Wednesday, March 26, 2014

On 仁 and rudeness based on perceived difference

TLDR:
The Confucian notion of 仁 - close enough to Buddhist compassion here - can lead one to understand why a) I need to model 仁  in my day to day life, b) nobody should use rudeness towards them as a reason to escalate conflict, and  c) those who have been harmed and inclined towards rudeness and abusiveness, especially on matters of difference between  groups of people are not exempt from manifesting 仁 - they have an added burden to cultivate the expression of  仁 but they are not exempt.

I can't seem to find the quote on line verbatim and you can look it up yourself.  The quote I'm looking for is from the movie Ip Man,  where in an off-camera soliloquy before fighting General Mura, Ip Man explains why he won't teach the Japanese 詠春券.  The quote goes something to the effect of, "Although martial arts involve armed force, the Chinese martial arts are Confucian in sprit. The virtue of kung fu is benevolence. You Japanese will never understand the principle of treating others as you would yourself because you abuse military power. You turn it into violence and oppress others. You don't deserve to learn Chinese martial arts."

There is a real and profound truth to the claim that the point of 功夫 is benevolence - 仁 as would be rendered in Japanese and Chinese.  It just simply is not possible to practice or use 詠春券 if one is hostile and tense.

Benevolence as meant here is more or less a term from Confucianism  but, at least to me, at least in English,  it is very close to the concept of loving-kindness (慈, じ ), and my on-line dictionary lists 慈悲心 (じひしん) as synonymous with benevolence.  Buddhism came to China after Confucianism became established, and perhaps this explains why  仁 is more associated with Confucianism than Buddhism and concerning the relative differences between Confucian 仁 and  Buddhist 慈悲心 suffice to say that there are such differences, but it's not really the main subject here, and for our intent we can say they're close enough. Also I note in passing there has been historically some friction between Confucian adherents and Buddhist adherents in China (visit Qufu, Confucius' home town for more) which is only to say that nobody's particularly close or far from the angels here.  So perhaps being rude to both traditions as only someone without enough knowledge can be I will consider  仁 and  Buddhist 慈悲心  close enough  to render either as benevolence.

The structure of the character 仁 though is interesting, and is like many characters in that its radical (人, the character for person) has the same pronunciation  as the character itself. The rest of  仁 might be taken to be the character for two.  Person - two, two people,  Wikipedia notes though that while it's tempting to  consider 仁 is about people together it's about humaneness as well as benevolence.  Wikipedia explains:


人+二=仁 (rén) man on left two on right, the relationship between two human beings, means humanity, benevolence, seed. Originally the character was just written as丨二 representing yin yang, the vertical line is yang (male, penis, heaven, odd numbers), the two horizontal lines are yin (female, vagina, earth, even numbers), 仁 is the seed and core of everything. The character 人 (man, rén) and 仁 have the same pronunciation. When a human is unable to be humane, he or she does not qualify to be a human but an animal. But when a human is able to be humane, for example, when Buddhism first introduced to China in the Han Dynasty the Chinese people translated the Buddha's name into "able to be human" or someone with ”ability and humanity" (能人,能仁) because Confucius's teachings and Buddha's teachings are "one to two, two to one."

 The Wikipedia goes further in its discussion of 仁 in Confucian teaching; from the Wikipedia article (仁 is romanized from Mandarin as rén):

Rén relies heavily on the relationships between two people, but at the same time encompasses much more than that. It represents an inner development towards an altruistic goal, while simultaneously realizing that one is never alone, and that everyone has these relationships to fall back on, being a member of a family, the state, and the world.[9]
Rén is not a concept that is learned; it is innate, that is to say, everyone is born with the sense of Rén. Confucius believed that the key to long-lasting integrity was to constantly think, since the world is continually changing at a rapid pace.
There have been a variety of definitions for the term Rén. Rén has been translated as "benevolence", "perfect virtue", "goodness" or even "human-heartedness".[10] When asked, Confucius defined it by the ordinary Chinese word for love, ai, saying that it meant to "love others".[11]
Rén also has a political dimension. Confucianism says that if the ruler lacks Rén, it will be difficult for his subjects to behave humanely. Rén is the basis of Confucian political theory; the ruler is exhorted to refrain from acting inhumanely towards his subjects. An inhumane ruler runs the risk of losing the Mandate of Heaven or, in other words, the right to rule. A ruler lacking such a mandate need not be obeyed, but a ruler who reigns humanely and takes care of the people is to be obeyed, for the benevolence of his dominion shows that he has been mandated by heaven. Confucius himself had little to say on the active will of the people, though he believed the ruler should definitely pay attention to the wants and needs of the people and take good care of them. Mencius, however, did state that the people's opinion on certain weighty matters should be polled.
Rén also includes traits that are a part of being righteous, such as hsin, meaning to make one's words compliment his actions; li, which means to properly participate in everyday rituals; ching, or "seriousness"; and yi, which means right action. When all these qualities are present, then one can truly be identified as a chün tzu (君子), or "superior man," which means a morally superior human being. Confucians basically held the view that government should be run by ethically superior human beings who concentrate solely on the welfare of the people they govern.


I think one can see the differences with Buddhism  are in spirit not much - 仁  being innate is one aspect of Confucian philosophy that seems different from Buddhism.  On the other hand there are people who appear to be truly pathological narcissists but at any rate, from a Buddhist perspective, doing a little bit of violence to the concepts, I  think it stands that one should cultivate 仁 to be able to be a human being.

Wikipedia also states that the parental love for a child is among the purest manifestations of 仁 .

Now that I've put forth how I'm using 仁 and its notions I'd like to point to related series of thoughts I've seen in discussions on perceived difference:


  • It's unrealistic to expect that someone who has been harmed by another is going to be voluntarily  polite to that person.
  • Some people generalize this concept to classes of people.
  • And generalizing this lack of politeness to a perceived dominant class of people is justified because of past acts by members of a dominant class of people
  • And if questioned those who employ a lack of politeness toward the perceived dominant class of people the rejoinder, "I learned not to complain when it's done to me, so why are you complaining?" or some such thing.
  • If this sequence is even politely remonstrated against  or the behavior's  ineffectiveness logically pointed out one might be called  the name "tone police" as an attempt to distract from the rudeness.
  • And some people from supporters of the dominant class will use this to "prove" that "they" are "racist", "sexist" or whatever.

Now let me consider these points in light of 仁 :


  • 仁  has often been expressed as "not doing to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself." While it may be unrealistic to expect that one demonstrate 仁 towards a perceived oppressor, the expression of 仁 itself is an expression of freedom from oppression.   To be able to express 仁  in the face of a perceived difference in power or social standing is truly the mark of a person of accomplishment, and such a person is able to achieve much in this world; bringing much of the world along with them. 
  • On line I have seen some real abuse directed towards people who have experience more oppression as a perceived member of a dominant class than some members of some "underclasses" might ever receive. 
  • The above point, notice applies to behavior towards a perceived harming person or a class of people.   Like most people, I've been one of those harmed people.  It's had an effect on me.  But point is, to be able to act from 仁  in spite of being harmed is really to act from a position of more fundamentally human power than any oppressor can ever cook up.
  • As a Buddhist, I think 仁  needs to be taught and modeled, and is innate to the same degree in everyone.  I think though some have not been taught that.   What I'm saying here applies ten-fold to myself: I need to model 仁  better in my interactions with people.  
The last two points really sum it up for what I'm trying  to express here: the harm done to one's self or group should be the basis of the germination of a seed of compassion which we - I especially - have an obligation to  cultivate the expression of  仁 in my day to day dealings with people.

Now I haven't even touched the subject of how this relates to the expression of Buddhist right speech, but rather considered such speech from the aspects of precious metal rules.  The reason I approached it this way had to do with some particularly harsh on-line speech I'd seen from an avowed Buddhist, which involved a denigration of Confucian ideals mixed in with rudeness directed towards individual  members of perceived dominant classes.  In another case I saw though, an attack on a person in relatively dire straits was met with hostility and a complete lack of empathy.

Such people have every right to be impotent and ineffective, and perfect entitlement to be rude and even express hostility towards members of dominant classes. Such people have a right to ignore what others - such as me - would point out is an ethical oblgation here.

But being having a right to do something does not make it wise to do it, and does not demonstrate any kind of skill in dealing with people.  Or as John Lennon put it, "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao/ you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."  Or, as the scriptwriter for Ip Man would put it,  activists who do not understand and practice the principle of treating others as they would themselves abuse the notions of activism and liberation, and  turn those notions into violence and oppression of others. Such folks desperately need to  learn the true meaning and practice  of  功夫 and 仁, and will marginalize themselves.

People like me don't need to do anything if people like them are attacking me - they are attacking only themselves. 

8 comments:

yeti said...

If we wish to deal with offense in speech effectively, it is not enough to just say, well, the insult hurts but I am going to rise above it and practice tolerance. I think that is how most people deal with it, but if we are honest, it doesn't really address the hurt. It just means we don't retaliate, and we are kind of lying to ourselves if we believe just being tolerant of an insult is the solution. Though it is better to practice tolerance than to retaliate, it is even better to achieve a state of mind where insults simply pass through the consciousness leaving no mark, no scar, no hurt.

The way to go further is in other words to become a person who is not hurt in the first place by hurtful words. This is the definitive solution to being the target of wrong speech, which is to provide no resistance whatsoever so the dart simply passes through.

Yet how do we do this? It is something I have been cultivating for a while so I can address what works for me. Granted, I still get upset, but I'm making progress...

We need to discover reality for ourselves. If we do not, we will be forever vulnerable to insult. Because a word takes on dimensions in our mind, reflecting the intention to harm, and we become unwilling participants in bad karma. So it is clearly something beyond words we need to understand.

This understanding is a really radical departure from ordinary thought, something Buddhists spend a lifetime working on in many cases. So I don't expect to explain it all away in this brief comment, or even to be able to if I had a million years, but I will say this:

If we achieve total stillness of mind, where even the thought "i will be tolerant in the face of insults" no longer enters, we can see how meaningless an insult is. In a sense it is like dying, because we are allowing the impulses of our mind to die. This is not the same as building a barrier, a strong ego, good self esteem and so on, but dropping those barriers altogether so that even our notions of who we are and what we like to think about ourselves are utterly quieted. This is what I think it means to be a person who is not harmed by insult: someone so aware, alive, and present that an insult is seen for what it is, empty, without ultimate reality, and unable to harm.

Mumon K said...

yeti-
I'm talking about more than that. Much more.

I'm talking about moving the system - the relationship between the players beyond where there is an assumed game of confrontation. That's why I keep making the references to 仁 and 功夫 . The ideal of 功夫 is not to even enter into the narrative that there is a confrontation!

At that point, it's not an issue of insults and who's using them and who's hurt. It's using the "opponent's" force to help both you and the opponent to get to a better place.

This is something many who equate practice in life with repression as serenity or equanimity don't get.

Yet.

That's why some old Buddhas gave out their teachings - to the extent they were teaching - with a lion's roar.

n. yeti said...

And when the dream of this saha-world fades?

Mumon K said...

Why nothing remains.

So relax - or be in terror - there's nothing to be afraid of.

Mumon K said...

But we're not there yet.

yeti said...

To carry this further, good Mumon, I think you have identified the critical component of the quest for 仁 and 功夫. And I am not trying to lead you anywhere, but I am going along with you, if you will. Beyond of course your wonderful discussion of etymologies (and I will digress here because I once studied alongside a brilliant poet whose native language was Chinese, and he pointed out similar things).

But if we look at the need to conceptualize a state of mind (or by extention, a society which embraces a certain ideal comportment) which represents the same notion as these words, symbols, and beliefs and so on, it seems what we are seeking is to cope with our fear. Our fear of being swamped by another culture, of confronting our own demons, or what have you. Let's be frank here: when someone insults us or behaves in a way that counters our ideals we take offense; something happens in the consciousness, there is a change, a multiplication of images and a frantic attempt (if we hold to ideals at all) to restore the state of mind we had before. And yet if this state that is joyous and serene is ideal, why is it so easy to rupture with a word, a gesture, or in the case of extremes, the eruption of all forms of social conflict. Where does this serenity, this joy, this state of seeming non-conflict go?

Clearly something so fragile is not to be counted on, and yet we build entire societies around this idea, entire religions and philosophies pointing to this ideal that disappears the moment someone pinches our wife's ass (or the insult of one's choosing by example). So what is going on with that?

These are open questions, Mumon, I am asking not because I expect to find the answers but because I think it is worthwhile to point out how fragile the basis of our beliefs in proper conduct can be. So I think it is also possible to look at such phenomena in a way that is separate from desiring it to be a certain way (i.e. a world free of insult and oppression); in other words not to compare the present moment of seeming conflict with the just gone moment of serene joy.

And so I ask you, do you think it is possible to achieve the kind of state of mind and society which is emblematic of these ideals, 仁 and 功夫, without understanding the nature of our fear?

Mumon K said...

yeti -

Thanks for your comments. You wrote:

"Our fear of being swamped by another culture, of confronting our own demons, or what have you. Let's be frank here: when someone insults us or behaves in a way that counters our ideals we take offense; something happens in the consciousness, there is a change, a multiplication of images and a frantic attempt (if we hold to ideals at all) to restore the state of mind we had before. And yet if this state that is joyous and serene is ideal, why is it so easy to rupture with a word, a gesture, or in the case of extremes, the eruption of all forms of social conflict. Where does this serenity, this joy, this state of seeming non-conflict go? "

The ideal is not to worry about the ideal so much. After a certain point, insults don't bother so much with practice; there's a way to get beyond that, of which I think we're pretty much on the same page.


"And so I ask you, do you think it is possible to achieve the kind of state of mind and society which is emblematic of these ideals, 仁 and 功夫, without understanding the nature of our fear?"

I think a profound degree of non-attachment is required. Understanding and putting into practice the importance of non-attachment is required.

Then the understanding of fear is a corollary to that.

A real pre-condition to the transcendence of fear is to put one's self in the position of being open to learn and be aware, and not worry about anything, including worrying and fear.

n. yeti said...

"A real pre-condition to the transcendence of fear is to put one's self in the position of being open to learn and be aware, and not worry about anything, including worrying and fear."

Yep, I'm afraid so.