The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking.
Albert Einstein
This quote from Einstein reminds me of the first two verses of the Dhammapada which go-
1.
Mind precedes all phenomena, created by the mind which rules it.
If the mind is corrupted, and one speaks or acts,
from there stress comes, like a wheel of a cart follows the track of an ox that pulls it.
2.
Mind precedes phenomena, created by the mind which rules it.
If the mind is pure, and one speaks or acts,
from there pleasure comes, like a shadow that does not leave.
When I initially saw this quote I thought it was an interesting perspective, and later upon reflection remembered the Dhammapada Verses. I have always thought of these Verses as a warning about how our mind can affect our Actions (unintentional Actions), our Kamma (intentional actions), and the results of these actions (Vipakka), However, looking at this Quote made me think what if the Dhammapada verses weren’t just a warning about how we act, but rather a suggestion of how to act. On a retreat I had some time ago, the Bhikkhu leading the retreat said that when he started practising (before he was ordained) he noticed he stopped wanting to do things like watching TV, or going out drinking with his friends, he started naturally to live simpler, with more virtue, and discipline, all due to mindfulness. Of course he wasn't saying he got rid of everything straight away, or doing 5 minutes of mindfulness here and there meant he didn't want to watch TV at all instantaneously, he just gradually stopped doing things, which could lead to an unchaste acts.
So is mindfulness all it takes to become pure? When I talk of mindfulness I generally mean mindful of our thoughts, and by extension our actions of body and speech, so when in the version I have used it says “Mind is the forerunner of (all evil/all good) states” the all evil/all good states could be states where we aren't mindful/states where we are mindful, chaste/unchaste? Or it could be states of focusing on bad or negative ideas/focusing on good/positive ideas, and the actions resulting from them, and/or the results of them.
How do we create our world though? How do we make it good, or bad? Why would one state be more preferable than the other? And is either state actually preferable? Well this is put in four (4) questions, but it is only two (2) questions put in different ways really! I think we create our world by the formation of perceptions, which are a particular way due to our past experiences, our past Kamma-vipakka, our past actions, and their results, every day we do things see things and experience things, If we experience a negative effect and this is due to (for instance) a black person punches us in the face, we are more likely to become racist and perceive black people as a whole in a less positive way than say our next door neighbour who hasn't had that experience, and the same is true of certain groups who are more identified with the clothes they wear rather than the colour of their skin.
This is one example of how our negative Perceptions form, but positive perceptions form in the same way, it is just that instead of negative experiences positive experiences happen, and we attach to these perceptions, but these perceptions can change by an equally or greater opposite experience happening, our perceptions can change when we have new experiences, new information to work with, new meaning to what something is, or isn’t, so with enough information we can change or reinforce our perceptions making things either good, bad, or neutral.
Onto the second question, is either of these perceptions preferable from another type of perception? if we hold something is good, and hold something is bad when they show inclinations they the can or are the other way we can become mixed up, about how we view things, or think it is a fluke and wouldn’t happen again, or often, or we can completely change the perception we have then change it again when we see the old traits surface, we can go from one extreme to the other, from good to bad, right to wrong, that isn't to say having these perceptions are bad, or good, I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to stay on neutral grounds not saying things are this way, or that way, good, or bad, potentially accepting the moment that arises, and accepting the fact that this too will change, viewing each moment as it presents itself, not how we think it is presenting itself due to our perceptions.
I think the Verses of the Dhammapada in question here are more than a warning of live like this get a good result live like that get a bad result, they are a guide of how to live like a translation of the Kalama Sutta says “it is essential to doubt, question all things deeply, inquire, examine, inspect and experiment.” and I think this sort of reasoning should be adopted to all verses in the Dhammapada, Dhamma isn't about listening and accepting what someone says is true, or any other type of accepting of what is true or what things mean but finding the truth, realizing the truth, and being Dhamma which is Truth, not my truth, not the Buddha’s Truth but what is actually truth what is Dhamma.
At the end of the day I may be right, I may be wrong, but I share this hoping I am one, or the other.
So is mindfulness all it takes to become pure? When I talk of mindfulness I generally mean mindful of our thoughts, and by extension our actions of body and speech, so when in the version I have used it says “Mind is the forerunner of (all evil/all good) states” the all evil/all good states could be states where we aren't mindful/states where we are mindful, chaste/unchaste? Or it could be states of focusing on bad or negative ideas/focusing on good/positive ideas, and the actions resulting from them, and/or the results of them.
How do we create our world though? How do we make it good, or bad? Why would one state be more preferable than the other? And is either state actually preferable? Well this is put in four (4) questions, but it is only two (2) questions put in different ways really! I think we create our world by the formation of perceptions, which are a particular way due to our past experiences, our past Kamma-vipakka, our past actions, and their results, every day we do things see things and experience things, If we experience a negative effect and this is due to (for instance) a black person punches us in the face, we are more likely to become racist and perceive black people as a whole in a less positive way than say our next door neighbour who hasn't had that experience, and the same is true of certain groups who are more identified with the clothes they wear rather than the colour of their skin.
This is one example of how our negative Perceptions form, but positive perceptions form in the same way, it is just that instead of negative experiences positive experiences happen, and we attach to these perceptions, but these perceptions can change by an equally or greater opposite experience happening, our perceptions can change when we have new experiences, new information to work with, new meaning to what something is, or isn’t, so with enough information we can change or reinforce our perceptions making things either good, bad, or neutral.
Onto the second question, is either of these perceptions preferable from another type of perception? if we hold something is good, and hold something is bad when they show inclinations they the can or are the other way we can become mixed up, about how we view things, or think it is a fluke and wouldn’t happen again, or often, or we can completely change the perception we have then change it again when we see the old traits surface, we can go from one extreme to the other, from good to bad, right to wrong, that isn't to say having these perceptions are bad, or good, I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to stay on neutral grounds not saying things are this way, or that way, good, or bad, potentially accepting the moment that arises, and accepting the fact that this too will change, viewing each moment as it presents itself, not how we think it is presenting itself due to our perceptions.
I think the Verses of the Dhammapada in question here are more than a warning of live like this get a good result live like that get a bad result, they are a guide of how to live like a translation of the Kalama Sutta says “it is essential to doubt, question all things deeply, inquire, examine, inspect and experiment.” and I think this sort of reasoning should be adopted to all verses in the Dhammapada, Dhamma isn't about listening and accepting what someone says is true, or any other type of accepting of what is true or what things mean but finding the truth, realizing the truth, and being Dhamma which is Truth, not my truth, not the Buddha’s Truth but what is actually truth what is Dhamma.
At the end of the day I may be right, I may be wrong, but I share this hoping I am one, or the other.
RSS Feed
