This is one of them routine backup routines where i dump data from my head into google servers ;) A couple of days back during a "hectic" combined study session at a friend's place we ended up discussing heaven and hell. His point was that during the final "judgment" we are judged on the basis of our "thoughts" and not on our actions. To put that quite simply, it doesn't matter if you are buddha to the rest of the world, a couple of dirty thoughts and your gone. I'd like to play the "unfair" card here. On that spot I didn't argue with his point. But later that day I came across a quote that spawned the thought process which resulted in this blog entry.
Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. - Arthur Schopenhauer
This quote was listed by Albert Einstein as one of the greatest inspirations in his life. I'd like to approach the whole heaven and hell thingy around this quote. I don't think we have any voluntary control over the exact nature of various thoughts that arise inside our head. What we CAN do is choose whether or not to act on a thought. For eg: If a person gets chucked out of the class for no apparent reason his immediate reaction(inside his head) would be to smack the teacher. But as long as he doesnt act on that thought I think hes the same good person he was before that particular thought spawned. Expand these examples to most of the so called "bad thoughts" and I believe a person can still be the same old good guy. Theres a concept in Zen buddhism which says that the mind is like a river. Rocks may appear in the path of the river and there is nothing the river can do to "avoid" the rock "being there". What the river can do is to acknowledge the rock and flow around it. The rock here is the "bad" thought. I think the actual reason behind the "concept" of heaven and hell now misses the point. It has made people more worried about the consequences of their actions than the act itself.
To action alone hast thou a right and never at all to its fruits; let not the fruits of action be thy motive; neither let there be in thee any attachment to inaction - Bhagavad Gita
6 comments:
Its true that a person cannot control his thoughts. But to say that some 1 is gud just because he did not do a bad thing is not rite. In the example of the student, i wouldn't say that a student is gud just cause he didnt hit the teacher. V should consider the reason for not hitting. If he didnt hit his teacher because of respect or because he knows its not right to do so that u can say he is gud, on the other hand if he didnt hit the teacher because he was scared what others would think, or if other students would beat him up or if he thought it would affect his marks then he ain't that gud
Great quotes!
I think that we should be able to analyse all aspects of a thing. Both good and bad. Good and bad in itself depends on the perspective. If you go to hell by analysing whats bad about something, then I am on the highway to hell! *cue AC/DC music*
NOOOO! I refuse to belive I'm judged by my thoughts...
It's your will power that holds you back from acting them out, so thats what counts :p
damn... typo
I have to add one more clause - You cannot will to will but you can will to think.
Now there are two aspects here in your discussion,
1) Generation of a bad thought(I am going to assume that there is an already accepted definition of bad and good)
2) Action based on the bad thought.
People can learn to not generate bad thoughts. The thought about smacking the teacher is an impulsive thought and is brought out by your mental conditioning. You can train your mind to not generate impulsive thoughts by giving rational more control over your thought process. Conquering the fear of darkness as you grow older is an example that this is possible. Until your rational is in full control over your thought process you will always have impulsive (and more often bad than good) thoughts, so most people wouldn't be able to help it. Since people inherit a lot of the mental conditioning from the society they live in, origination of a bad thought does not have to be a way of judging a person to be bad or good. A lack of subsequent effort to bring the regularly bad thought process under a rational framework could classify the person as bad though.
Now about acting based on a thought. A person who can think rationally can decide to not act based on your thought because of two sets of reasons.
1) If the action is definable as a bad action he can chose not not do it because of this reason irrespective of the consequences.
2) If the consequences of the actions are detrimental to himself he can chose to not do it.
Deciding to not perform the action because of reason (1) will confirm that the person is good even though the thought had originated in the first place and if reason (2) will confirm the person as bad.
Post a Comment