Skip to main content

Learning to be Intolerant


Acceptance is a big deal in Buddhist circles.  We're told that we must accept suffering, accept mistreatment, accept the opinions of others.

We're told to be like the ocean, which accepts all things and rejects nothing.  Much of this thinking is rooted in a slavish dependence on the absolute.  

This is especially true in Zen circles where the conventional world is painted as less than, and we're told all things are resolved in the unborn mind.

This puts practitioners in a tough spot because right and wrong clearly exist.  2+2 = 4, not 5.  But if we care too deeply for the truth, if we "have preferences" then that's seen as proof of an unenlightened mind.

I struggled with this contradiction for many years, wondering how I was supposed to practice Buddhism without practicing Buddhism.

Then I studied the life and teachings of the historical Buddha, putting aside the words of Western "masters", and I noticed something interesting.

The Buddha never taught acceptance.

Quite the opposite, he cut the world in half.  He named each tenet of the Noble Eightfold Path as "right" (e.g. right speech, right action, right livelihood, etc.) and contrasted them with wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, etc.

Morality was important to Buddha; the end of suffering was important to Buddha; acceptance... not so much.  If we are to live in this world, if we are to find a way out of suffering, we must stop practicing acceptance.

We must hold tightly to the Noble Eightfold Path and turn our back on things that aren't in keeping with it.  More than that, we must judge others by that same standard. 

Like the Buddha, we must learn to be intolerant.

For me, this lesson is reinforced each time I do work on my homestead.  When I first moved to this property, I had a "live and let live" relationship with the plant life.  But I learned that refusing to pull weeds from my garden beds stopped the vegetables from growing.

I tried to let nature take over in areas that couldn't be seen from the road.  But my refusal to clear brush allowed poison ivy to choke out medicinal plants.

So, I did research. I learned what plants to tolerate and what plants to avoid.

Then I bought a scythe, and I became death, the destroyer of worlds.  I swung my blade fearlessly and without mercy.  I cleared large swathes of land; being selective in what plants I allowed to see another day.

The effect was immediate.  Tangled vines were replaced with fruit trees and noxious weeds were replaced with flowers.   

In my vegetable garden, the crops grew rapidly towards the sun.  Unwanted plants that competed with them were either yanked out by the roots or buried in piles of mulch.

My intolerance allowed my land to flourish.

Similarly, when we are intolerant of immoral behavior, our lives begin to flourish.  This doesn't mean that we never make mistakes.  There will always be weeds in the garden.  

However, it does mean that we take note of our missteps, and we strive to do better in the future.  Also, we view the actions of others through the lens of the Noble Eightfold Path.  

If their behavior is not in-keeping with the Dharma, it is wise to separate from them.  If separation isn't possible, we must limit our interactions; ensuring that we aren't harmed by their bad behavior.

In the end, our lives function like a garden.  We must learn when and how to be intolerant for our garden to grow.

Namu Amida Butsu

If you enjoyed this essay, you'll love my books!



Comments

  1. Perhaps “tolerance” and “acceptance” are two different things. Thich Nhat Hahn once told me, “If you can completely accept this present moment, then you are enlightened.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. I look at acceptance as "this is the way things are." We often suffer because we don't truly accept things as they are: "I can't believe they did that!" That does not mean you don't pull the weeds. It means you fully accept that they are there and can cause problems if left untouched. And then use that discriminating wisdom to act or not. Acceptance does not mean passive, lazy really, do-nothingness.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Buddha is also quoted as having said: do not consider the deeds of others, things done or left undone by others; consider only what by oneself has been done or left undone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sensei Alex Kakuyo's blog post discusses the concept of intolerance from a Buddhist perspective. He argues that the historical Buddha emphasized the importance of distinguishing right from wrong, as illustrated by the Noble Eightfold Path. Kakuyo likens this to gardening, where selective removal of weeds allows desired plants to thrive. Similarly, he advocates for moral discernment and the exclusion of harmful influences to foster personal growth and well-being.

    Regards,
    Antique Buddhas
    www.buddha-statues.info

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good old fashioned common sense that can resonate with people of goodwill in any faith or none.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When you are able to rest in the nature of mind, rather than caught up in the contents of mind, and thinking they are solid and real, and there's a you and a world - then you are able to act with wisdom and compassion. In a way you are ultimately tolerant - all that arises and ceases in mind is just what it is - and it will pass. And all of it is empty.

    This doesn't mean that you don't act though. The acting comes out of your true nature. What a blessed thing that is.

    May all beings be free of suffering.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A good post to revisit this week, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Perhaps a helpful approach to this apparent difficulty is to see the two levels of aspects of the teaching. This is especially apparent in Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings. There is certainly the relative or conventional level - if you look at what appears to arise and cease in your experience then it is clear that there is not randomness here - there is conditionality. This is the world of karma. It does matter what you do, for sure. And in this relative world there appear to be many dualisms. This vs that. That's how things appear to be.

    But, and it's a big but - the goal of the spiritual life is to recognise big mind, no-mind, liberated mind, buddha nature - how ever you wish to put this. When you recognise the naked awareness which is utterly empty, yet entirely lucid, you see that there is no this or that. No good or bad. No dualisms whatsoever. This naked awareness is utterly pristine and pure, and beyond time and beyond space. So when the teachings are talking of this unborn mind you will not find these dualisms there.

    And then most amazing of all - when you really see these apparent arisings and ceasings from that unborn mind, then you see that they are every bit as empty as that luminous awareness itself. They are not different from it. They are nondual with it. All that appears to arise and cease is itself empty. Simply the magical expression, the illusory dance of appearances.

    Empty yet full. Not one or other.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment