There is a story of the Buddha, from one of his lifetimes before he achieved enlightenment, in which he is the captain of a boat that is attacked by a pirate.
Thank you. Excellent text and very helpful (especially the cartoon of how to punch a Nazi [I practice self-defense and often punch a rubber doll]]. I think we do have a purpose in our life and that is to help other beings and be a compassionate warrior who protects the oppressed and tries to stop oppressors from doing harm without dehumanising them.
The other day I watched a video YouTube by Jason Gregory "Why Hindus Practice the Mudra of Fearlessness" where he says that one should always remain neutral and never take sides. I found that hard to swallow. We have to engage in this world, especially when we are confronted with acts fuelled by hatred. Why else are we here? But it takes skill and compassion and one needs to be ruthlessly honest about why one acts in a certain way (or doesn't act).
So true. What we do and what we don't do matter because everything is connected. I think a lot of the societal ideas folks have about neutrality is that it is somehow an enlightened view—above the fray, if you will—but as you said in your previous comment on the Lojong Slogan, 'When the world is filled with evil..." it would be deceptive to claim neutrality when we had the opportunity to intervene when someone is attacking someone in front of us.
I work with this a lot in my anti-racist practice. How often is 'neutrality' actually code for 'don't rock the boat of the status quo'? Is it neutral to avoid conflict with another white person by not pointing out when they say or do something racist? Or is it actually just me being unwilling to engage with the discomfort of challenging a system that I know will direct violence towards those who refuse to uphold it?
Yes. I think what is asked of us is to be absolutely honest with our selves. Do I remain "neutral" because I am scared of the consequences? In totalitarian states it takes an enormous amount of courage to stand up for what is right and true. – Or can't I simply be bothered to get engaged because I don't care for certain people, animals, rivers etc. and therefore don't care for what happens to them? – Or am I uncertain about which side to take in an issue because it's very difficult to know what would be right? Quite often issues and problems are very complex with long histories. To jump in with an opinion is sometimes too easy an option. In certain conflicts it is more skillful not to take sides (for instance in family quarrels), in others we cannot remain silent or inactive. I think the most important part is to be conscious of why we do what we do.
Thank you. Excellent text and very helpful (especially the cartoon of how to punch a Nazi [I practice self-defense and often punch a rubber doll]]. I think we do have a purpose in our life and that is to help other beings and be a compassionate warrior who protects the oppressed and tries to stop oppressors from doing harm without dehumanising them.
The other day I watched a video YouTube by Jason Gregory "Why Hindus Practice the Mudra of Fearlessness" where he says that one should always remain neutral and never take sides. I found that hard to swallow. We have to engage in this world, especially when we are confronted with acts fuelled by hatred. Why else are we here? But it takes skill and compassion and one needs to be ruthlessly honest about why one acts in a certain way (or doesn't act).
So true. What we do and what we don't do matter because everything is connected. I think a lot of the societal ideas folks have about neutrality is that it is somehow an enlightened view—above the fray, if you will—but as you said in your previous comment on the Lojong Slogan, 'When the world is filled with evil..." it would be deceptive to claim neutrality when we had the opportunity to intervene when someone is attacking someone in front of us.
I work with this a lot in my anti-racist practice. How often is 'neutrality' actually code for 'don't rock the boat of the status quo'? Is it neutral to avoid conflict with another white person by not pointing out when they say or do something racist? Or is it actually just me being unwilling to engage with the discomfort of challenging a system that I know will direct violence towards those who refuse to uphold it?
Yes. I think what is asked of us is to be absolutely honest with our selves. Do I remain "neutral" because I am scared of the consequences? In totalitarian states it takes an enormous amount of courage to stand up for what is right and true. – Or can't I simply be bothered to get engaged because I don't care for certain people, animals, rivers etc. and therefore don't care for what happens to them? – Or am I uncertain about which side to take in an issue because it's very difficult to know what would be right? Quite often issues and problems are very complex with long histories. To jump in with an opinion is sometimes too easy an option. In certain conflicts it is more skillful not to take sides (for instance in family quarrels), in others we cannot remain silent or inactive. I think the most important part is to be conscious of why we do what we do.
Beautifully put. Thank you so much for sharing and engaging with this practice.