| No. --Zoe,
what exactly is bodhicitta? |
| It is when one
is firmly grounded in the wish to to be
enlightened so as truly to benefit all beings
near or far, large or small, attractive or
unattractive-- |
| Ok. |
| --In the
jungles, in the oceans, in the air, on the earth,
under the earth; fat or skinny, human, non-human |
| Ok, ok. I get
the idea. |
| If
you try to practice lovingkindness, it can almost
seem unthinkable. |
| What? |
| For instance,
to be wishing happiness and wellbeing to all the
people and animals on the planet. It is almost
unthinkable. |
| Well, Zo-- you
are probably right. It is unthinkable, which
means its somewhat phony. So you are deceiving
yourself if you-- |
| No. You are
wrong, Erin. We can think it. |
| It is way too
vast a thought. |
| No. The mind
can open-- |
| So there is
individual good will for every single-- |
| No, silly. Of
course not. But what there can be is a vast open
kindness that definitely is different from the
ordinary small mind, and then the open kind mind
then factors into actual specific one on one
kindness. |
| You sound
definite. |
| Yes. I am not
speculating about this. |
| It sounds
pretty abstract. Disconnected from simply-- |
| We can think
it. And its like in Khunu Rinpoche's great poem.
Its in this book right here-- |
When a foundation of
bodhicitta has been laid down
|
terrible wrongdoing
is stopped.
|
All wholesome
activity comes into one's hands;
|
one is free from
anxiety and panic and comes to be stable.
|
| I love that
line, free from anxiety and panic. And it is
true, when one can shift from preoccupation with
self to concern for, interest in, others, one
finds stability. He goes on-- |
If one investigates
to find the supreme method
|
for accomplishing the
aims of oneself and others,
|
it comes down to
bodhicitta alone.
|
| The simple
wish and intention to be helpful, orienting one's
efforts and activities in that direction. |
| Zoe, do you
think it is an extraordinary state of mind, or is
it pretty normal? |
| Good question.
I don't know really. |
| I was thinking
about your sermon the other night. |
| Sermon? |
| How nondensity
factors into our assumptions about life and
death. If appreciation of nondensity lessens or
dissolves the role of me in practical reasoning,
one's practical reasoning is not as self-centered
as for one who assumes density. |
| By the way,
Erin, I didn't intend to be proposing some
radical new shift in thinking about morality and
rationality. On the contrary, I think all the
ideas about not being so selfcentered may simply
illuminate actual human behavior -- |
| Like what? |
| --Like when we
act in altruistic ways. Consider the typical
formulation of the free rider or public goods
type of problem: e.g. the problem
is how to make sense of people being rational
even when in fact they make the sacrifices for
the general good --which of course people do all
the time. They are deriving meaning and joy by
identifying with projects independent of how it
factors into some calculation about their own
well-being. Put in modest terms: the shift to
non-density at least makes it easier to see why
their actions make sense when they selflessly act
for another person, such as a child, or for that
matter for the general good, --when we resolve to
try to live that way. |
| Uh-huh. |
| Moreover one's
perspective is quite different from what is in
Uncle Fred's myth of eternal recurrence or any of
the other myths one could imagine, including the
buddhist reincarnation story where the
preoccupation with me is evident in the
conventional thinking about it --even when the
goal that is posited is to escape rebirth
altogether. |
| I'd rather not
get back on that topic of reincarnation. |
| Ok. |
| It really is
boring and unrealistic to me. |
| Ok, I know.
What I'm saying, ok, is don't assume
reincarnation. We exist, briefly. We've rejected
density of self and there is no myth to adopt
here, simply a decision to
see that revising beliefs in accord with
nondensity gives us an opportunity to widen our
horizon of concern in a perfectly rational way
--that is, to widen it to those with whom one has
been or will be causally related. |
| So it might
not even be much of a revision, simply a better
appreciation for what how one's attitudes fit
together. |
| Right.
Exactly. Let my attitudes about my relationship
with them--those with whom I am causally
interconnected-- become more like the attitudes I
tend to have had about my own future and past.
Again I'm not proposing anything that is
necessarily supposed to be new and radical. The
traditional religions certainly cultivate this
frame of mind, with the Beastie Boys for example
rewording the traditional buddhist boddhisattva
vow |
For the sake of all
beings I seek
|
The enlightened mind
that I know I'll reap
|
| and christians
praying |
Forgive us our debts
as we forgive our debtors.
|
| I would say
the traditional religions already have practices
that incorporate a compassionate response to
non-density rather than a nihilistic response --
and in this respect they are simply way ahead of
the responses so far by recent western
philosophers like Nietzsche and Derek. |
| Zo, I didn't
really mean to get you going on this again. |
| Its ok. I
don't mind. The mahayana buddhists emphasize the
essential role for development of boddhicitta
--the spirit of dedicating all one's thoughts and
acts for the true benefit of all beings. They
emphasize that it cannot be taken for granted,
and that it can and needs to be cultivated
otherwise our hearts dry up. I don't know if I've
got an argument here. That wasn't my point. The
point is that reflection on the realities
generates a sense of involvement that naturally
gives rise to compassion. We have good things
because of others, we can affect others in good
ways. That sounds trivial but it cannot be taken
for granted because if we approach the world in
terms of a dense self we easily lose sight of it.
We take for granted what has been given to us, as
if it were some sort of natural right that we
have the wealth of physical and intellectual and
spiritual culture when in fact it exists for us
only because of countless selfless acts
stretching back 800 years, 8000 years, etc. And
in the other direction, we get focussed on our
own rather trivial brief futures and we lose
sight of the vast field stretching before us. Yet
when we do cultivate the connection to this field
& when a sense of active involvement for The
Good is present --behold! |
| What? |
| --Happiness! |
| What a great
surprise! |
| Well it is! |
| Yes. |
| Wait. were you
being serious? |
| Yes. |
| Really? |
| Sure. I agree
with you. It is what human culture is all about.
I never had understood why T. S. Eliot was so big
on tradition until I began thinking about it in
these terms. |
| Hmm. Yes
--specific things like knowing what Plato wrote
or about how Einstein used thought experiments,
or generally the vast array of current scientific
knowledge; or even how to play basketball or
knowing how to use the breath as an object of
meditation to deepen concentration; or being
familiar with the sermon on the mount or the
bodhisattva vow -- there is no natural law
guaranteeing somehow that human beings are aware
of such things or develop in such ways. Maybe to
some extent? You might think. -- But --No.!!! --
In general not! Of course
there may be some such things that have
to be passed on, such as basic moral
precepts, if the species is to survive
but of course there's nothing guaranteed in
nature about the continuation of the human
species. So these teachings and practices are
part of human culture protected and cultivated in
all sorts of ways. And of course we can live with
that in mind. Not like it all depends on us,
since obviously one individual is not that
important, each of us is easily extinguished and
not missed very much when gone. |
| The relevant
causal streams are probably so complex as to be
inscrutable anyway. |