon A responded that although he recruited Surgeon S and spent five years working with Surgeon S, now, when he had patients who needed spine surgery he sent them elsewhere. When Martha's father continued to see Surgeon S, Surgeon A suggested that the father get a second opinion before deciding whether or not he should undergo surgery.
The concern I have about this story is "who is responsible if Martha's father does have surgery by Surgeon S and then becomes paralysed, develops severe, intractable pain and eventually dies?
Possible answers include:
1.) No one. These are all known complications of the operation and could happent to any patient. Surgeon S would support this answer.
2.) Martha's father. This is the result of past Karmic events and what he deserves. Buddist monks might use this answer.
3.) Martha. She chose to "accord with the conditions" presented to her father even though these conditions meant that he could be treated in an evil and immoral way. (Saying that surgeons do not have to tell the truth to patients is evil while harming patients because of incompetent actions is immoral.)
4.) Surgeon A. He knew the terrible things that could befall Martha's father and did not wisely or effectively prevent them from occuring.
5.) The truly awakened being would not ask this question. "Ordinary beings judge and sentence ... But there is no judging, no discrimintion. ... There is no good or bad, only beings in need of help so that they too can awaken and dwell in tranquility and peace ... Therefore, try to maintain the serenity of your mind while discarding all distinctions between good and bad. You will attain a state of "mindlessness." This does not mean that you have become indifferent; rather it means that you have let go of your sense of disscrimination."
Answer one has a certain plausabillity which decreases when one knows that Surgeon S has a complication rate four to ten times greater than other surgeons. Answer two accords with Buddhist thought; but for those who think that this life is the only gift we get, this Buddhist concept seems seriously superstitious. Answer three shows the limits of trying to "accord with conditions" and "to learn how to work with them" Two of the five Buddhist precepts are "do not kill" and "do not lie." Yet when "conditions" condone and support harming and lying, how can good Buddhists support harming and lying. Answer four shows the responsibilities we all have for creating "tranquility and peace."
Answer five causes me the most concern. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. both exemplify nonviolent ways of dealing with evil without harming humans. They both embraced the concept of nonviolent action as an effective means of curing the evil caused by the perverse retroviruses of "greed, anger and ignorance." Yet the "State of Mindlessness" seems, to me, to mean that the Buddhist practitioner will seek " serenity of ... mind" by "discarding all distinctions between good and bad" rather than confronting and removing the harm caused by evil. (Aquinas states that "evil is the abscence of good".)
Venerable, help me understand why answer five is any less evil than the damage caused when "good and decent humans" accept lying and harming as a reasonable way to live. And, more importantly, help me understand how a weak, angry and limited old man can effectively combat the harm done by accepting dishonest and evil behavior.
Blessings, Peter
Thank you for taking the time to write. Surely some others will have similar concerns. Hopefully the following will help.
Regarding #4
“Surgeon A responded that although he recruited Surgeon S and spent five years working with Surgeon S, now, when he had patients who needed spine surgery he sent them elsewhere. When Martha's father continued to see Surgeon S, Surgeon A suggested that the father get a second opinion before deciding whether or not he should undergo surgery.”
Surgeon A, when asked, gave his very honest opinion about surgeon S. Twice. Having asked for an opinion and received it twice, it is up to Martha and her father to make their decision. Surgeon A can patiently present a carefully reasoned and logical opinion, but the final decision is out of his hands. Even the Buddha encountered that woman who simply would not listen to him. So he accepted the fact she would not, and having done his best to help her told Ananda that she was not ready for his (the Buddha’s) help. He had done what he could. For now.
Often—as much as we want to help—we cannot effect a change. With wisdom, we will know if and how to help. With wisdom, we will also understand that we cannot change a person’s destiny. Only the person who planted the cause can change it.
As I often have said, without a clear, calm mind our wisdom will not function. We will act from emotion and habits, sincerely believing we are doing what is right. But until we reach a certain level of awakening, we, sadly, are functioning from ignorance and delusion.
Regarding #2
I have not heard any Buddhist monastics say this is “what he deserves,” because this lacks compassion. Saying this “is his karma” is very different. Saying someone deserves something implies judgment. Buddhist monks, or anyone for that matter, should not judge since as ordinary people, we do not know the whole situation.
Regarding #5
Not discriminating does not mean not caring. When we let go of our discriminating thoughts, we are able to help all beings, not just the ones we might deem worthy of our help. By not discriminating, we put aside emotions and can act from wisdom.
In your example, Martha and her father clearly need our understanding and compassion. But then so does Surgeon S because from the sound of it; “a complication rate four to ten times greater than other surgeons.” When we harm others we will suffer the consequences. When we suffer the consequences, people—not knowing the harm we have done in past lifetimes—will feel great sympathy for our suffering and want to help us. And so the Surgeon Ss become the Marthas and the Martha’s fathers. All of them need our help. If we discriminate, we cannot help them all.
If rebirth is difficult to factor in, then look at it from one lifetime. Still, all beings need our help. That is the first great vow that you graciously always say when I ask. “Sentient beings are innumerable; I vow to help them all.” The vow does not say “Sentient beings who I fell are deserving are plentiful; I vow to help them all.”
The Buddha, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. exemplified a nonviolent solution to great intolerance and injustice. They used wisdom and were thus able to bring about great changes. They were able to move others not just because they were skilled speakers. They lived lives of non-harming others and so they moved people with their sincerity.
Peter, you wrote of “confronting and removing the harm caused by evil.” Would that we could. But even Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. could not “remove the harm caused by evil.” Neither could the Buddha.
Did that mean that they gave up trying to help? That the Buddha gave up trying to help? No. He could have left the human body behind, but he did not. He remained in the world and taught for forty-nine years. One or one hundred or one thousand, he taught all who requested a teaching. He walked across mountains and through jungles filled with wild animals. He slept under the trees and if food was not offered, he did not eat. He walked into the jungle where Angulimala was waiting to kill another victim.
How did the Buddha manage all this?
His mind was perfectly calm. His wisdom was fully functioning.
He did not discriminate. He did not say Angulimala’s victims were “good.” Angulimala is “bad.”
Neither did he accept dishonest and evil behavior. He understood it. This is very different. By understanding where it came from, he knew which cure to prescribe for each person. But he could not make the person follow the prescription.
The Buddha said all beings need to be taught so they can leave suffering behind and attain happiness, break through delusion and attain awakening. And so he taught and exemplified what he taught. And he helped where he could. And he understood when he could not and did not get upset or feel it was a failure. He would wait for a better opportunity, regardless how long the waiting would take.
Like the Buddha, we need to calm our mind and allow our wisdom to arise. Then we will know how to truly help all beings. “A weak, angry and limited old man can effectively combat the harm done” in the same way. Especially when I know that that man has dedicated his life to relieving suffering and helping others.
Let go of the anger. It will taint everything we do just as a poison taints the nectar it is poured into.
Vow to alleviate the suffering of all beings.
Calm the mind and allow wisdom to arise.