Ahimsa and Western Ethics

[Guest guest]

The following (slightly edited) exchange came from another list, where the

meaning of "ahimsa" was discussed. There were several back-and-forths

about the exact meaning of ahimsa, whether it refers just to violence, or

to all kinds of harm. People were trying to get clear just what ahimsa is,

when we might be harming another person/sentient being/entity, and when

not. Harsha made a nice comment that Ahimsa can be felt as peace. I made

the, uh, er, long comments below after Harsha's short comments.

 

Harsha:

>Ahimsa is Stillness. It is Stillness in Movement. It cannot be

>captured and owned and defined, although it might be useful to

>do it at many levels. TG put her finger on it. Ahimsa can be

>felt as Peace. Peace with one's nature. It can

>be felt as Clarity. Clarity with one's own purity.

 

Greg:

Good point But I think there is another reason we are investigating a

concept (X=ahimsa) with respect to what is X and what is not X. This is

just my opinion and it verges on psychobabble, but...

 

I think when people are raised in a religio-ethical culture in which ethics

are taught as laws, complete with definitions, hair-splitting, exceptions,

counterexamples, mitigating circumstances, the idea of intent vs. result,

and all the rest, then this affects how we approach another culture's

philosophy. Sort of like some Christians who take up Buddhism can't help

but regard Buddha as a god. So when we hear about an ethical concept in

the new spirituality, we approach it in the same old way.

 

It has perplexed many Western commentators that non-dualist teachings don't

have strong ethical teachings. Along the same lines as Tim and Harsha

said, Ethics, the need for Ethics, go along with the belief that we are

separate. If this is truly not believed, then ahimsa is the spontaneous

outcome. Ahimsa and other precepts become a DESCRIPTION of the functioning

of phenomenality rather than a proscriptive/prescriptive set of guidelines.

 

But ethics also function prescriptively in all non-dual traditions in

earlier stages. Most non-dual traditins usually require long

"apprenticeships" in the more formal branches of the religions. In

Buddhism, there are sets of precepts that one takes. In formal

advaita-vedanta, there are the traditions of the karma-kanda (karma yoga

and bhakti yoga and following the letter of the Vedic scriptures) that must

be internalized BEFORE the aspirant is accepted to learn the non-dual

Vedanta. In Judaism one must "swallow the Torah" before being taught the

Kabbala. In Christianity one learns this same stuff in Sunday school. And

by the time one starts the contemplative mystic path such as St. Theresa's

or St. John of the Cross's or the anonymous author of the Cloud of

Unknowing, these commandments and ethical teachings are usually quite well

internalized. In all these more formal traditions, one usually must

satisfy one's teacher that these preliminary aspects are not still an

issue. Then, by the time one is practicing non-dual inquiry/contemplation,

just the inquiry is what takes place.

 

There are lots of exceptions to this, as well as prominent teachers in

non-dual paths (dualist paths too!!) who do all kinds of harmful things to

themselves and others, but this seems to be the time-tested way of

unfoldment. It is only recently, with the large number of teachers

emerging over the last 10 years, that non-dual teachings are given away in

an open-secret way, to anyone with $10 who wants to come in off the street

for a satsang. There are "non-dual" teachers inviting themselves to New

York all the time, giving satsangs, retreats, exercises, bio-feedback,

therapy, etc., and conferring freedom on personal psychological entities.

I've seen this lead to all kinds of problems, with people adopting the

catchy intellectual non-dual rhetoric and philosophy, while still retaining

an entrenched feeling of separateness.

 

I like Harsha's notion - ahimsa is felt as Peace. And this is not a felt

or perceived object, but actually source of everything else that arises.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

 

Greg Goode [goode]

Thursday, June 24, 1999 11:18 AM

Ahimsa and Western Ethics

 

Greg Goode <goode

 

The following (slightly edited) exchange came from another list, where the

meaning of "ahimsa" was discussed. There were several back-and-forths

about the exact meaning of ahimsa, whether it refers just to violence, or

to all kinds of harm. People were trying to get clear just what ahimsa is,

when we might be harming another person/sentient being/entity, and when

not. Harsha made a nice comment that Ahimsa can be felt as peace. I made

the, uh, er, long comments below after Harsha's short comments.

 

Harsha:

>Ahimsa is Stillness. It is Stillness in Movement. It cannot be

>captured and owned and defined, although it might be useful to

>do it at many levels. TG put her finger on it. Ahimsa can be

>felt as Peace. Peace with one's nature. It can

>be felt as Clarity. Clarity with one's own purity.

 

Greg:

Good point But I think there is another reason we are investigating a

concept (X=ahimsa) with respect to what is X and what is not X. This is

just my opinion and it verges on psychobabble, but...

 

I think when people are raised in a religio-ethical culture in which ethics

are taught as laws, complete with definitions, hair-splitting, exceptions,

counterexamples, mitigating circumstances, the idea of intent vs. result,

and all the rest, then this affects how we approach another culture's

philosophy. Sort of like some Christians who take up Buddhism can't help

but regard Buddha as a god. So when we hear about an ethical concept in

the new spirituality, we approach it in the same old way.

 

It has perplexed many Western commentators that non-dualist teachings don't

have strong ethical teachings. Along the same lines as Tim and Harsha

said, Ethics, the need for Ethics, go along with the belief that we are

separate. If this is truly not believed, then ahimsa is the spontaneous

outcome. Ahimsa and other precepts become a DESCRIPTION of the functioning

of phenomenality rather than a proscriptive/prescriptive set of guidelines.

 

But ethics also function prescriptively in all non-dual traditions in

earlier stages. Most non-dual traditins usually require long

"apprenticeships" in the more formal branches of the religions. In

Buddhism, there are sets of precepts that one takes. In formal

advaita-vedanta, there are the traditions of the karma-kanda (karma yoga

and bhakti yoga and following the letter of the Vedic scriptures) that must

be internalized BEFORE the aspirant is accepted to learn the non-dual

Vedanta. In Judaism one must "swallow the Torah" before being taught the

Kabbala. In Christianity one learns this same stuff in Sunday school. And

by the time one starts the contemplative mystic path such as St. Theresa's

or St. John of the Cross's or the anonymous author of the Cloud of

Unknowing, these commandments and ethical teachings are usually quite well

internalized. In all these more formal traditions, one usually must

satisfy one's teacher that these preliminary aspects are not still an

issue. Then, by the time one is practicing non-dual inquiry/contemplation,

just the inquiry is what takes place.

 

There are lots of exceptions to this, as well as prominent teachers in

non-dual paths (dualist paths too!!) who do all kinds of harmful things to

themselves and others, but this seems to be the time-tested way of

unfoldment. It is only recently, with the large number of teachers

emerging over the last 10 years, that non-dual teachings are given away in

an open-secret way, to anyone with $10 who wants to come in off the street

for a satsang. There are "non-dual" teachers inviting themselves to New

York all the time, giving satsangs, retreats, exercises, bio-feedback,

therapy, etc., and conferring freedom on personal psychological entities.

I've seen this lead to all kinds of problems, with people adopting the

catchy intellectual non-dual rhetoric and philosophy, while still retaining

an entrenched feeling of separateness.

 

I like Harsha's notion - ahimsa is felt as Peace. And this is not a felt

or perceived object, but actually source of everything else that arises.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

 

 

Thanks Greg for your post. You touch on a lot of important topics with great

depth and insight. The role of ethics and Ahimsa in the context of radical

nonduality makes a wonderful and a beautiful exploration. I like the way you

approach it, because a superficial analysis can lead someone confused on

this issue. Ahimsa as Peace is the natural expression of Self. TG also likes

this notion. By the way, I find your sober and rational evaluation of

nondual teachers (and frankly all religious teachers) to be right on the

mark.

 

Harsha