UnMind 39. Metta Sutta Quartet 3: Let No One Deceive

SUBSCRIBE TO UNMIND:

RSS FEED | APPLE PODCASTS | GOOGLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY

We should not deceive,
harm or despise another —
seems impossible!

The third section of this transcendent teaching on loving kindness returns from the prior stanza’s expansion into a universal embrace of absolutely all beings — may they be happy — to a tight focus on human nature in the social realm and then reverts to the global scale of nature. Now, we get down to the brass tacks of our daily transactional activities, while setting a very high bar for us mere human mortals:

Let no one deceive another
Nor despise any being in any state
Let none by anger or hatred wish harm to another
Even as a mother at the risk of her life watches over and protects her only child
so with a boundless mind should one cherish all living things
Suffusing love over the entire world above below and all around without limit
So let one cultivate an infinite good will toward the whole world

“Let no one deceive another” launches us into the world of human ethics and morality. Unless we are talking about deceiving a nonhuman sentient being, for example by catching fish, or snaring other prey by setting traps for them. Which is intrinsically deceptive. But just taking an unvarnished look at our own relationships to others — be they loved ones, family and friends, colleagues at work, clients and customers, or so-called “constituents,” if we happen to be in politics — whom we rely upon for support, and ongoing loyalty, brings the poignancy and purpose of this message closer to home.

It can be crushing to consider in how many ways we may be deceiving them, if all unintentionally. It is not necessary, and not recommended, to assume that we constantly need to admit to full disclosure, baring our misgivings and mistakes without reservation, hoping that all will still love us, warts and all. As the mother of the author of a recent book commented, paraphrasing, We would be a lot less concerned about what others think of us, if we realized how seldom they do. So yeah, we are not such an important person that we can be fully responsible for anyone else, certain exceptions noted.

“Nor despise any being in any state” turns to the intersection of human and nonhuman, including stewardship of wildlife, livestock and domesticated beasts. But also the natural world of creatures that we may find repulsive, such as snakes, spiders, and such. Further, it should be apparent to anyone paying attention, that we can also come to “despise” other human beings, owing to their state of helplessness as the ever-present homeless, indigent, and all those dependent upon the kindness of strangers, or welfare, in modern parlance. Their very vulnerability places the onus on us, which comprises a big part of our resentment.

Differences in the public view of mendicancy in Buddhist countries of origin, and the low regard in which so-called “bums” and “beggars” are held in contemporary societies, are stark, and telling. Not to mention their logical extensions into rampant “othering,” dehumanizing total cultures and tribes, ending in the extreme arrogance of rationalizing genocide.

“Let none by anger or hatred wish harm to another” is another variation on this essentially paranoid impulse, of humanity’s inhumanity to humanity. It begs the question, can we wish harm to another based on any other grounds than anger or hatred? When someone is causing great harm, is it really giving in to anger or hatred to stop them, even by means that harm them, if necessary? When is such lethal force really justifiable? This is one of the relentlessly repeating memes of contemporary society, with its ubiquitous policing organizations, enforcing relative calm, or compliance, at least, in the public square.

“Even as a mother at the risk of her life, watches over and protects her only child, so with a boundless mind should one cherish all living things” really raises the bar to near-impossible heights. How many of us can really cherish all living things, let alone put our life on the line to protect them? In the case of the mother, whether human or otherwise, it is regarded as a matter of instinct, brain-stem level, to look over and protect her offspring, at least until they can take care of themselves. And even then.

But it is beyond belief to assume that it would be natural to take such an approach, and nurture such an attitude, toward the progeny of others, even of the same species. However, modern science is revealing incidents of this kind of altruistic behavior in various species, and even in cross-species situations, where the female of one species will take an infant of another under her wing, or to her teat. Cynics point out that a feline may raise a baby opossum for the express purpose of showing her kittens how to kill it, at a later date. And that male squirrels will kill their own litters. There are many such tales of what we would interpret as capricious, or even evil, behavior in the animal kingdom.

However it is an existential leap to project that the behavior of a human being should be considered equivalent to that of members of other species, in that their actions may be judged based on human constructs of right and wrong, good and evil. Even for human beings, to penetrate to the bottom of things in zazen, as Master Dogen instructs in Fukanzazengi, requires that first we set aside “good and evil, right and wrong.” Further, “Thus stopping the function of your mind, give up even the idea of becoming a buddha.” Developing a worldview sans judgments of good and evil amounts to the reclamation of the fall from grace.

This must be a significant part of the “boundless mind” that Buddha refers to. If we establish boundaries between those we judge unworthy of our affection — or our ability to cherish them — and those limited few who meet our parameters for including them in our warm embrace, we are the only ones setting up such barriers. And barriers have the unintended effect of closing in those who establish them, equally as much as they accomplish closing out the others they reject, even more so. If our mind becomes truly boundless, there is nothing outside it. There is no sentient being that does not rise to the level of sharing innate buddha-nature, as Master Dogen reminds us in Jijuyuzammai:

Furthermore all beings
in the Ten Directions and the Six Realms
including the three lower realms
at once obtain pure body and mind
realize the state of great emancipation
and manifest the original face

When we gaze into the eyes of a pet dog or cat — not so much a chicken or cow, let alone a spider, one assumes — we can’t help but notice that it is staring back at us, with a similar look of recognition. In the Hokyo Zammai, Tozan’s “Precious Mirror Samadhi,” he makes the even less obvious point that even our interface with the insentient environment is also like this: “Like facing a precious mirror, form and reflection behold each other. You are not it, but in truth it is you.” What it is that is looking at you is IT — form and reflection — the same IT that is what you are. If so even with inanimate objects (including the vegetable kingdom), how much more so with our fellow beasties of the animate variety? All are awake, to a certain degree. All manifest this “original face,” and are already emancipated, to the degree that emancipation is available.

“Suffusing love over the entire world above below and all around without limit” similarly challenges us to open up our heart to embrace what is, after all, our only home. What is meant by the entire world is open to speculation as to how much they knew of the entire planet at that time in history. As are the terms “above, below and all around without limit.” We today have a prevailing notion of how big the universe is, and how small our local participation in it, though even the Earth’s orbit around the sun easily exceeds our grasp. We do not want to presume too much upon superior knowledge we may claim regarding our physical circumstances, however. However much we gain in information, and knowledge of the scope of the natural sphere, as well as the yawning maw of the universal sphere surrounding, we still have the same problem they did, when it comes to “suffusing love” over IT. If we have a difficult time loving even our own family and friends, or our lowly bad self, how can we hope to include all denizens of the planet in a loving embrace?

“So let one cultivate an infinite good will toward the whole world” offers an out from the challenging idea of “love,” which we find rarely mentioned in translations of the ancient Buddhist texts. “Good will” is something we can embrace without the emotional lading. We can imagine ourselves exercising good will, even in the face of the imperfections we find, if not in the whole world, then at least in the proximate causes and conditions it is delivering to us daily.

Even if I don’t love it, in this present instant, I can at least muster some good will, in that I am trying in good faith, and must assume that all of Nature is doing its level best just to be what it is. At least we can find the strength to stop short of despising the reality we confront, or deceiving ourselves, or others, as to what it honestly is. This is the challenge of Zen, and the gauntlet thrown down my the idea of loving kindness. Like compassion, loving kindness is what the universe, through Nature, is.