I once read a Christian church bulletin that contained the following advice: “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it, or it has been traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Believe whatsoever you find to be conducive to the good, to benefit the welfare of all things.” This precept was attributed to Buddha. Missing from the quote was a reference to the monks to whom Gautama Buddha was speaking, as he trained them to look beyond themselves for enlightenment. It was a statement not intended for neophytes.

Whoever takes as moral direction the varied, usually false interpretations of oriental wisdom is more likely than not unaware that respect for tradition and authority is a given in the Far East. The apparent anomaly in the above quotation regarding what is “preached” and what is “practiced” stems from a tutorial method of “erasing” from the mind its held notions in order to prepare it for fundamental illumination. It must be remembered that, East or West, enlightenment is not in conflict with reason.

The notion that reason can exclude tradition is a bias of the modern West. It does not hold sway in the East, where discipline of the mind and of the eye are elements of basic training in one’s upbringing. Up until modern times, Far Eastern Asians in general did not suffer from the handicap of untrained eyes and minds. As with our liberals and progressives, inattention to such basics of perception breeds shallowness of character.

Determining what is beneficial and what is harmful with an untrained mind and undisciplined eye is a problem of education that has been completely ignored in America, thanks to Progressive Education. The untrained eye and mind does not know whether or not “whatsoever you find” is fool’s gold or the real thing, or is something that is fake and not genuine. The person with this handicap faces the increased possibility that what he finds may not be what he needs and may in fact be harmful.

If one is encouraged to refer entirely to oneself as authority for important decisions, how does that person avoid equating what “he himself has imagined” with an object of desire or wishful thinking? How can he be certain it wasn’t planted there by those who, perhaps clueless as he, need the weight of another number in their ranks to further their desire? And how can he avoid those who play on his weaknesses, his fears, his ego, his temptations to “benefit the welfare of all things”?

How easily “self-autonomy” becomes self-delusion or the will of others! Willfulness without wisdom is a well-known path to destructive behavior. Whatever pearls of wisdom one may naturally possess, whatever inner source of light one may be born with, will not save that person from engaging in acts of cruelty, destruction, even homicide if whatever he thinks becomes whatever he wants during a failure of his moral brakes to work, if he has any. Instead of benefiting himself and others, he generates trouble that may call for remedies not anticipated, up to and including capital punishment.

One need not study savants of morality like Aquinas to understand that action that “benefits the welfare of all things” does not originate in one’s own mind. Let liberals who see no evil in human beings––which settles for them the issue of moral direction––find out how far they can get when they mess with reality.

Church-goers who follow what they “feel” for direction are unaware that knowing what is right by “feel” is learned from good parents, starting from the cradle. They don’t understand that what they want and what they ought are not the same thing. Whoever equates freedom with license and happiness with “self-gratification” is acting out of a dull or missing moral sense that doesn’t consider the welfare of others.

Lack of disciplined behavior in the early years of life prevents one from resisting harmful impulses and temptations. Deficient moral behavior tends to form callous tissue around conscience, over time, blocking its intended function to guide one to the best action. It is essential to the welfare of their children that parents teach them what is right and what is wrong not only in their routine responses to life but also in their moral responses.

The fact that what we ought comes to us by way of tradition bothers only people who have concluded that whatever comes from the past is dead and therefore irrelevant, which necessitates the renewal of “oughts” concerning moral issues. But morality, unlike ethics, is not subject to changing times. Failure to understand this reality blocks the view of the bond between past, present, and future members of a society, a unity that transcends “the times” and brings them together.

This takes morality off the table of opinion and removes it from determination by vote, legislation, executive order and judicial ruling––the reason for the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution of the United States.

Humans are by nature ambivalent regarding the observance of good or evil in their actions. Adherence to moral imperatives that transcend secular and political considerations builds an  inner strength that resists becoming hostage to those in power.

Significantly, in China, India, Japan, and other Asian countries profoundly influenced by Buddha, the people are typically respectful of tradition and morality. Can respect for tradition and morality be smart in those countries and not in ours? Keeping in mind the turbulence in the world today, a quick answer is that our country is falling apart in less than 300 years while China lasted thousands of years.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.