Floods of View and Ignorance

By Viktor Wong

 There are two other floods: of view (ditthogha) and of ignorance (avijjogha). "Views" refer to the instinct we have to hold beliefs, opinions and dogmas in order to gain a standpoint. They could be anything from "Buddhism is the best religion" to "The liberal party is fair and just and seeks for the welfare of the nation" to "Women are hopeless drivers" to "Our nation is the source of truth and harmony in a brutal world". Or a view could be a lot more personal, "I am a Taurus and that means that I will get on well with Scorpios".

Such broad-brush generalisations form an easy basis for our decisions, loyalties and world-view. And so, throughout history, societies have adopted views such as, "There are witches who consort with the devil and bring blight onto the crops and plague into the city". Or they have adopted the view that Jews are a contamination and should be eradicated; or that communists are infiltrating public life in the United States and about to take over.

And these views, based on a sense of the pure, the right and even of Divine Will, have justified slaughter and cruelty, hatred and loss of liberty. We can indeed be horrified by such events, often to the degree whereby the extreme nature of these views blind us to the fact that we are all susceptible to the floods of views. "Joseph is an idiot who should never be allowed to drive a car". "Start letting those kids have their own way and you will be heading for trouble", etc. Even "I never subscribe to any view, political or religious because it is all hot air", that is just another view.

There are several salient features to the flood of views. One is that it puts life into the abstract, sums people into groups and makes a "something" that we can stand back from. From this perspective, the mind can form neat divisions; between my party and the others. The flood of views therefore isolates and more telling it draws a dividing boundary across which negotiation, empathy and at times even ethical standards do not cross.

So, having decided that you are an idiot who should not be allowed to drive, "I am not going to discuss with you why I think that way (though I may shout it at your face) and if I think that you are innately unskilled, I am probably not going to offer to instruct you. And in the case of those whom views have been labelled as the "evil", the "commended" or "insignificant", not only is there liable to be no negotiation and no checking of facts, but also actions may be administered without compunction, even though they bring death, ignominy and punishment. In sixteenth century Europe, animals were deemed as feeling no pleasure or pain and lowering cats into bonfires to witness their antics was a source of entertainment. And so on,with the adopting of views, empathy and ethics are under threat.

Another feature of the flood of views is that it gives one a standpoint whose loftiness at times exceeds reasons and the life instinct itself. In the twentieth century, the Heaven's Gate Christian Sect so fervently believed that a heavenly space ship was tailing the Hale-Bopp comet as it swung by the earth that they committed suicide in order to get on board.

Prior to that, mothers in Iran had gladly send their sons marching across mine fields as human martyrs in the country's war against neighbouring Iraq, delighted by the view that their children were thus bound for Heaven. Extreme examples again, but notice when you get that sense of standing up for your beliefs how the energy flows or floods, through your heart and up into your head where it shuts off alternate ways of seeing things. Wait for the next domestic argument and witness how wronged and just and firm you become. The flood of views inflates the ego and supports the identity flood of becoming.

This flood is difficult to check, because views are the benchmarks we have for our reality and our actions as well. We all use abstraction to define things in accordance with certain perspectives. there is a degree of usefulness in talking about Belgians or film directors or Carthusians but it is in the blind adherence to those concepts as ultimate definitions of an individual that the flood arises.

If it is blindly adhered to, even the view that "all views are problems" creates problems as that condemns any relative statement as invalid and then what can be said about anything? No, it is the adherence to any view npt the view itself that is the crux of the problem. The flood of views is this intoxication and adherence, an ongoing mental action that cuts off those who believe a view from the "rest of the trouble-makers".

A remedy that is recommended then is to note a view as a starting place from which to investigate or enter dialogue with others. In this, we acknowledge that we have a personal perspective and cannot avoid having one. This is already a breakthrough because the fallacy that support the flood is that any individual can have an all-encompassing view, whereas the very act of holding a view immediately places the viewer in a state of isolation from scrutiny.

To acknowledge subjectivity may lead to the recognition that "my" position isn't really mine, but one that is conditioned by the information I have received or an experience I have had, and is therefore capable of being reviewed and moderated. So: "I think you are a terrible driver because I saw you reverse into the gatepost and I heard that you never indicate when you are making a turn and Mary said that she was terrified at your speed when you drove her to town".

If I am practising truthfulness, then at least I will acknowledge that most of my information is second-hand and that I was angry at having to fix the gatepost. And if I am also inclining towards equanimity, I will also be willing to have my reasoning examined and even refuted. Then it may be that the partial truth in that view (anyway, you did drive into the gatepost) would encourage both of us to look into how we are all liable to do such things and mutually review driving skills and standards. Thus overcoming the sense of division and specific kindness is established hereby.

These floods of sensuality, becoming and views are carried by the most fundamental torrent, that is ignorance. Ignorance is the force that undermines our direct investigation of experience. Under its influence, if we do notice problems that this floods arouse, we may attribute them to flaws in culture or religion or human nature, either wagging a finger of disapproval or shrugging our shoulders in resignation.

In other words, we may adopt pessimistic views but that strategy does not check the floods. Hence, the approach that the Buddha encouraged was to see these floods as they are, as phenomena, without attributing self, others, culture or religion to them. But he did not advocate a passive acceptance of them, instead he presented the template of the Four Noble Truths, which we may apply to our experience in the form of questions.

That is, we can ask ourselves: "Is suffering and stress for myself or others bound up in this experience?" "What mental factor(s) cause(s) it to be so?" "Is there an inner shift, an immediate psychological change, that will stop that cause?" "What process will give me what it takes to bring around and sustain that shift of perspective?"

Using the Four Noble Truths is thus the way out of ignorance, the way of transcendence. But to keep using such a means, we need to keep turning the mind's intention that way; this is why we develop parami, they build a temple from those vantage point we can investigate the floods.

Source

viktorwong-amtbedu.blogspot.com.au