This is more accurate insight than "sinful", or its secular weasel, "inappropriate". (Inappropriate to whom? By what measure? To what end? According to whose interests? And what moral authority appointed you to evaluate any of this?)
The notion of skilfulness rests on the understanding that you can make things better or worse. (Some might argue you could also leave things unchanged, but that's also better or worse, depending on the status quo – whether it needs to change.)
The skilfulness criterion also draws on our koanic tradition, leading us to consider a proper Zen response to given circumstances. Will our acts generate more light, or heat? Will they resolve problems, or trowel them over? Are they truly effective, or do they just market us as Awesome Zen Masters? Will our choices pencil out over time?
This last is a particularly sticky wicket, because we most love to respond to emergencies and ignore the fact that we'll all still be here in a year or five or twenty, while the karma ricochets off the walls. I've been Lord God King of bold decisions in the past, that proved more reckless than resolute over time. It's less exhilarating to serve calmer future conditions, but I've learned the hard way that exhilaration is a manic pixie dream girl.
Like most useful ethical devices, this one may not please authority – a skilful act can upset many an unskilful apple cart – and may get you into more trouble rather than out of it.
But I've also found that careful consideration of the Zen road, with due weight given who we'll be when our sacred cows have become hamburgers, significantly improves ultimate outcomes, and usually immediate ones as well.
(Photo courtesy of Thao Le Hoang and Unsplash.com.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment