At the risk of doing exactly what yesterday's quote asks us not to do, I could not help but ponder... as is my wont. Aurelius suggests that we ought not merely to talk about goodness, but to act it out. The obvious question arose in my mind, however, which it quite likely did in other readers' thoughts.
How, exactly, is a good person defined?
Quickly, I realised that I was on a 'hiding to nothing'. Concepts of goodness are highly personal. If trying to make a complete picture, that is. One idea of how good a person is may differ from another point of view. This will be based on one's previous experience, as well as the values one may hold close.
It might be ventured that there are very few, truly good, people in the world. Indeed, the more the expectation of good is burdened upon any particular personage - mostly related to one's profession in societal terms - the more dire can seem any consequences arising from not conforming to the expected 'goodness'. This plays out in lawsuits against various professionals, but also other groups where grievances manifest due to falling from standards. In a world where public scrutiny is at its most potent, there is a crying need for the improved presence of 'goodness'. At all levels.
Not the giving lip-service to it, but the doing of it.
Yes, we can find pockets of goodness out there in the world. What about right here on this seat, however? The question now must inevitably turn inward to, "how good am I?"
The best measure of this is to have a set of values that are firm and unwavering. There are some which are common to all. The Commandments may have been Biblical, and the first five are definitely for those with spiritual leanings, but the second five serve a humanistic society very well indeed.
In Hinduism, there is to be found the 'shatripuu' - the "gang of six enemies";
kaama (desires which distract one from purpose)
krodha (anger which is misdirected and damaging)
lobha (greed - all aspects, such as material acquisitiveness, gluttony, unsharing and so on)
moha (attachment, which arises from these others; it brings 'ownership' that damages us when the bonds are broken in any way and builds fear in us of that happening)
mada (arrogance - not just egotism, but if we have allowed the first four of these enemies to colour our personality, we become blind to ourselves)
matsarya (jealousy - if we are riddled with desire and greed and attachment, we start to look at others and compare what they have to what we have, and our inner enemies build fuel to sustain themselves and create misery).
Our self-development and actions ought to be about minimising or eliminating these negative tendencies.
A key difference from the Judaic approach and that of Sanatana Dharma is the former 'lays down the law', and there is implied guilt for straying from the commandments. The latter, however, invites the citizen to self-assess and seek to self-correct.
By 'breaking in' the shatripuu within us, we can reasonably expect to live and work within society without causing too much harm or stepping on too many toes. While the Commandments provide a framework for the broader community, the shatripuu offers a much more personal, individual measure that we can use to hold ourselves up to the mirror of 'goodness'.
It will be easy to say 'I am not an angry person...I don't get jealous...' and so on. However, if one analyses any situation where we feel discomfort or emotional disturbance to any degree, it can be proven that one or more of these 'enemies' has taken control for that moment. This is the human condition. Bear in mind that there are opposites to these things which can cause an equal amount of disturbance.
A total lack of desire results in ambivalence, laziness, no moral stance.
A total lack of anger (which there can never be, so it is therefore suppressed) may well result in depression.
A total lack of greed can result in excessive giving or an inability to receive what is rightfully ours.
A total lack of attachment... is almost impossible for any human being and to deny attachment is to set up potential damage to our wellbeing.
A total lack of arrogance is probably seen as desirable; however, one does not need to become a doormat either!
A total lack of jealousy - well maybe this one is wholly positive!!!
Balance is the key. We require a small amount of each of these traits. The danger lurks in allowing any (or all) of them to control us, rather than us leveraging them to better ourselves and further the cause of our family, community and society.
So yes, Marcus Aurelius, it is possible to go about 'being good', but not before one has first read and discussed the nature of goodness and built a concept upon which to hang one's actions.
How, exactly, is a good person defined?
Quickly, I realised that I was on a 'hiding to nothing'. Concepts of goodness are highly personal. If trying to make a complete picture, that is. One idea of how good a person is may differ from another point of view. This will be based on one's previous experience, as well as the values one may hold close.
It might be ventured that there are very few, truly good, people in the world. Indeed, the more the expectation of good is burdened upon any particular personage - mostly related to one's profession in societal terms - the more dire can seem any consequences arising from not conforming to the expected 'goodness'. This plays out in lawsuits against various professionals, but also other groups where grievances manifest due to falling from standards. In a world where public scrutiny is at its most potent, there is a crying need for the improved presence of 'goodness'. At all levels.
Not the giving lip-service to it, but the doing of it.Yes, we can find pockets of goodness out there in the world. What about right here on this seat, however? The question now must inevitably turn inward to, "how good am I?"
The best measure of this is to have a set of values that are firm and unwavering. There are some which are common to all. The Commandments may have been Biblical, and the first five are definitely for those with spiritual leanings, but the second five serve a humanistic society very well indeed.
In Hinduism, there is to be found the 'shatripuu' - the "gang of six enemies";
kaama (desires which distract one from purpose)
krodha (anger which is misdirected and damaging)
lobha (greed - all aspects, such as material acquisitiveness, gluttony, unsharing and so on)
moha (attachment, which arises from these others; it brings 'ownership' that damages us when the bonds are broken in any way and builds fear in us of that happening)
mada (arrogance - not just egotism, but if we have allowed the first four of these enemies to colour our personality, we become blind to ourselves)
matsarya (jealousy - if we are riddled with desire and greed and attachment, we start to look at others and compare what they have to what we have, and our inner enemies build fuel to sustain themselves and create misery).
Our self-development and actions ought to be about minimising or eliminating these negative tendencies.
A key difference from the Judaic approach and that of Sanatana Dharma is the former 'lays down the law', and there is implied guilt for straying from the commandments. The latter, however, invites the citizen to self-assess and seek to self-correct.
By 'breaking in' the shatripuu within us, we can reasonably expect to live and work within society without causing too much harm or stepping on too many toes. While the Commandments provide a framework for the broader community, the shatripuu offers a much more personal, individual measure that we can use to hold ourselves up to the mirror of 'goodness'.
It will be easy to say 'I am not an angry person...I don't get jealous...' and so on. However, if one analyses any situation where we feel discomfort or emotional disturbance to any degree, it can be proven that one or more of these 'enemies' has taken control for that moment. This is the human condition. Bear in mind that there are opposites to these things which can cause an equal amount of disturbance.
A total lack of desire results in ambivalence, laziness, no moral stance.
A total lack of anger (which there can never be, so it is therefore suppressed) may well result in depression.
A total lack of greed can result in excessive giving or an inability to receive what is rightfully ours.
A total lack of attachment... is almost impossible for any human being and to deny attachment is to set up potential damage to our wellbeing.
A total lack of arrogance is probably seen as desirable; however, one does not need to become a doormat either!
A total lack of jealousy - well maybe this one is wholly positive!!!
Balance is the key. We require a small amount of each of these traits. The danger lurks in allowing any (or all) of them to control us, rather than us leveraging them to better ourselves and further the cause of our family, community and society.
So yes, Marcus Aurelius, it is possible to go about 'being good', but not before one has first read and discussed the nature of goodness and built a concept upon which to hang one's actions.
YaYa Thank you very much for the time and thought you have put into this post. I especially liked the
ReplyDelete'a total lack of' sentences.
Hugs HiC
Yes, the 'define a 'good person' question immediately struck me too.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Gail.
this sentence 'lays down the law', and there is implied guilt for straying from the commandments. My dad was a 10 commandment and things related to them. there was good and evil and black and white and we MUST fight the evil and seek the good. that effects how I feel about seeking goodness even though I have changed my thoughts on some things.
ReplyDeleteto me a person going about doing good, is someone who cares about others and not just themselves, they want to help others, not drag them down. that is of course the simple description.. my personal opinion is there is a lot of goodness in our world but a lot more bad than good.
Hari OM
DeleteThank you for engaging with this post; ultimately all change in the world begins with the change within an individual. Not just talking it, but being it. In spite of everything, I disagree that there is more bad than good - it is just that the modern world of communications brings to us only the bad news (99% of the time) and the human mind is ever keen to settle on the negative rather than the positive. Will be building on this theme over the next few weeks! Yxx
Very well said:)
ReplyDeleteYou are so right in that everyone's idea of goodness is not always the same...sometimes I think 'First do no harm' is a good rule to start with in trying to do good. I think we hear about the bad more, but every day I am out and about, I run into goodness. Kind cashiers, thoughtful, helpful young people. Of course, I live in a really small town and we are so familiar with the cashiers, etc. And our local hardware store gave us his home phone when we were having troubles with plumbing...said if he was home he would come let us in to get what we needed. We have went and got rental equipment and paid nothing at the time...no paperwork, nothing. He trusted us to pay it when we got done. The kids at the local grocery are so good to offer to help the older customers get their groceries to their car.
ReplyDeleteHari OM
DeleteSo true, Rose; we are bombarded through media with the negative, but really, in day-to-day life, much goodness prevails. Thank you for joining in the conversation! Yxx
This is interesting and thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteI often hear my mother in the back of my mind, nagging me to do better in specific situations. I have to balance that, as you say. Most of us are doing the best we can at the time. There are far more good people than bad.
Some stupid driver passed cars stopped in front of our house and killed one of the chicks crossing the highway. I keep getting angry about it, but then I remind myself that two good men, JB and a neighbour, carried the little thing up to our house. I am fixated on that big man, 6' something, 250 lbs, cuddling the poor concussed turkey chick with JB beside him, bringing it to our home for help.
Mr. Rogers said, look for the helpers.