The Four Noble Truths of the Buddha, part 6

Part 5 here.

The second rung of the noble eight-fold path ("Right Intention") is one of the least controversial at its surface, for Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.

In its purest form it would simply state that ethics starts with good intentions, and good speech and good acts are merely the results of a wholesome mind.

The Buddhist text Dhammapada states poetically in its first two couplets:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

On the surface these two couplets seem to say something rather wise, and these couplets are sometimes considered the crowning statements of the Dhammapada, but an astute reader will realize a few major problems in these.  The first one is more obvious than the second, with the third being a matter of begging the question, and the fourth being a quibble about terminology.

1. The couplets assume that suffering will come to those who act with ill intention, and vice versa.  The evidence is divided on this.  Unless of course the couplets are referring to mystical Karmic retribution, for which no evidence is required.
   
   In the human realm, while it is true that bad intentions can sometimes lead to acts which then result in regret and guilt and fear, it is also widely understood that outbursts of violence and anger can be cathartic.  A successful act of revenge and retribution can lead to a satiation of what psychologists know to be the "justice" instinct.
   
   Imagine the state of mind of a sports team, considered underdogs, which has just beaten a rival team in a closely fought match.  Imagine the state of mind of a nation's oppressed populace when their corrupt leader is hanged.  There are many recorded instances where murderers in custody show little remorse and much happiness at having killed someone that they believed "deserved" to die.
   
   In each of the above examples, a hurtful intention acted out has resulted in exultation, happiness, catharsis and relief.
   


2. The couplets, perhaps unintentionally so, are narcissistic in nature.  They are not asserting that one should act with good intentions for oneself as well as for others' sake.  They are asserting that bad intentions will lead to a suffering for oneself.  As if that is the most important, or only, consideration.  Modern society prohibits criminal behavior not because of the suffering the crimes will cause to the criminal, but for slightly broader reasons.
   
   Now, if the couplets broadened their concern to what was happening to others while one was acting out with bad intentions, then the first criticism also actually gets diluted, because while a bad act can be cathartic or relieving to oneself, that is no longer the only criterion for its evaluation.  Only if we take the state of affairs at the end of an act to include all the participants, can we properly evaluate whether an act has been a beneficial one or not.
   


3. The third problem is about what is to be considered pure and impure, and will be discussed once we look at Buddha's explanation of this tenet,
   


4. The fourth problem is the statement that "Mind precedes all mental states."  I am not too sure about the meaning, unless it is to state that feelings precede thoughts (a fact brought out by modern neuro-scientific research.  See, for example, Joseph LeDoux).  It could of course be a peculiar translation from Pali to English that is at fault.

In some texts, the phrase "Right Resolve" is used instead of "Right Intention".  Both mean that the thought behind one's acts or speech must be right.  And what is right thought/resolve/intention?

The resolve for renunciation, for freedom from ill will, for harmlessness: This is called right resolve. (Saccavibhanga Sutta)

The latter two, "freedom from ill-will" and "for harmlessness" are easy to understand, even if they beg the question of what is to be considered harm or ill-will.  Is it ill-will to want to see someone punished for a bad deed?  Is it harmful to want a child disciplined?  Is it harmful for a spouse to want to leave his/her spouse and go after someone more compatible?  Is it ill-will for a money-lender to be suspicious of his applicants by default?  Was it harmful for humans to want to start farming (Daniel Quinn would perhaps say yes)?

Ethics is a complex field, and what is harmful or what comprises ill-will can be extremely complicated questions.  If we go by the dictum that one should follow one's conscience, that not only leads to a charge of following one's heart but it also presumes that everybody's conscience is consistent with what is the "absolute good" (otherwise one's good acts will nevertheless harm others who believe otherwise) and that one's conscience is in good working order.  If we go by the principle that agitated states of mind are bad states, there are many "cold-blooded" criminals and many a surgeon must have felt fear and nervousness before a major surgery.

A genuinely great advance in ethics was made by the statement of the so-called Golden Rule.  Even though it has its corner cases, in general it is a good rule to follow when in doubt.

The first resolve, however, ("Resolve for renunciation") has Buddhist theology written all over it.  Buddhism advocates monkhood as a requirement for Nirvana.  Buddhist teachers for lay people have stepped short of advising this, and have instead advised increasing detachment from relationships, possessions and projects.

Unfortunately, while detachment might cause a lessening in stress and suffering for oneself (albeit at the cost of lessening in possibilities of joy and fulfillment as well), it usually causes a great deal of suffering in those who depend on oneself.  The Buddha has been roundly criticized for abandoning his family without so much as a parting word, and his example sadly continues to inspire many people to this day.

Furthermore, detachment usually will lead to a lack of motivation to do anything.  Unless one simply agrees to do "one's duty", or what is "required" or "expedient".

I once asked a friend of mine, who practices a form of detachment, as to what motivates him to do this or that.  His answer was that he does "what is required as part of his roles in life."  He is a civil servant, as well as a husband and a father.  I found his reply to be evasive.  In effect, he is delegating motivation, attachment and desire to others. Whatever they require of him, he executes.  If everybody related to him was also similarly detached, what would he do?  Nothing?

The Bhagwad Gita advises detachment in this famous sloka:

You have the right to perform your actions, but you are not entitled to the fruits of the actions.

Do not let the fruit be the purpose of your actions, and therefore you won’t be attached to not doing your duty. (Chapter 2, verse 47)

A few elementary questions for a person who considers the above advice to be life-changing:

• Who is entitled to the fruits/rewards of my actions, if not me?  If there are rewards, who will apportion them?  Why and by what right?
  


• If the reward is not to be the purpose of my actions, then what is the purpose?  If it is "Duty" (as Gita says), who determines my duties?  By what right?

I find it curious that such a remarkably straightforward statement of control of the gullible masses by the kings and the priestly classes has received such unquestioning acceptance and respect.  Perhaps it is because it is assumed to be the word of God.  Truly astounding.

The second rung of the noble-eightfold path advises noble thoughts, but then runs into complications as soon as we scratch the surface.

I am reminded of the motto of the Sivananda Ashram in Rishikesh where I went to learn Yoga in 2001.  "Be Good.  Do Good."  I still think that the proper philosophical response to that is: "I agree fully, but can you elaborate?"