Preferred Impossibilities

Posted by: RockHard Huy

Preferred Impossibilities - 11/18/05 06:03 PM

I'm just going to keep the question simple.

Which do you personal find more appealing, the pursuit of moral perfection or the pursuit of absolute balance?
Posted by: RockHard Huy

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/18/05 06:08 PM

Woops, ment for this to be in Zen.
Posted by: ButterflyPalm

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/18/05 10:11 PM


Are you sure?
Posted by: nenipp

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/19/05 01:16 PM

Balance would be my choice, a bit like in "tao te ching" (balance would be like tao and moral perfection like te)
Posted by: JoelM

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/20/05 09:26 PM

You call that simple????

What do you mean by absolute balance? Balance between what?
Posted by: harlan

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/20/05 10:38 PM

No pursuit. No being trapped in any 'either/or' situation. No duality.
Posted by: nenipp

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/21/05 02:07 AM

not before, nor after..
..not up, nor down..
..not right, nor left..
..not past, nor future..
..und so weiter
Posted by: RockHard Huy

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/30/05 10:33 AM

Oh sorry, I wasn't implying that the question itself was simple. I was originaly going to write about three paragraphs; but, decided to keep it to one sentence.
Posted by: horizon

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/30/05 10:59 AM

Isn't absolute balance perfect?
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/30/05 11:36 AM

those are the only choices? since I don't believe in absolutes or perfection....how about 'moral balance' as my answer.
Posted by: phoenixsflame

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/30/05 11:53 AM

Quote:

I'm just going to keep the question simple.

Which do you personal find more appealing, the pursuit of moral perfection or the pursuit of absolute balance?



Whats the difference? Wouldn't one attain either in the pursuit of the other? If you pursue balance, wouldn't that require you to refine and uphold your morals to a level of "perfection" or at least as close as humanly possible?

And if you were to persue a moralistic perfection, at some point you realize there would be no absolutes. There would always be the exception and find the balance there in.

I don't think you can seperate the two.
Posted by: nenipp

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/30/05 01:34 PM

As close as humanly possible to moral perfection is exactly that; human, whereas absolute balance goes beyond...
...or something
Posted by: phoenixsflame

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/30/05 01:42 PM

Quote:

As close as humanly possible to moral perfection is exactly that; human, whereas absolute balance goes beyond...
...or something



But... My question still stands. Those two are the same things. You can't become as close to morally perfect without attaining the balance. Or else its not moral perfection is it? If you are thinking of Moral Perfection as absolute morals, ones that are unbending and unyielding I would have to disagree with you. Let me give you an example.

The Buddha ate meat. Many Buddhists believe vegetarianism is an absolute. It is not. Any extreme of absolute is incorrect. To have truly perfect morals one must master the Samma. The right way, not as in "This is the only way, the correct way." But, the right way, for the right situation.

I believe this moral absolute that is so common in Western Culture is madness. To say anything is an absolute is to lock the world in this static existance that it is not.

Pertaining to Balance; One cannot attain balance without attaining the right moral point of view. So it can be said that neither can arise without the other. How can one be balanced when their view is skewed? How can one attain "perfect" moral focus when their balance is off?


(Note : If you want to read about the Buddha accepting meat and the thoughts that were given by the Buddha to the monks who protested. Go here, its a very good article : http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/meat.html)
Posted by: harlan

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/30/05 02:30 PM

Stealing something from Daily Zen:

Thus we see that the all important thing is not killing or giving life, drinking or not drinking, living in the town or the country, being lucky or unlucky, winning or losing. It is how we win, how we lose, how we live or die, finally how we choose. We walk, and our religion is shown (even to the dullest and most insensitive person), in how we walk. Living in this world means choosing and the way we choose to walk is infallibly and perfectly expressed in the walk itself.

R.H. Blyth
Posted by: RockHard Huy

Re: Preferred Impossibilities - 11/30/05 05:12 PM