In Dark Times, ‘Dirty Hands’ Can Still Do Good

The "pure land" is my house and backyard. The "precious teachings" are mother nature and NYT. We humans are imperfect and we are all "sinners". But I don't pretend to be noble or better than any other. Life is full of sufferings, sadness and disappointments. But each one of us has the key to be happy. I don't need to fly to remote mountain to figure it out. If I can put down my ambitions, I will be much happier. Only if I can! However, I just can't let it go. Speaking of Budism, I prefer the teachings from a different branch. The "pure land" is actually not a physical place. It is in our mind. In other words, I can find the "pure land" anywhere even in hell. Budism practiced in the West is superficial to me. It is not deep enough. I think the original concept of Budism was mixed with local culture and a new concept was formed. The original one does not have the richness and deeper philosophy compared to the branch I am more familiar with. "The tree is not really a tree and a mirror is not really a mirror. Because they don't really exist, they can't be covered by dust". I was very much into this kind readings when I was in high school. Sadly, I am now just occupied by greed.

I am not as learned as the author, but the premise of the article and the "problem of dirty hands," "the difficulty of tidying up the world's atrocities with hands that can never be washed clean," seems precious and contrived, particularly from the perspective of a Buddhist. What else would a Buddhist expect than to begin to walk the Eightfold Path, Right Speech, Right Thought, Right Action, etc., from the starting point of one's internal mess? Isn't this what one of Buddhism's most popular authors, Pema Chodron, has written about so beautifully for years? And to face the inclination to think in terms of MY quest for perfection, etc,. one can turn to another popular Buddhist author, Thich Nhat Hanh, who has written for years about "interbeing." The idea of the "delusion" of a separate existence is essential to Buddhism. Even a nonbuddhist, Dr. King, addressed this so powerfully: "For some strange reason, I cannot be who I am supposed to be, until you become who you are supposed to be." In one of my favorite Hollywood epics, "The Shoes of the Fisherman," Anthony Quinn's character, the new Russian pope, asks a cardinal, "How does a man ever know if his actions are for himself or for God? The cardinal replies, “You don’t know. You have a duty to act, but no right to expect approval, or even a successful outcome.” We are hopelessly flawed beings. We hopefully start by giving a damn, then take it from there.

You don't need to be perfect. You just need to avoid the urge to buy a SUV and instead buy a Prius, or if you're wealthy, a Tesla. Seriously.

Anyone who believes that only moral purity is sufficient should consider that some of the worst tyrants the world has seen were certain that they were pursuing moral purity and that their atrocities were justified for the greater good. Maximilian Robespierre started his career wanting to abolish the death penalty, but by the time he had total power he couldn't lop heads off fast enough- to promote public virtue, of course. Pol Pot went to his grave believing he had made his country better and that his was a just cause- it just hadn't been extreme enough. And Khomeini never doubted the rightness of his cause. When a fellow cleric decided that the Iran-Iraq war had become too bloody and it was time to end it, he went to Khomeini's study and let him know. Khomeini's emotionless answer was, "Do you blame God when he sends earthquakes?" He wasn't saying that he believed he was God, rather, he was that certain he was doing God's will on Earth. Virtue, equality, and religion are all good, moral causes. Robespierre, Pol Pot, and Khomeini, to name but a few (who had more power than most people will ever have), remind us what the all-consuming pursuit of their purity can turn us into and inflict on the world.

All is suspect. All is corrupt. Know exceptions.

This fascinating article shows second-millennia Buddhist thinkers wrestling with the same problems of faith and moral complicity which Christian thinkers grappled with in the Reformation, but which inform Christian thought and, indeed, Western thinking as far back as the early Greeks (likewise for Eastern thinkers, no doubt). “Salvation,” suggested Shinran, according to the authors, “may turn on pure faith, but sincere faith turns on the constant acknowledgment of unavoidable imperfection.” If only knowledge of this insight cleansed us of that inner “dirty feeling” we all loath! The impulse to set out on the road of thinker, teacher or monk—not to mention ordinary human moral agent—must be its own reward. It brings no tangible benefit in the way of ordinary complacency and relief.

What would Oscar Schindler do?

the only one's not using their 'dirty hands' ought to be those lacking hands. This individual's escape may be somebody else's salvation in finding relevance. But these Dark Times are our collective fault, as we remain passive in allowing those in power to abuse it...without speaking up...and acting out our convictions (based on reason, common sense, and the facts).

Against the egregious attitude of 'my moral superiority', which is used to justify just about anything....

For run-of-the-mill practicing Buddhists, who number in the hundreds of millions, the idea that their belief system is purely intellectual, all in one’s mind, a solitary endeavor in the world, would be unrecognizable.

You are afflicted with the gluttony syndrome and your parent whisks away your plate because this is not helping the starving children of (your era). 'The stakes for children across (Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen and their sub-regions) could not be higher, says Justin Forsyth, UNICEF Deputy Executive Director. "Nearly 1.4 million children are at imminent risk of death and more than 5 million children face malnourishment this year", but whether philosophers care is another matter altogether, while we throw stones at Helen in the comfort of our home. Abolish sweatshops and send food to the impoverished unemployed? This would be a short-term solution at best, and America is having trouble recognizing that Puerto Rico is in trouble. Dr. Kaag and Dr. Martin may have worked at one time in both the Corporate World and Humanitarian Community, able to see with clarity that these Sectors are linked together. In the meantime, we might find a way to put the sawdust stuffing in our mouths to good use, while keeping our hands clean with soap.

Salvation? Faith? Words that resonate in the Western and Christian tradition, but that sound oddly misplaced when speaking of Buddhism. Perhaps these words were chosen because the article was coming out in a leading western newspaper, but they surely were not chosen to be compatible with the subject matter being discussed. That being said, the article sounds right when it describes the need not to make hypocritical claims of purity when one is engaged in a dirty world. One must chose not to increase suffering in the world, but that doesn't mean that one can chose to be of a fantasy world of purity. Buddhism does not present a Christ who can save us, not does it propose that our faith can bring us to paradise, neither here or in the next world.

I find ethical arguments about well-heeled Americans of Northern European descent wanting to play at being Buddhists tedious and uninteresting. What interests me are the moral dilemmas of those, in uniforms especially, who know, believe or suspect that their fellow workers are behaving unethically or illegally. And the dilemma of the prison guard in the death camp who tries to behave humanely towards the prisoners.

The world's most serious problems are certainly not poverty, hunger, environmental decimation and warming, especially not warming. The world's most serious problems are religion, militarism, and drug abuse. This example of sky-pie Buddhist journey-lust is of course just a problem of religion. Solve religion and people's minds will no longer be wasted on superstition, and reason will vastly improve the human condition. Solve militarism and war & nationalism will end, and peace will prevail. Solve drug & booze abuse and humans will live lives that progress & improve over their full courses from youth to old age, without being sidetracked for decades by chemical distraction. Poverty and hunger are side effects of human misdirection and overpopulation, the environment will take care of itself when people breed responsibly in a safe peaceful world free of religious delusion.

People make stuff up and then think that they are right and can save the world. Please realize that we are still monkeys, but we wear clothes, use tools, and make up stories about ourselves and the world. Then we die.

It might be time to "make our home in the impure land," but there is not much to indicate, at this moment, that the homesteading will be peaceful or tolerant of those on the other side of our preferred, individual orthodoxies. There is not much indication that we can or will make peace among ourselves, at least not without some massive national calamity. No doubt some tolerance is important, hence what constitutes "tolerably wrong": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/ . That is, in part, the reason for the "rule of law." These issues and concerns are hardly confined to Buddhism, and also appear at the core of any number of arguments centering on "people of the Book." One could make the point that high-ranking partisan combatants in the USA have their own goals, not necessarily focused on tolerance of others. This is apparent in any number of arenas that include Red and Blue states, assertions that the USA is a "Christian nation," and various calls to political orthodoxies.

I like the idea of a "bodhisattva" - "(in Mahayana Buddhism) a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings." I see Bob Dylan as a kind of musical bodhisattva - he's definitely a "different" type of being. And I like that line - "embrace your karma". Buddhism is a great part of the buffet.

No, there is no need for "Helen to find [her] way to Bhutan and her Buddhist goals" by flying there. The Buddha and his original disciples saw no need to travel to Bhutan. Or anywhere special. They practiced and taught where they were. Pursuing a path of not-harming, mindfulness, and release from desire-deluded suffering need not lead through adopting ancient commercial- lying-based superstitions encouraging pilgrimage -- or idealizing a country that persecuted and expelled its Nepali Hindu religious and racial minority in the 1990s. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/opinion/bhutan-is-no-shangri-la.html Self-indulgent 'dharma tourism' that ignores inconvenient truths about global warming, Bhutan's recent past, and Burma's presently ongoing genocide is not unavoidable complicity. It shows neither wisdom nor compassion and is arguably incompatible with both. For those who aspire to follow a path of freedom through renunciation, renouncing this trip should not be too much.

The conceit that there is a common ethical path is a problem. As a Zen practitioner, I don't find much commonality among Buddhists, Christians, or for that matter any groups. Discovering morality is utterly personal, just as is learning. I am different. As I age, and the options for me to contribute to a better world thin down in proportion to my means, my sphere, and remaining time, one regret is that listening to others moralize has usually been a waste of time, not only for me personally, but for most kind people. I'm not anti-civilization: I like poetry and music, and appreciate structures, including physical ones like houses and ethical ones like democracies, but offering oneself to the world takes art in its purest sense, and complete originality. It takes place in every moment for everyone: we are always offering ourselves. It's a spontaneous combustion that requires consuming and taking, too. The problem is not pride, but that we detach ourselves from our magnificence, our massive power. I write the book. There's lots of evil, and its tragic. There's lots of good everywhere and it makes a huge difference.

How amazing each of you is...authors, readers, writers. Hearing you out there asking great questions only humans ask is a pleasure deeper than thought. I am too old to add to the conversation, but want to thank the NYTimes and all your voices for being there.

Here on planet earth we live in duality. It’s a package deal. Our aim is reduce our negative thoughts and actions, as best as we can, knowing fully well they exist as do our positive emotions. In this land of opposites we are so to speak the eyes ears nose and senses if the Universe itself. It is through us the universe emotes, senses and feels. Through its magnificent diversity of organisms colors shapes sizes, countless ways they the universe indulges itself to feel as a snail, a butterfly, a monkey, a goat. Everything is inter related and interdependent intertwined, we are all specks of dust in a matrix or mesh or web. Each shining as a jewel reflecting our glory. Not a single being is useless or unimportant. Without that gem the universe would not be complete. We complete the universe. We should rejoice at this poignant thought, all we can do is be compassionate because each of us is in this mesh together.

Having an accomplished, pure Teacher is a great help but not easy to find. It's hard to see our own shortcomings, ego , selfishness etc but so important on the way to enlightenment (salvation). Compassion, Love and Forgiveness require a lot of practice and guidance. Not easy.

> "I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory, experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight - brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal." Rust Cohle, the greatest 20th Century philosopher

I genuinely deplore relativism. I'll be clear about that. I'm not going to preach about all the problems in this column, which would be pointless. In our current predicament, saying "dirty hands can still do good" means what? That we should apologize for attempting to be decent human beings? I'll first point to the veterans of the Vietnam war who came home, and with great stridency and sense of purpose, took up opposition to the war they had fought. Not resignation. In the 1971 action of those who threw their medals back at the government that sent them to commit horrors, there was meaningful heroism and also whatever redemption that was possible. Is anyone now saying to those now-old men, "thank you"? What we are being told is to thank them for their service, a service which included, in many cases, committing war crimes that could only be called murder. This piece, instead of being a needed call-to-action, is an example of the target of Yeats' "Second Coming," especially "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." It's is the fascist Trumpites that are full of passionate intensity. Nothing good will come of that.

It never occurred to me that any person, any human being was purity unto him or herself. If one were to be shown to the world as a completely "pure" human being we would likely do what we allegedly did over two thousand years ago, namely, crucify him or her. On the other hand, recognizing through all of these millennials past, that the real condition of the human species is not one that is pure, but in a minor sense, flawed. I always felt that life and the goals in life were to eradicate or rise above the many flaws that exist with us humans. Growing up catholic you are given a supposedly fresh start by the water of baptism that washes away that nasty old original sin of Adam and Eve. But from then on you still have to contend with the flaws of being human. Since the earth is one of the smallest planets in the universe and allowing that there may be many universes and others like us humans, and if one believes in a God or Allah or Supreme Being, might it not be that humans on the earth are simply a "test market" to see if it is at all possible that the billions of humans can live in harmony with each other. So far after millions of years we still haven't achieved that and in fact it seems we are regressing instead of making headway toward that simple goal.

"The fossil fuels burned on this trip damage the natural environment;" > Is Helen to blame for the fact that both political parties in the US support - and indeed, subsidize - the fossil fuel industries? "the food that Helen eats on the plane is prepared by underpaid workers and supports industrial agriculture; the clothes she wears and the seats she sits on were made in sweatshops; the airline itself is part of an enormous multinational conglomerate." > is Helen to blame for the fact that both parties support the neoliberal economic model that allowed sweatshop exploitation of workers to thrive across the globe? Helen lives in a society in which most citizens have little to no say in economic matters. Obama, the most liberal president we've had in over three and a half decades actually bragged about how much fossil fuel was extracted during his presidency. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-climate-change-the-r... When NAFTA was enacted and heralded a huge increase in the exploitation of workers in poor countries, both major parties supported it. Liberal Paul Krugman even wrote an ode to sweatshop labor. So the argument that Helen is to blame for policies that limit her daily life choices in a country that allows those who prosper from such choices to make the policy decisions is silly. Like Helen, we are foot soldiers, but the generals have no problem finding intellectuals who will argue that we are to blame for the generals' choices.

I do not really agree with this article - or perhaps I should say the: "approach that this article took to the subject of the woman's trip. It is an intellectual approach to a spiritual subject. Thus there are unsatisfactory, critical, judgmental answers in response to her trip. Sensible but unsatisfactory.

Dear Professors Kaag & Martin, The earth is to the known universe immeasurably less than a grain of sand is to the earth, so let us not forget that a pure meditative state in which we dissolve into oblivion is not merely a metaphor for the truth the Buddha sought but truth itself. The profound hubris that suggests that any life is but a flash of light bracketed by eternity is the crucial untruth that keeps us going, that gives us meaning, that gives us solace. However, once we recognize the lie, once we experience the void, once we truly internalize the nature of our illusory existence, the world we return to may seem a little smaller, but it will make a little more sense, perhaps because after spending so much time on the inside looking out, we've finally spent a little time on the outside looking in. And once we've seen that the only complicity is the complicity in our own self-delusion, our path ought to become clearer, our lives ought to become simpler, our minds ought to become freer, and at that point, it matters little what we say or what we do, because "we" will finally find ourselves besides the point. Which is where wisdom begins. Cordially, S.A. Traina

Everybody must find their own way. We don't have to go to extremes to make wherever we are a better place. Neither do we need a book or a building or a symbol or another person in order to do the right thing and help others. Opportunities for the simple application of kindness present themselves everyday. Open your eyes and don't turn your back. There are no "makers" or "takers". There are people and there but for the grace of whomever...

Were I in Helen's place, I'd try to mitigate my complicity in degrading the biosphere by purchasing carbon credits. That way I could offset the emissions produced by my pilgrimage by underwriting the planting of trees elsewhere that would absorb an equivalent amount of carbon.

Meister Eckhart wrote that the most powerful prayer asks for nothing. According to Meister Eckhart, a prayer for purity is an attempt to control that which is not ours to control and therefore vanity. At least that is what I think he said. I like to consult Eckhart because he was a church administrator in a time afflicted by famine and the black plague. Cannibalism was rumored to be rampant and moral degradation forced by extreme need was commonplace. It is vanity to equate Eckhart's time to our own, but I am as weak as the next guy.

I sent this article to friends and one friend replied that they had been called to jury duty and even though they hadn't been called to a case they still were still bothered for over two weeks that they would be called upon to judge another person even though they routinely judged others on a routine daily basis.

Do the best you can, you will make mistakes, some of them serious. Resolve to do better, forgive yourself, and move on. You will get another chance, many more in fact, life is a process, not a one act play. If god is unconditional love, you will be forgiven.

What can, do, "purity," a state and outcome,"complicity," an ongoing process, mean in our ever present reality of uncertainties, unpredictabilities, lack of total control, no matter the levels and qualities of what we do, over time? How can"good enough," be fit into our words and deeds, given who we are, as flawed human beings; who we are not and who we may never BE come? How can this semantic exploration challenge the human-enabled, daily, toxic, WE-THEY culture in which we live?Cope? Adapt? Function? Choose to be complacent? Coopted? About "means" and "ends?" Practice and become quite proficient in willful blindness? Deafness? Ignorance? The existential issues being presented, philosophically, are not unique to any belief system.

What makes us think we know how to help others in a lot of cases may be hubris and cultural projection, cultural imperialism. Life is a complex ecosystem of suffering , learning, suffering more and learning more. Buddhism encourages meditation rather than political revolution perhaps because the Buddha understood that fragmentary actions can only bring results which are themselves part of a binary dynamic of suffering and reaction.

If everyone is to blame then no one is to blame, and no one can be held responsible & human nature being inherently corrupt, no political action can change anything anyway. What a hopeless, reactionary philosophy. Rabbi Jesus explained the Law to the Rich Young Man but remember he wanted the knowledge to be perfect. But he did not like what he was told. "Sell what I have and give it to the poor? Have to run that by my trust fund advisor first . . . " & he went away sadly.

“Resignation is not regarded as a virtue in our society, but perhaps it should be.” A powerful statement that underlies much of the strife and suffering we witness in the world. When we resign ourselves to being merely human, we can then begin to act humanely. Rather than attempting to fit humanity in a tight box of moral purity, we can embrace our messiness and love more expansively. Rather than attempting to transcend our human incarnation we might instead add depth into our realization of spirit becoming form - acknowling both the form and the quickening.

An almost extreme awareness to the reality that we cannot escape an impure existence. As the little self. Which is capable of either good or evil and everything in between. Which ironically also describes the larger all inclusive self. The question for me is why its a lesson for the little self - and something entirely else for the great and unknowable unity being. You can't say they are the same. Such a profound mystery. It goes without saying that the larger self is presenting us with this exact scenario like never before. Its surely a an of faith to just realize that. That alone is an "intervention" - the only one needed at the same time the one we will manifest and fullfil. Karmically, or otherwise I do suppose.

This op-ed piece contains much of real value, but its emphasis on how to cope with universal complicity in the evils that beset us creates an unrealistic standard of thought and behavior for most people. It also overlooks the positive impact of an alternative approach to attacking the human dilemma. As the authors suggest, all human behavior potentially both confers benefits and inflicts harm on the world around us. Economists express this concept through the idea that resources used in one way cannot simultaneously serve other needs. Our best efforts should focus on using limited resources as efficiently as possible, which means achieving maximum benefits in exchange for minimum loss of those resources. I doubt if the values promoted by the authors would achieve this goal, because they implicitly treat self interest as a human shortcoming. But it is also an engine of creativity and accomplishment. Humans have created the potential to escape the Malthusian trap of permanent misery through technological breakthroughs that enable us to limit population growth and to produce food far more efficiently than in the past. Scientists have made discoveries that have enormously increased both the quality and the length of our lives. Self interest drove most of these achievements. Today, we also face a crisis of climate change that could destroy all our advances. But even in this case, self interest will have to play a role if we are to escape the consequences of our folly.

Perfection is the enemy of the Very Good. The life of a perfectionist is hell.

Pure land, dirty hand America... Being raised as a child in the American way is truly bizarre and contradictory, but probably not historically unusual. The general template is that of child passing gradually from viewing adults as innocent, moral and powerful to being all too human. But where the bizarre and contradictory comes in is when this template exists with increasing education, increasing calls for critical thinking, analysis of every aspect of life. Now we have calls to have every child relentlessly educated, yet economic and political life is desperately sanitized, as if political and economic power will collapse if businessmen and politicians are not seen as saints. Power in America goes to almost any length to be seen as noble and good, powerful and clean, without stain. In the term of the day, brand is everything. But of course this artificiality, this sterility, this weeding out of every person who cannot at least fake it conflicts enormously with education, with repeated attempts to have every citizen with comprehension of society. In fact this fakery cuts deeply into educational attempts, leads to a maze of educational and corporate and political secrecy and hypocrisy one gets lost in, to point one does not know whether those in power themselves really know what's going on or whether they are in place simply because of being experts at faking being knowledgable, good, responsible, with best interests of nation at heart. How succeed at such a life?

Archimedes famously asked for a place to stand. Being a wise old mathematician he knew that this was the hard part of the problem! Philosophers and philosophies which view the world from a position which no human can ever occupy raise more questions than they can ever answer. Our thoughts and arguments must begin from within our lives, our selves and our social and cultural existences. From within these circumstances we must find the common places which we can and do share with others. As Aristotle says, 'Most people ask for that which they think is good when instead they should ask that which they think is good should in fact be good for them.'

Sounds like a long way of saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

What a fuzzy, pretentious, and misogynistic essay. The first paragraph reeks of self-righteous disdain for "Helen, a middle-aged woman newly devoted to Tibetan Buddhism." Then the paragraphs that follow outline an understanding of Buddhism and spiritual seeking that is dim at best. The very reason the lotus is a symbol of enlightenment is that its "purity" and "perfection" bloom within (and from) the mud. It represents an understanding that is the opposite of "solipsistic, narcissistic and self-focused."

Sound like what Trump just said about Moore being needed in the senate. When are dirty hands too dirty?