|
Quiet is the Flow
River De Chute... Easton, ME
Note: "Principle" is used in varied ways. The basic idea of "principle" is a timeless truth that is the origin of other teachings or laws. For example, "You shall not kill" is a law, or commandment, while "Protection of human life, "Respect for human life," or "The sacredness of human life" would be ways of saying a principle at the root of the commandment. So, if one obeys the law and violates the principle, has one acted in good faith? Is it possible that to disobey is, at times, to obey?
* * *
A joke -
A couple goes to their pastor for premarital counseling. He is a rather strict man. The bride-to-be, having heard he is against dancing but not knowing for sure, asks, "We would like to have dancing at our wedding reception. Is that okay?" "Oh, no! we wouldn't allow that in our fellowship hall; that's a sin." She continues, "Is sex okay after marriage?" "Yes, certainly," the pastor says. "The Bible says to be fruitful and multiply." She rejoins, "Well, is it okay for me to be on top?" "That's okay, nothing wrong about that at all." Next, the groom-to-be asks, "Well, that is good news. And is it okay for us to have sex standing up?" "Oh, no!" says the pastor, "that's too much like dancing."
* * *
We can get caught in the duality of right-or-wrong, leading us to an unhealthy strictness. This attitude is moralism; with it comes the shadow of self-righteousness. And self-righteousness entails criticalness toward others who do not live up to our rigid standards.
The opposite of getting caught in right-or-wrong is right-and-wrong. One is dual, seeing right and wrong as opposites, while the other is a unity, seeing that right is in wrong and wrong is in right. One polarizes us; the other unites us.
Yet, this is not amorality. Right-and-wrong is not to do whatever you wish to do from an egoic perspective. Instead, this is a compassionate, thoughtful, and insightful way to live. This way entails discernment from situation to situation.
A Buddhist story speaks of the wisdom of nondual morality, and it shows how moralism leads to unhealthy, self-centered attachment.
Two Buddhist monks are out on a journey. They see a woman beside an overflowing river. She needs someone to help her across. Both monks maintain the precept not to touch a woman. However, one picks up the woman and carries her to the other side safely. He puts her down gently. She is very grateful. On down the road, the second monk says, "You know, brother, you violated the precept not to touch a woman by carrying her across that stream." "Well," says the other, "I let her down back at the stream. You are the one still carrying her."
* * *
Roshi Shunryu Suzuki says, in Branching Streams Flow in the Darkness, "When you are involved in the dualistic sense of precepts - man and woman, monk and layman - that is violating the precepts and is a poor understanding of the Buddha's teaching." Suzuki admits maybe it was not "completely right" for the monk to carry the woman. He continues:
Even so, as all human beings are friends, we should help them even if it means violating a Buddhist precept. If you think about the precepts in only a limited or narrow way, that is actually violating the precepts. So to see the woman was not to see the woman. When the monk crossed the river with her on his back, actually he was not helping her. Do you understand? So not to help her was to help her in the true sense.
Suzuki is speaking paradoxically. In duality, the woman is a woman. In unity, she is not a woman or man - she is something else. In helping her as the woman at the river, compassionate insight sees her as more than a woman and, so, more than someone not to touch. He helps her as a woman who is more than a woman. If he sees her as only a woman, he cannot help her. Seeing her as a woman means someone not to touch, so he could touch her without violating his vows. Yet, within the precept is the transcendence of the precept; otherwise, the precept would be a violation of Buddhism. The precept is to be kept by not keeping it, for, sometimes, to keep it means to do more than keep it as it appears. The woman and the precept both are more than they appear.
* * *
This nondual morality is like saying to an orthodox Jew, "For you always to obey the Ten Commandments is to disobey it," or to a conservative Chritian, "If you always obey the Bible, you are disobeying it."
A telling story in the Gospel of Matthew 12.1-8 (GNT) speaks of Jesus addressing this matter of obeying by disobeying.
Not long afterward Jesus was walking through some wheat fields on a Sabbath [Jewish law forbade work on the Sabbath]. His disciples were hungry, so they began to pick heads of wheat and eat the grain. When the Pharisees [a conservative religious sect; lit., pious, or holy, ones] saw this, they said to Jesus, "Look, it is against our Law for your disciples to do this on the Sabbath!"
Jesus answered, "Have you never read what David [first King of Israel] did that time when he and his men were hungry? He went into the house of God [the shrine], and he and his men ate the bread offered to God [on the altar], even though it was against the Law for them to eat it - only the priests were allowed to eat that bread. Or have you not read in the Law of Moses that every Sabbath the priests in the Temple actually break the Sabbath law [by fulfilling their duties], yet they are not guilty? I tell you that there is something here greater than the Temple. The scripture says, 'It is kindness that I want, not animal sacrifices' [Hosea 6.6]. If you really knew what this means, you would not condemn people who are not guilty; for the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Here, Jesus uses the Pious Ones own Scriptures, and his, giving examples contrary to their claims. Jesus' reply would be like a conservative Christian saying, "You know that is wrong," and replying, "Interesting, let's look at examples otherwise from your Holy Bible."
Yet, Jesus does not disown the Law. He does not say, "Well! that is just old-fashioned, and we're past that." He honors the Law even more than the Pious Ones does, for he does not turn the Law into a moral straight jacket. And he realizes in the Scriptures is a hierarchy of teaching: not all scripture is of equal applicability. This last point is overlooked by almost all conservative Christians in their tendency for moralism over principles, even though they do not consistently keep all Scripture teaching. They would be more biblical, not less, by honoring this fact. Indeed, they would be following Jesus' example.
Additionally, Jesus recognizes the "Son of Man" is Master of the Sabbath, not the Sabbath of the "Son of Man." Law serves us; we do not serve it. What was true of Jesus is true of us, for we are essentially that he is. In union with that essence, we are free of serving law. The same is implied in the Buddhist story above. That the Buddha is, that is our spirit. Buddha is Master of the precepts, not the reverse.
Hence, we see in both the story of the Buddhist monk and in the Gospel story what transcends moral legalism, or what I have called moralism. In both, the principle of showing kindness negated keeping the law in a surface manner. Yet, in this act was more respect for the precepts, the path, and the persons involved: the woman needing help to cross the river, the hungry disciples.
* * *
It is somewhat easier to be legalistic, meaning to keep a teaching of right-or-wrong always, than to deal with the ambiguity that arises from recognizing timeless principles take priority over rules of right-or-wrong. However, we cannot morally afford to practice moralism. Moralism denies principles and dismisses ambiguity, and ambiguity is integral to life. Keeping a teaching of the right thing always to do and, thereby, betraying a principle is an act of bad faith, even when we claim we are keeping the faith. To act in good faith, sometimes we must disagree and disobey the faith - our spiritual path. The Buddhist acted Buddah-like by carrying the woman across the river. Jesus behaved in the spirit of the Law by honoring that his hungry students procuring food on the Sabbath was more important than them staying hungry to keep the Law in a strict way. And, too, that we truly are is to be served by institutions and their laws and teachings; we are prior to and above all that would limit dignity and freedom.
* * *
*© Brian K. Wilcox, 2021
*Brian's book, An Ache for Union: Poems on Oneness with God through Love, can be ordered through major online booksellers or the publisher AuthorHouse. The book is a collection of poems based on wisdom traditions, predominantly Christian, Buddhist, and Sufi, with extensive notes on the poetry's teachings and imagery.
|
