Kindness vs. privacy

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by SDC »

PeterB wrote:What merit is gained by an unquestioning compliance to dumb custom...whether of the East or West.
In my opinion, there is a lot of merit to be found here, but with a catch. In your case, Peter, since you do not like the custom or the prospect of someone staying that long, you would be making a huge sacrifice for another. You would be sacrificing your comfort, your time and most importantly your view on the whole matter by allowing the situation to proceed. That's worth a lot of merit. Well at least according to my understanding of dana, which in addition to food and help to sangha also includes sacrifices and good deeds to all beings. This would be one great sacrifice. However, if you were to spend the duration harboring angry thoughts and an agressive attitude at your wife and houseguests, that kamma may cancel out whatever merit you are gaining. So that would be something to keep in mind, and for me personally would be the most significant and difficult aspect of the whole situation.

So I guess what I'm saying, Ruud, is that beforehand you need to believe in your reasoning for going through with it so you don't have to battle with that personal anger and confusion on a daily basis. In addition you should prepare yourself for the possible negative states of mind that may occur on a daily basis. Because it sounds like it will be quite a tough situation.

And for the record I would have a really hard time going through with this living situation, despite my opinion on the situation.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by PeterB »

I am sorry SDC but I think thats nonsense. We are called to cultivate that kindness,those positive virtues that are real. Not to merely comply to social mores .
And the mere fact that any particular example of social mores are personally uncomfortable for us does not in itself imbue it with virtue.
We are not called on in walking the Buddhas way to don hair shirts or flagellate ourselves by adopting the more unreasonable ( to western sensibilties ) customs of those we happen to sojourn among.

We have not emerged from our own version of collective non individuation in order to regress to the collective under an exotic guise.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by SDC »

PeterB wrote:I am sorry SDC but I think thats nonsense. We are called to cultivate that kindness,those positive virtues that are real. Not to merely comply to social mores .
And the mere fact that any particular example of social mores are personally uncomfortable for us does not in itself imbue it with virtue.
We are not called on in walking the Buddhas way to don hair shirts or flagellate ourselves by adopting the more unreasonable ( to western sensibilties ) customs of those we happen to sojourn among.

We have not emerged from our own version of collective non individuation in order to regress to the collective under an exotic guise.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understood what I was saying. It had nothing to do with complying blindly to social mores. It had to do with seeing that act as a sacrifice for others. I specifically said that the reason for doing such an act should be thoroughly considered and not just accepted with no preperation. And if a person considers it, accepts it for what it is, despite their doubts and fears, and goes through with it that would be true virtue. If they can't then it becomes an issue, which I also spoke about. I stated specifically that if the discomfort were to make you angry and agressive it would do no good for anyone involved.

Basically if you can look at it a certain way and be able to handle it then have it. If you can't, then don't.

But just to clarify, are you saying that sacrifices and good deads for others are nonsense?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by PeterB »

I am saying that I catch a whiff of burning martyr.
I am futher saying that sacrifices that merely serve to reinforce social custom and that are not part of of a mature and reciprocal relationship, ( which by definition must preclude moral blackmail and threats of social isolation ) may unwittingly be unskillful.
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by Pannapetar »

The need for privacy is often based in selfish, egotistic motives which remain subconscious if never challenged. If nothing else, a situation that challenges habitual behaviour patterns such as this, can bring hidden motives to the surface. It is a possibility, the silver lining of the grey cloud so to speak, wherein lies some potential. Furthermore, SDC is quite correct in saying that there is merit in giving up something cherished for the benefit of another person.

In my view, accommodating family members is never a "dumb custom".

Cheers, Thomas
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by SDC »

PeterB wrote:I am saying that I catch a whiff of burning martyr.
I am futher saying that sacrifices that merely serve to reinforce social custom and that are not part of of a mature and reciprocal relationship, ( which by definition must preclude moral blackmail and threats of social isolation ) may unwittingly be unskillful.
I 100% agree with you. It would be unskillful. That's what I was trying to say. You would have to want to be making the sacrifice outside of it social implications and be dealing with the decision on a personal level. If you can't do that, the situiation is definitely going to bad, and could easily be considered martyrdom. But if you can, then I see it as a great sacrifice with great merit.

So I don't think there is anything we are disagreeing on.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by PeterB »

When entered into freely and with reciprocal respect it certainly isnt a dumb custom.
Being forced into offering free hotel accomodation for several weeks because of a threat of social isolation otherwise, might be.
You declare your admiration for Sam Harris on another thread Pannapetar.
It seems to me that you can either have doing stuff because your folks did it and will ostracise you if you dont, OR you can have Sam Harris, not both.
Life throws up enough opportunity for learning every day. Its not necessary to turn or homes into Salvation Army hostels for stray relatives to experience that.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by PeterB »

SDC wrote:
PeterB wrote:I am saying that I catch a whiff of burning martyr.
I am futher saying that sacrifices that merely serve to reinforce social custom and that are not part of of a mature and reciprocal relationship, ( which by definition must preclude moral blackmail and threats of social isolation ) may unwittingly be unskillful.
I 100% agree with you. It would be unskillful. That's what I was trying to say. You would have to want to be making the sacrifice outside of it social implications and be dealing with the decision on a personal level. If you can't do that, the situiation is definitely going to bad, and could easily be considered martyrdom. But if you can, then I see it as a great sacrifice with great merit.

So I don't think there is anything we are disagreeing on.
I dont think so either SDC. My apologies if I misunderstood.

:anjali:
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by SDC »

Pannapetar wrote:The need for privacy is often based in selfish, egotistic motives which remain subconscious if never challenged. If nothing else, a situation that challenges habitual behaviour patterns such as this, can bring hidden motives to the surface. It is a possibility, the silver lining of the grey cloud so to speak, wherein lies some potential. Furthermore, SDC is quite correct in saying that there is merit in giving up something cherished for the benefit of another person.

In my view, accommodating family members is never a "dumb custom".

Cheers, Thomas
I was just about to bring up something along these lines. I can only speak for myself, but I feel that in other situations of sacrifice I still hover between handling it skillfully and unskillfully. But I like to give it a shot and find it easier and easier as time goes on.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by SDC »

PeterB wrote:
SDC wrote:
PeterB wrote:I am saying that I catch a whiff of burning martyr.
I am futher saying that sacrifices that merely serve to reinforce social custom and that are not part of of a mature and reciprocal relationship, ( which by definition must preclude moral blackmail and threats of social isolation ) may unwittingly be unskillful.
I 100% agree with you. It would be unskillful. That's what I was trying to say. You would have to want to be making the sacrifice outside of it social implications and be dealing with the decision on a personal level. If you can't do that, the situiation is definitely going to bad, and could easily be considered martyrdom. But if you can, then I see it as a great sacrifice with great merit.

So I don't think there is anything we are disagreeing on.
I dont think so either SDC. My apologies if I misunderstood.

:anjali:
Right on, Peter. No need to apologize. Good discussion.

:anjali:
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by Pannapetar »

PeterB wrote:When entered into freely and with reciprocal respect it certainly isnt a dumb custom.
Peter, a custom is by definition not something that you enter into freely.
PeterB wrote:Being forced into offering free hotel accomodation for several weeks because of a threat of social isolation otherwise, might be.
It might. :quote: Or it might not. Your judgement depends very much on your cultural upbringing. I am sure that there are plenty of customs in the Western world that appear "dumb" to Asians. You see, it all depends on what you have been trained to think. I lived almost half of my life in Asia and it has helped me to see through the cultural veneer. I can understand why the social pressure to accommodate relatives appears odd in societies with an extreme individualistic orientation, such as the US or Britain. But China has a very collectivist orientation; it is on the other end of the scale in that regard. Perhaps it helps to realise, that there are other types of social pressures in Western societies, which Asians find odd and unreasonable. A matter of perspective. I am not saying that everything is a matter of perspective, but in this instance you are probably arguing from a cultural bias.
PeterB wrote:You declare your admiration for Sam Harris on another thread Pannapetar. It seems to me that you can either have doing stuff because your folks did it and will ostracise you if you dont, OR you can have Sam Harris, not both.
Sam Harris does not argue against customs and conventions per se. He is primarily concerned with faith and religion, and he argues against faith as far as it is at odds with reason and he demands intellectual honesty. In this regard I concur with Sam Harris. He is also an excellent speaker and a man of quick wit. This does not imply that I agree with everything that Harris says, as you've already seen in the other thread.

Cheers, Thomas
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by PeterB »

Of COURSE a custom is something that you enter into freely....or not.

It is not a biological or psychological imperative.
But as with the Sakya prince , it takes a process of Individuation for any given person to swim against the current of their culture.
Even in the year 2010 there would be few western Buddhists if it not for that need , that impulse to swim against that current.

During my youth the UK was replete with customs and traditions. Many of which have disappeared by the simple expedient of the population letting them die. In some cases that is a pity. In other cases its a jolly good thing that they have gone.
That includes the stultifying idea of the extended family and its needs taking presidence over individual consciousness.
An idea that kept each generation a clone of its predecessors.
In some sense every Buddhist is called upon to "go forth" even if they remain lay people.
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by Pannapetar »

PeterB wrote:Of COURSE a custom is something that you enter into freely....or not.
I am afraid I have to disagree with you on this point. Customs are preestablished. They exist whether you agree with them or not. You cannot choose the customs of British society, for example. They are simply there, like a speed bump in the road. Of course you can choose to honour a particular custom, or go against it and suffer the consequences. Likewise, you can choose to slow down or take a speed bump at full speed. You are right in saying that customs do change, but this is again something that happens outside of the sphere of individual control. Customs are memes, and they are subject to an evolutionary process. However, I wouldn't expect this particular custom to change any time soon. The extended family has been at the heart of Chinese society for thousands of years.

Cheers, Thomas
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by PeterB »

I would have thought that it was clear that I was referring to the ability, even the neccessity, for the individual to go against the stream of their cultural conditioning for any process of individuation to occur.
And that process is a necessary precursor to Dhamma practice.
As to customs that date back thousands of years we see such customs crumbling on a global scale.
Sometimes regrettably, but often to the benefit of the people formerly in thrall to those customs.
I see no reason..restrictions on google and the like not withstanding..to suppose that China will not undergo a similar process of shedding much of its cultural baggage over the next 50 years or so.

It was Richard Dawkins' protege Susan Blackmore that described Buddhism as " The ultimate anti-meme meme."
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Kindness vs. privacy

Post by Pannapetar »

PeterB wrote:I would have thought that it was clear that I was referring to the ability, even the neccessity, for the individual to go against the stream of their cultural conditioning for any process of individuation to occur. And that process is a necessary precursor to Dhamma practice.
Whew! Now you bring quite new and controversial statements into the discussion. And a new term.... individuation. Is individuation a necessary precursor for Dhamma practice? Or swimming against the stream? Well, I don't know. It would be good start to define what you mean with individuation. I've heard the term in the context of Jungian and developmental psychology. I am not sure if this is what you have in mind.
PeterB wrote:As to customs that date back thousands of years we see such customs crumbling on a global scale.
Yes, there is an accelerated rate of change in the wake of globalisation, particularly in NIC countries like China, and this change definitely affects the culture of these countries. However, I am not sure if we can deduce that traditional customs are inevitably "crumbling". According to my observation some do, others don't. It would be a mistake to assume that Asian countries go through the same sequence of developments that Europe has gone through. The would be unwarranted reductionism.
PeterB wrote:It was Richard Dawkins' protege Susan Blackmore that described Buddhism as " The ultimate anti-meme meme."
Susan Blackmore has a bit of knack for producing catchy phrases, I suppose, but the statement can easily be proven wrong. The mere fact that Buddhism has survived 2500 years and has successfully fused with different cultures can be seen as evidence for Buddhism being a super-meme rather than an anti-meme. Here in Thailand, Buddhist practice is virtually unchanged since the early beginnings of Buddhism in India.

Cheers, Thomas
Post Reply