More about Good and Evil
With thanks to people who entered into discussion and stimulated this follow up.
Judith Johnson
I have had a few responses to the commentary on good and evil. People have hastened to assure me that good and evil exist. Indeed they do, and yes, they dance together. This is duality: just as in Newtonian mechanics matter and energy are distinct entities, so for many purposes we can distinguish between good and evil as separate entities. There is a larger perspective: non-duality. Just as the larger perspective in physics tells us that matter and energy are interchangeable, so, in non duality good and evil are aspects of the same thing (conditioned mind). Informed by nonduality we need not judge anything as evil, but we will want to prevent harm, and that does have some relationship to the concept of evil.
Of course the concepts of matter and energy have practical applications, the whole industrial revolution is based on them; and the way we structure society is and has to be based on discrimination between (helpful) good and harmful (evil) behaviour. So what do I mean when I say there is no such thing as evil? Well, non-duality is an experience. As soon as I try to describe it in words and concepts immediately I am wrong. Communication is incomplete. You either experience this for yourself or you don’t.
It’s not hopeless though. Rev. Ming Shakya has provided an example which shows the practical application of the non-duality of good and evil. Take two babies, twin boys, A and B. They are separated at birth, A is raised by responsible loving parents, B is raised by parents who are alcoholic, criminal and abusive. Naturally A reacts to his upbringing by becoming a law abiding citizen with a reasonably well adjusted family while B reacts to his by becoming an abusive, alcoholic criminal. At this point, before either starts on a spiritual journey, from a Buddhist perspective both have an equal lack of merit. Neither is good, neither is evil. They are both stuck in the animal realm, simply reacting to circumstances by reflexively running from pain and seeking pleasure.
When A starts spiritual practice it will be necessary for him to see that he has ended up in a favorable position by virtue of favorable circumstances. It may be quite difficult for him to see that he is indulging in self aggrandizement when he donates to charity and attends his PTA meetings. When A sees how in his circumstances B would have done just as well, he is loosing something (positive self image). Humility may come with great difficulty. B may well have a head start on humility, and it will be a relief to him to see how he was simply reacting to circumstances when he created his messy kamma. B has to acknowledge the mess he is in, but then he will be glad to let go of his negative self image. Both may become Bodhisattvas. B may have more initial motivation to do so.
Although A and B have equal merit, and both have a chance at spiritual development, the law must treat them differently. B has learned how to channel his selfish urges into behavior that is acceptable to society, and he must be encouraged to continue that. B has learned to disregard society’s rules, and he must be deterred and retrained. This sort of training is conditioning by reward and punishment. It treats A and B like rats in a Skinner box, not like complete human beings. Necessary though it is this has little or nothing to do with spiritual development. In that limited sense we can recognize that behavior prior to spiritual training has been good in A’s case and evil in B’s case. This does not mean that one is a more worthwhile person than the other. One is not good and the other evil in any absolute sense. Good behavior from A and bad behavior from B were simply natural reactions to their different circumstances.
Most of us are somewhere between A and B. This hardly matters as far as spiritual training goes. Anywhere along the spectrum of good and bad behavior we start with an equal lack of merit and must go through the same spiritual process, eventually becoming transparent to ourselves, so that bitterness and self righteousness appear equally ridiculous. As this process takes place there is a deep change in the forces motivating A and B. As A develops he is no longer basing inflated (and easily popped) self esteem on his "good" behavior. He is able to see that B is his equal, even while defending himself from B's criminal tendencies. B no longer sees A as an evil oppressor or stupid victim. He is able to see A as an equal even when A puts B down to emphasize A's supposedly greater worthiness. If they both develop spiritually at the same time they may become friends.
When we have some A and some B we may oscillate between self righteousness and self loathing. With training eventually we make friends with ourselves and come to the stable middle position of seeing how we were molded by circumstances. When we see this we can become free of those circumstances, and need not act on our self righteousness or our self loathing. We are not wrapped up in rigid ideas of good and evil, we are not concerned with propping up a particular self image, so we are able to respond creatively to things as they are.
Here there is quite a contrast between Christian and Buddhist culture. Christian
culture tends to deal in absolute good and absolute evil, and to project good
and evil externally (good God, evil Devil.) Many Christians attempt to respond
to the influence of God, not the Devil. Some Christians are more like Buddhists
and locate God, or at least Christ, internally. As Buddhists we study ourselves.
By locating the causes of our suffering in our own reactions to circumstances
we are able to gain control of those reactions and that suffering. Then we take
responsibility for avoiding harm because we naturally want to, and now we can.
Shortly after I wrote this I bought the newly released book by Hagen, Buddhism is not what you think (books and company have a couple of copies.) Here is a quote from Hagen " ...our feeling of separateness is precisely what creates notions of good and evil in the first place. Were we to see the world as it is, however, thoughts of good and evil simply would not arise."