Eudaimonist

But this gets back to my question. Why have goal-oriented behavior at all? Mindfulness may not preclude such behavior, but why engage in it?

boneyard bill

Eudaemonist writes:

I think you're both right. However, relating to this last question, the ideal circumstance in which you would have goal-oriented behavior would be for the benefit of someone else. The most obvious example of this throughout history has been the husband and father who has a family to look after and support.

If our true nature is that for a process rather than a thing and we have no "self" that acquires attributes, then we are the attributes themselves and nothing more. So the self is a process and the self is defined by its' interactions and relations with other people. So selfless behavior doesn't necessarily have to be unselfish. It is behavior that un-self-concerned. i.e. not motivated to assert or pump up or aggrandized the (fictitious) self.

I might point out that this is the view of all the major religions and of traditional society as a whole. Although Buddhism articulates this more specifically in terms of self. The Boy Scout manual tells boys to "forget yourself."

AdamWho

Can this be put into a more psychological framework or should we just trade on form of "world view" for another. I think that one of the problems with analyzing the usefulness of any religion is that advocates (often the experts) are unwilling to be too critical.

I think that Buddhism manifests in its followers negatively and arguments such as "you just misunderstand" or "word x translated differently means y" or "you just need to read author x" just do not convince me.
If Buddhism has value then I want to find it and toss out the rest. I don't want to fall into the mind-trap of religion ever again - even Buddhism.

Grizzly

Adamwho,

I believe the Buddha would agree with you. He often urged his followers not to accept what he said on faith - they needed to try it out for themselves. I believe he even likened his teachings to a raft - usefull to get across the river, but once your at the other side, ditch the raft.

Grizzly

Eudaimonist

Yes, but why act to benefit others? You haven't really answered my question; you've simply described behavior that is not guided by a false self-concept, and then noted that this behavior is advocated by all major religions and "traditional societies".

boneyard bill

Eudaemonist asks:

Because our true nature is defined by our relationships and interactions. The fictionalized "self" sees itself as a "thing" that needs to be preserved and defended. But our true nature is a process. So what is really real about us is our interactions and our relationships with other people. It is not some imaginary self-image that sets itself apart from other people and sees its interests as different from theirs and is always comparing itself with others and becoming depressed if the comparison is negative and puffed up with pride if the comparison is positive. That is our error and that is why we are always in a state of agitation.

boneyard bill

AdamWho writes:

One of the steps in the eightfold path is "right views." In Buddhism that means no views. One of the first things you have to do is give up all opinions about the world. You have to begin by experiencing the world directly as it is and not making any judgements on it. That, of course, would include making any judgements on religion, or Buddhism or whatever. If you set out to get out of it what you want to get out of it, you won't get anything out of it.

Eudaimonist

In spite of the fact that I'm not a Buddhist, I agree with much of this. I agree that our true nature is a process, not a static abstract entity; and that our relationships and interactions are important aspects of this true nature. I also agree that seeking a sense of self-worth by comparing oneself to others is likely to cause inner turmoil.

Noting that our true nature is defined by our relationships and interactions, why should I interact with others? Why not become a hermit? What is the point of interacting with others? Help me out here, since I seem to be missing some vital step in your argument.

Also, why not become an evil overlord? I realize that evil overlords may typically act as they do because they are guided by a false self-concept. What I am asking here is why should my relationships and interactions with others be benevolent instead of hurtful? After all, hurtful relationships and interactions are just as much relationships and interactions as those that are benevolent.

Make sure to keep in mind that other people are processes, not static selves, and therefore acting to preserve others as if they had static selves is just as much an error as acting to preserve one's own non-existent static self.

I hope you can clarify these issues for me.

boneyard bill

Eudaimonist asks:

I suppose becoming a hermit is not out of the question. The Buddhist monastery did provide a certain amount of seclusion. However, Buddhist monks were never as reclusive as Christian monks. Buddhist monks are the active clergy in their communities. So I think Buddhist seclusion is usually understood as a temporary thing that is sometimes conducive to enlightenment. But I think the real question is, how can you lose your sense of self-concern and self-centeredness by living as a hermit? Maybe it's possible, but surely it is far more difficult.

The other question is, why not foster tyrannical relationships? As long as I'm focused on the interactive nature of the relationship am I not being just as enlightened a someone who fosters loving relationships? One could almost make that case if the tyranny were understood to be a case of "tough love." But again it would be very difficult. The monarch has a hard time attaining enlightenment because self-preservation and self-glorification are an important part of being a monarch and flattery is a common way dealing with monarchs.

But Buddhism also claims that nirvana is characterized by compassion. So it would be difficult embrace compassion and tyranny at the same time. I could be done, I suppose, but you would have to be convinced that the tyranny was in the long-term best interests of those who were suffering from the tyranny.

victorialis

boneyardbill says, "you would have to be convinced that the tyranny was in the long-term best interests of those who were suffering from the tyranny."

There have been, and still are, despotic rulers who believe exactly this: that tyranny is tough love, that it is compassion. And those despots are tolerated -- even loved, in some quarters -- because of a tradition among the people of believing in that equation. The rest of the world looks on in dismay at such places; I have more than one present-day example in mind.

I'm still mulling over Eudaimonist's question: Why act to benefit others?

b-bill's response goes to an ideal scenario. Maybe we have difficulty understanding this because we're skipping over the fact that this enlightenment thing is itself a process. Ultimately, with a developed and integrated enlightenment, you would naturally act to benefit others, but what about in the meantime?

I'm guessing that goal-oriented behavior in the meantime can support the development of your enlightenment, so long as the behavior does no harm and is not wasteful... or, if you're sufficiently attentive, even if it does do harm or waste things. We've got to do something to pass the time; we're here in physical existence and there are things to be learned.

If you choose harmonious and beneficial goals, others will benefit from them. Maybe it's that simple.

Heh. Not easy, but simple.