My OperaThe Importance of Being Right
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:33:49 AM
Having seen two long-term members get banned recently, I was inspired to write this blog post. Some people just fail to see the other view-point, and cannot let go of being right.
A short Zen story illustrates the danger of being attached to being right.
Two monks were arguing. One maintained that it was vital to believe in rebirth to be a Buddhist, the other maintained that it was unnecessary, that one could understand the Dhamma only in the present moment.
The first went and asked the abbot whether it was essential to believe in rebirth. The abbot replied, “Yes you are right.” He was pleased with himself, and told the other monk what the abbot had said.
The second went to the abbot and asked whether one could understand the Dhamma only in the present moment. The abbot replied, “Yes you are right.”
When the second monk came out, the two monks argued again, each saying that the abbot had told him he was right. So they went in together, and each said to the abbot, “You said I was right. We can't both be right.” The abbot thought for a while, and then replied, “Yes, you are right!”
That's the way it is with most human beings — they are strongly attached to their own view and fail to see things as others see them. Anyone who is not personally involved in the debate can clearly see what the real problem is, but those who think they're right cannot see that they are wrong.
A short Zen story illustrates the danger of being attached to being right.
Two monks were arguing. One maintained that it was vital to believe in rebirth to be a Buddhist, the other maintained that it was unnecessary, that one could understand the Dhamma only in the present moment.
The first went and asked the abbot whether it was essential to believe in rebirth. The abbot replied, “Yes you are right.” He was pleased with himself, and told the other monk what the abbot had said.
The second went to the abbot and asked whether one could understand the Dhamma only in the present moment. The abbot replied, “Yes you are right.”
When the second monk came out, the two monks argued again, each saying that the abbot had told him he was right. So they went in together, and each said to the abbot, “You said I was right. We can't both be right.” The abbot thought for a while, and then replied, “Yes, you are right!”
That's the way it is with most human beings — they are strongly attached to their own view and fail to see things as others see them. Anyone who is not personally involved in the debate can clearly see what the real problem is, but those who think they're right cannot see that they are wrong.
Daniel HendrycksDanielHendrycks # Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:35:50 PM
Bhikkhu PesalaPesala # Monday, October 18, 2010 5:20:40 AM
The ones who are cursed are those who don't understand that others see things differently to them. The one's who do the banning are preventing disruptive and rude behaviour for the benefit of the community. Every society worth the name has regulations and forms of censure.
Bhikkhu PesalaPesala # Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:31:09 AM
This blog is run by my rules. I just decided on these rules. Maybe I will make some more up as required.
1) Posts must be on-topic — the topic being about attachment to views.
2) Posts must contribute something positive that others may enjoy reading.
3) Animated avatars are not permitted.
I will delete any posts that I want to delete. There is no fundamental right to free speech here. Deal with it.
Bhikkhu PesalaPesala # Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:05:40 PM
“Having thought of a mind object, one loses mindfulness. Getting involved in the attraction of it, one feels the onset of desire that tries to imbibe it.”
“A multitude of passions such as covetousness and rage, springing from ideas, torments one who takes a firm hold of it, with the result that his mind becomes burdened with vexation. Therefore, nibbāna remains remote from one who would rather carry the burden of suffering than practise meditation.”
Due to attachment to ideas (concepts) that one has thought of, all kinds of passionate views and opinions arise, leading to all manner of speech and actions to defend that attachment to those views. If one does not understand that it is just a view that one has thought of, nibbāna (i.e. the end of suffering) remains remote.
The more passionately one defends a view (whether right or wrong), the more attached to it one becomes. Then one is far away from liberation from attachment and the end of suffering.
ersi # Tuesday, November 9, 2010 5:58:00 PM
- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
This some interpret as "freedom of religion", some as "separation of church and state" and some even as "freedom from religion". But in their arguments with each other both freedom and separation go lost, while state and religion prevail.
- "...or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press;"
This is the immediate continuation of the same article (amendment) in the constitution, which everybody regards as fuel to their own point of view, against others' point of view. Instead of interpreting this point as a right to distribute and to access information (as opposed to opinions, guesses, or, more crucially, fantasies and outright lies) it is interpreted as a right to say anything, anywhere, anytime.
These contradictions in interpretation can happen with any formulation, but the clashes can be alleviated by updating the wording from time to time to clarify the intentions. It happens in most of the rest of the world, but American choice seems to be to keep their formulations the way they are along with all the contradictory interpretations. Probably it's not merely the wording which is the holy cow there, but the opportunity to debate and disagree, the liberty to confuse and be confused.
In the end, I think it's useful for me to realise that, having analysed this issue of American free speech in such an un-constructive way, I obviously lack the spark of right view (in the Buddhist sense) myself. I suppose it's okay to see others as wrong when they really are, but to see them as having a fair right to be wrong, while maintaining a cooperative and constructive attitude in relation to them, would be better. It is wrong to be right at the cost of others.
BridgeBuilderKiwi # Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:28:53 PM
Originally posted by ersi:
Hi, ersi. I am wondering what you mean by your last sentence, which I have quoted.
Do you mean that it would be wrong for a shepherd to continue walking along the correct path when the sheep that he was leading have taken a wrong turn? That in that case, to be right, the shepherd would need to go down the wrong path to rescue the sheep and bring them back to the right path?
What about with people? If truth has been demonstrated to them, and yet they rebel against the truth, for whatever reason, actively trying to con themselves and others into favouring the benefits of thinking of falsehood as though it were truth, then how can the principle you have stated be applied?
ersi # Friday, December 10, 2010 5:39:32 AM
Originally posted by BridgeBuilderKiwi:
The sheep know their shepherd and the shepherd knows his sheep. They're inseparable. Check your Bible on this.
Anyway, I am not arguing, particularly if you think you are the shepherd.