When 'Wrong' is 'Right'

[Stigweard]

It is fun being a part of the genetic mutation process in the evolution of Tao Bums. A warm hearted "Thanks" and many blessings for your valuable contributions.

 

Inevitably there is much discussion on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

 

Venerable Master Chin Kung from The Pure Land Learning College said to his students: "Always treat people as if they are right. Even if they are wrong they are right."

 

I will offer my 'take' on this. I could be wrong ... the good spirits know I often am, so I would be very interested in hearing your views as well.

 

I see both a Universal and personal implication in this teaching.

 

On the Universal level, Ch 1 TTC says:

 

...Nothingness and Beingness

and other conceptual activity of the mind

all come from the same indescribable subtle Originalness.

 

So any conception of right and wrong is merely the extremity of Universal expression; like the leaves on the tree that appear separate and distinct from each other and yet all the leaves have the trunk in common.

 

And as alluded to in the Zen Koan: "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" The Master answered: "No"

 

On a personal level, distinguishing 'right' and 'wrong' is perhaps the biggest malcontent of harmonious inter-personal relationships.

 

When we say someone is wrong we invalidate their perception of reality, we deny them their rightful expression in an infinite Universe. But we also create opposition and contention because people will very rarely admit they are wrong.

 

Let us say for example we are 'right' and the other person does indeed need to adjust their position. Even if we prove they are wrong through strong words or 'irrefutable logic', due to pride it is the common tendancy to dig one's heels in and defend one's position regardless of being right or wrong. This only serves to create further opposition and separation.

 

So to say someone else is wrong is simply poor diplomacy and ultimately will result in everyone being 'wrong'. Instead of saying to someone, "You are wrong", the suggestion is to confirm something 'right' about the other person.

 

For example in Tai Chi push hands, if our partner makes a foray into our defences we don't oppose their efforts, we don't say "You are wrong" and try and fight against their position by trying to establish ours. We yield, follow, and only then do we lead. In effect we are saying, "Yes your current direction is right, if I was in your position I would be doing exactly the same thing, and have you thought about going in this direction?"

 

The subtle distinction is using 'and' instead of 'but'. Often we will say, "Yes I hear your point of view, but this is how I see it." Whilst that does make a paltry attempt at union it still creates a contrary and opposing position.

 

What could be more productive perhaps is saying, "So if I understand you correctly you are saying that the moon really is made of cheese. I think that is a facinating perspective, and I agree that it certainly looks like a big round hunk of swiss cheese and many knowledgeable people in the past have thought exactly as you do. That was until of course modern science proved otherwise, but true enough many scientific discoveries have been proven wrong before. Tell me how you came upon your unique persepective."

 

So even if someone is wrong in our view, it could be perhaps a wise suggestion to allow for the possibility that we don't 'know it all', embracing Emmerson's ideal that "Every man is my superior in some way in that I can learn from him!" And even if they are most definately wrong, first find and express the way in which they are 'right', present an alternative perception for consideration and give them a chance to 'save face'.

 

Much unnecessary noise and bad vibrations could be averted and the process toward wisdom would be faster, alot more fun and infinitely more interesting.

 

Blessings,

[YMWong]

"Suppose you and I have had an argument.

If you have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong? If I have beaten you instead of your beating me, then am I necessarily right and are you necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of us wrong?

If you and I don't know the answer, then other people are bound to be even more in the dark.

Whom shall we get to decide what is right?

Shall we get someone who agrees with you to decide?

But if he already agrees with you, how can he decide fairly? Shall we get someone who agrees with me? But if he already agrees with me, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who disagrees with both of us? But if he already disagrees with both of us, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who agrees with both of us? But if he already agrees with both of us, how can he decide? Obviously, then, neither you nor I nor anyone else can decide for each other. Shall we wait for still another person?

 

"But waiting for one shifting voice [to pass judgment on] another is the same as waiting for none of them.

Harmonize them all with the Heavenly Equality, leave them to their endless changes, and so live out your years. What do I mean by harmonizing them with the Heavenly Equality? Right is not right; so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument. If so were really so, it would differ so clearly from not so that there would be no need for argument. Forget the years; forget distinctions. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"

 

Zhuang Zi - DISCUSSION ON MAKING ALL THINGS EQUAL

[Stigweard]

A beautiful quotation YM ... perfect!

 

It reveals the shifting, subjective nature of right and wrong. The right of today may be the wrong of tommorrow. The wrong in one culture may be the right in another.

 

Cheers my friend.

 

"Suppose you and I have had an argument.

If you have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong? If I have beaten you instead of your beating me, then am I necessarily right and are you necessarily wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Are both of us right or are both of us wrong?

If you and I don't know the answer, then other people are bound to be even more in the dark.

Whom shall we get to decide what is right?

Shall we get someone who agrees with you to decide?

But if he already agrees with you, how can he decide fairly? Shall we get someone who agrees with me? But if he already agrees with me, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who disagrees with both of us? But if he already disagrees with both of us, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who agrees with both of us? But if he already agrees with both of us, how can he decide? Obviously, then, neither you nor I nor anyone else can decide for each other. Shall we wait for still another person?

 

"But waiting for one shifting voice [to pass judgment on] another is the same as waiting for none of them.

Harmonize them all with the Heavenly Equality, leave them to their endless changes, and so live out your years. What do I mean by harmonizing them with the Heavenly Equality? Right is not right; so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument. If so were really so, it would differ so clearly from not so that there would be no need for argument. Forget the years; forget distinctions. Leap into the boundless and make it your home!"

 

Zhuang Zi - DISCUSSION ON MAKING ALL THINGS EQUAL

[zanshin]

Trying to remember what nlp says about this- something to the effect that all people are trying to make the right decision for them based on their perception of the situation. So like the example with the moon better to try to understand their perception than to say "you're wrong." In a way I find religious debates fascinating because I am interested in knowing why people believe what they do, I don't really think anyone knows for sure right and wrong on those, maybe we'll find out someday. But the part where it deteriorates to sniping and impunging the other person's character, better just to agree to disagree yet seek to understand in my opinion.

[goldisheavy]

Venerable Master Chin Kung from The Pure Land Learning College said to his students: "Always treat people as if they are right. Even if they are wrong they are right."

 

Let's keep this in mind for future reference.

 

I will offer my 'take' on this. I could be wrong ... the good spirits know I often am, so I would be very interested in hearing your views as well.

 

What do you mean you are wrong? When you are wrong, what happens that's different from when you are right? This is a contemplative question, please do not respond to it, or if you do, please respond in a separate post, because this is a detour from the main thing I am saying here.

 

On a personal level, distinguishing 'right' and 'wrong' is perhaps the biggest malcontent of harmonious inter-personal relationships.

 

That's true, but mindless and uncritical harmony always leads to bad outcomes. And why would I say that? Because if you want to be harmonious above all else, you will have to be accepting of mutually contradicting ideas and of ideas that are bad for your health, among other things. Further, you'd have to completely give up the idea of direction. You'd be going whichever way the winds of intention blow, and if you follow appearances, intention blows in a chaotic pattern (as opposed to what happens if you follow inner vision, then intent is no longer chaotic but directed). This is neither good nor bad, but you have to make a choice here. Are you OK being a servant of everyone? And I don't mean just wise people, I mean most likely you'll be serving ghosts and not even complete beings. If serving ghosts sounds good and fulfilling to you, then taking harmony as the highest virtue is OK.

 

On the other hand, if you value wisdom, harmony has to be demoted quite a few notches. It is still valuable in a sense that if you can achieve the same thing with and without harmony, it's probably better to do so with harmony, as it wastes less energy and takes less effort. However, if something cannot be achieved with harmony, it is to be forsaken joyfully and without hesitation or partiality you can embrace chaos in order to protect wisdom.

 

When we say someone is wrong we invalidate their perception of reality,

 

Exactly right. So instead of not using that power, use it responsibly. This is the same as fire. Fire is destructive, yes, but if you need to clear the field so you can plant crops, it helps a lot. If you need to cook your food or keep your house warm, it helps a lot. It can also burn off your face, and sometimes it will burn it off even when you're careful. It's also very possible to be burned alive even if you personally never touch fire your whole life.

 

we deny them their rightful expression in an infinite Universe.

 

There is no expression that is "rightful". At the ultimate level there is no concept of a "right". When we talk about rights, we talk about agreements. Those agreements are predicated on certain values and principles. So for example, if someone refuses to be logical, I consider this to be a termination of agreement on which rights are based. Suddenly someone can end up with no rights in my eyes, and it's not hard to do. Just like my own arms have no rights of their own, they have to do what I intend. So if I want to do pull ups, my arms do not go on protest because their right to relax has been violated. The same is true with anything else, because the whole world is my arm. But this may be different for you.

 

But we also create opposition and contention because people will very rarely admit they are wrong.

 

When other person admits they are wrong, it is completely useless. The best reason to oppose someone is to symbolically raise the value of something internal and secret. So for example, if I disagree with someone on the basis that what they say is illogical or has unwarranted implications that are not shown to be either logical or illogical (in other words, the implications are not examined, but are sort of just thrown out there for consumption), what I want is not to subdue the other person or to make them admit they are wrong. For all I care they can insist they are right forever. They can incarnate in my field of experience eternally and eternally insist on their idiotic way. I don't oppose that! What I oppose is my own valuing of what's being said. But at the same time, if I don't voice my opposition once in a while, I can't be sure if I truly oppose it, or if I have the guts to say so, in other words, I can't be sure in the depth of my value. Sometimes in order to convince myself I honestly truly value something I also have to expose myself to mortal danger. It's not that I need to kill myself, but it's that if I am unwilling to face any amount of danger, I can't be 100% certain I actually value that secret internal value (I don't have to specify it... you can fill this in with whatever you like of your own -- be creative).

 

Let us say for example we are 'right' and the other person does indeed need to adjust their position. Even if we prove they are wrong through strong words or 'irrefutable logic', due to pride it is the common tendancy to dig one's heels in and defend one's position regardless of being right or wrong. This only serves to create further opposition and separation.

 

This only happens if the benefit to self is not explained. In other words, if we explain to the person who is "wrong" what that person stands to gain from accepting another point of view, this is no longer a problem. The problem happens when the other person thinks they only stand to lose something by accepting a different viewpoint.

 

So to say someone else is wrong is simply poor diplomacy and ultimately will result in everyone being 'wrong'.

 

You jump to a conclusion here. I don't see how the second part follows from the first.

 

Instead of saying to someone, "You are wrong", the suggestion is to confirm something 'right' about the other person.

 

If jostling for a social position is your goal, certainly this is right. However, if protecting internal values is your goal and social position is not important, this is precisely the wrong approach.

 

For example in Tai Chi push hands, if our partner makes a foray into our defences we don't oppose their efforts, we don't say "You are wrong"

 

Of course you do. You just don't say it as harshly as possible, but at the same time, the energy can easily be harsh. After a soft reception you can expose VERY harsh cold steel and get the other person to fly away or to buckle in half. It's not always gentle. The gentleness of tai chi is not to make another person feel better. It is not to heal the other person or to find harmony. The gentleness of combat tai chi is to confound the person, to make them lose their bearings, and to expose a vulnerability, which is then taken advantage of very much.

 

The subtle distinction is using 'and' instead of 'but'. Often we will say, "Yes I hear your point of view, but this is how I see it." Whilst that does make a paltry attempt at union it still creates a contrary and opposing position.

 

Great advice if you want to maintain decent relationship while still advancing your own vision. So there is a deceptive friendliness while the intention is still to advance your own vision. It's just that you do so gentle via "and", but the intent itself is not gentle, because at the end of the day your vision is intended to overwhelm everything. However, if you don't want or need good social standing and you just want to check your values for sincerity, you are free to use both "and" and "but" as you are inclined without having to discipline yourself in that manner. But to the extent you avoid disciplining your speech you have to discipline your spirit to accept internal difficulties, so it's not a freebie. Point is, if you have more inner discipline, you need less outer, but if you have no inner discipline you need outer discipline to have a decent life. If you have no inner and outer, you are screwed, and if you have both, you waste the energy for no reason.

 

EDIT: forgot to add.... if using "but" is wrong, it is still right according to the quote in the beginning.

Edited November 24, 2008 by goldisheavy

[Sloppy Zhang]

I don't remember the author that said this, but there is a quote by someone (kinda famous I think) who said that the best thing that people can do is speak from their own experience on what they know to be right at the time.

 

Take some of the martial arts discussions that go on in this forum. The MMA people who have had experience in MMA know that it works, maybe they got into a street fight or saw a street fight and know it to be effective. However, there are TMA guys (myself included) who have done the same: either used it in a "real fight" or have seen it used in a real fight, as well as knowing people who have done so.

 

So who's right? Both groups are right in accordance with their own experience. You aren't going to convince someone otherwise because they have the experience that proves their point. They saw a TMA "black belt" get beat up, or they saw some BJJ "master" get stomped out. Both people have what they need to make a judgment, so both are right... but both are wrong because the other person has experiences that are contrary to theirs

 

That's where what YMWong quoted comes into play

 

But as far as day to day scenarios, when you meet someone, the easiest way to end a conflict (or avoid it altogether) is to... not conflict with them. If there is no enemy there is no fight. When you recognize that they are right according to their own reasons, and you aren't going to change it, then you can accept it and both of you can move on with your lives

[goldisheavy]

Take some of the martial arts discussions that go on in this forum. The MMA people who have had experience in MMA know that it works, maybe they got into a street fight or saw a street fight and know it to be effective. However, there are TMA guys (myself included) who have done the same: either used it in a "real fight" or have seen it used in a real fight, as well as knowing people who have done so.

 

So who's right?

 

Not every difference is worth objecting to. If someone likes red wine and I like white, I won't be starting a huge debate, but wine is largely inconsequential to me.

 

On the other hand, if you base your entire life on wine, if you're a vintner who is passionate about red wine, this can be a matter of life and death for you.

Edited November 24, 2008 by goldisheavy

[Sloppy Zhang]

On the other hand, if you base your entire life on wine, if you're a vintner who is passionate about red wine, this can be a matter of life and death for you.

 

Yes but no matter your personal preference or your profession, each of the types of wine do their job

[goldisheavy]

Yes but no matter your personal preference or your profession, each of the types of wine do their job

 

LOL, this can be very offensive to some people! What job is that? If you think the job of wine is to get people drunk, you can offend a lot of people. If the job of the wine is to expose the tongue to a certain mix of flavors, it's quite conceivable that not just any old wine will do. Either option can be offensive. The second option can be seen as stuck up or snooty and the first can be seen as indiscriminate, low brow, base.

Edited November 24, 2008 by goldisheavy

[Stigweard]

Thanks Gold for your well thought out response. You have some excellent points there which has inspired me to look deeper into the topic.

 

And cheers Sloppy Zhang, I find myself agreeing with your comments.

[Sloppy Zhang]

LOL, this can be very offensive to some people!

 

Depends on how they read it...

 

What job is that?

 

To make people happy, or to add something to their meal.

 

Or it could be something else depending on the person

 

If you think the job of wine is to get people drunk, you can offend a lot of people. If the job of the wine is to expose the tongue to a certain mix of flavors, it's quite conceivable that not just any old wine will do. Either option can be offensive. The second option can be seen as stuck up or snooty and the first can be seen as indiscriminate, low brow, base.

 

Oh please, I would never imply either one of those.... or would I?

 

The main thing that your wine analogy reminded me of was that scene in Fearless where Jet Li is talking about different types of tea and different types of martial arts. Tea exists as its own thing and it's really pointless to compare different types of tea. If the tea does what it is supposed to do then that's good. If a martial art does what it's supposed to do than that's good. If wine does what it is supposed to do then that is good.

 

If you drink wine to get drunk and you get drunk, well there ya go. If you drink wine to savor the flavor and you savor the flavor, that's good. If you take martial arts to defend yourself and you can defend yourself, then that's good.

 

The overall point though is that different people will be behind different things for different reasons, different types of MA, tea, wine, etc. You can't tell someone that they are right or wrong, because they each go to the thing that suits them. To you they are wrong (or perhaps just "less correct") and to them you are wrong/less correct. And again, as YMWong quoted, you're not going to get anywhere by debating the person about it

 

And cheers Sloppy Zhang, I find myself agreeing with your comments.

 

Edited November 24, 2008 by Sloppy Zhang

[Birch]

You're all right ;-)

Saying "Maybe I'm wrong" is an invitation to you to tell me you agree with what I just said, or to get myself another opportunity to get you to convince me by your arguments so I end up agreeing with you.

 

So we're all right. Awesome!

 

Except when we collectively aren't ;-)

 

I love this forum;-)

 

Kate

 

Edit: I almost forgot "we agree to disagree", in which case, we're still all right ;-)

Edited November 25, 2008 by Kate

[Stigweard]

[Stigweard]

I have been discussing the original post with a few friends and there was interest in the Zen Koan.

 

In hindsight I should have included the relevant commentry on this. Zen Koan are riddles as such ... they are created to make you think and find your own insight ... sometimes they don't even have a right or wrong answer. Sometimes no answer is required at all.

 

For this one the hidden meaning is that the Master knows that all concepts of the mind are but branches of the one universal truth ... 'yes' and 'no' are merely two sides of the same coin and thus, from this universal perspective, the duality of yes and no disappear. As such, to the question of, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" both yes and no are completely irrelevant which is why the Master answered, "No".

 

Buddhists indeed believe everything has 'Buddha Nature". As Venerable Wu Kai, a buddhist nun friend of mine from the Pure Lands Learning College said:

 

"All beings possess the same Buddha-Nature and so, we need to respect all living beings, including tiny little creatures like ants, mosquitoes, spiders etc. If you observe them carefully, they live the way as we human beings are. They need food, shelter and they even live in groups. They were born as little creatures due to one main reason - ignorance. Other than this, we are all the same, "We are One"."

 

Another friend of mine, Russell, in his infinite wit added:

 

"In terms of the question 'does a dog have Buddha nature?', can the eye see itself? Is it the dog that has the Buddha nature or is it the Buddha nature that has the dog?"

 

Another friend, Heather, added:

 

For me in my awakening perspective ... the question is now ... "what choice would give me a

sense of Peace"?

Rather than the ego question ... about who or what is right??

 

In the world of form (separate ego consciousness) we will never truly experience a 'peace that

passes all understanding' ...

Until we fully experience that everything that appears outside of us ... is a mirror/reflection of our own mind.

Our intellect/ego sense of Self can't possibly accept this ... because this requires us to be completely responsible at the core level for everything I see and perceive as 'real'.

 

"Nothing real can be threatened.

Nothing unreal exists ... and herein

lies the Peace of God"

 

And finally from Vikki:

 

I think a lot of the time a persons view of right and wrong as based on their perception of reality usually arises from their own set of intrinsic values that have been built from birth so by damning their perception we are also threatening their values and belief systems.....

 

 

Cheers all,

Edited November 28, 2008 by Stigweard