Everything in this world, every state, is always relative; nothing is absolute. We all have, at one time or another, gotten into arguments with others. This is because we have our own unique opinions and thoughts, which have been shaped by our upbringing and life experience.
Take traditional moral values for example. Those that are customary in Taiwan may not be regarded in the same way in Western countries—some may even go so far as to view them as being inappropriate. Even in Taiwan and China right now, people may not share the same moral standards due to political differences; what is considered good and proper in Taiwan may not be so in China, and vice versa. Moreover, standards change over time. Those recognized as good now may not be recognized the same way in the future.
Let’s look at another example. Buddhists pay homage to buddhas and bodhisattvas, thereby cultivating merits and blessings; but, in some Christian or Jewish people’s eyes, this might be considered the sinful practice of idolatry. Likewise, Buddhists pay respect, bow, and make offerings to members of the sangha. In doing so, they cultivate a humble mind and accumulate merits, but non-Buddhists may not see it this way. So, which view is correct?
According to ancient Chinese ethics, all females should practice the “three kinds of obedience and four types of virtue”: as young girls, they were to obey their fathers; as married women, their husbands; as widows, their sons. In those days, every child had no choice but to obey their parents—that was the reality. But now, the times have changed, the norms have changed, and it seems that parents are more inclined to give way to their children.
In the past, corporal punishment was an acceptable means of disciplining children. Even if a child was injured, no legal consequences would follow. Today, corporal punishment is considered abuse and against the law in many countries. Hitting a child can result in a police report or lead to a court trial.
The ancient Chinese lived in a patriarchal society. Married women had to obey their husbands and respect their every decision. Even if a man lost money gambling and decided to sell his wife to pay off his debt, no one would accuse him of any wrongdoing—the society at that time condoned such behavior. By today’s standards, if a man were to sell his wife, or even just fail to pay child support after a divorce, he would be breaking the law. In the past, husbands may have been considered superior to their wives, yet the opposite may be true today. Clearly, behaviors condoned in the past may no longer be considered good and proper today.
With the change of time and space, our definitions of good and bad also change. Deeds defined as “kind and wholesome” in the past may not be considered the same anymore. Likewise, benevolent acts done today may be viewed in a different light a hundred years from now. This implies that there is no absolute way to define good and bad or right and wrong. Everything in this mundane world appears before us in relative states. Depending on the given time, space, and our level of calmness, what we see will always be different.
Once there was a Buddhist master who had many disciples. Two disciples in particular were forever at each other’s throats, arguing about Buddhist teachings. They always had polarizing views on the difference between characteristic (相 xiang) and nature (性 xing), existence (有 you) and emptiness (空 kong), non-existence (非有 fei-you) and non-emptiness (非空 fei-kong), principle (理 li) and practice (事 shi), and cause (因 yin) and effect (果 guo)—and whether these pairs are dual or non-dual. Neither of the two disciples could be convinced or embrace the other’s understanding of the Dharma.
One day, these two disciples were having a heated argument, to the point where both had gotten very hot under the collar, and neither would budge from their respective standpoints. To resolve the matter, they individually went to seek approval from their master. The older disciple went first and said, “We two are having a conflict over some Buddhist principles.” After explaining each of their positions, he added: “I firmly believe my point is correct. Could the master please give me your view on this matter?” The master replied, “You are exactly right; there is nothing wrong with your viewpoint.” Excitedly, the older disciple went to his younger counterpart and declared: “You see, our master said ‘I am correct.’” The younger disciple, unconvinced, rushed to their master and explained his side of the issue. “My point should be the correct one, not his,” he pleaded. Their master smiled and said, “Your viewpoint is also correct; there is nothing wrong with it.” By this stage, the master’s attendant, who had been privy to these exchanges, had become very curious. He pondered, “Why would the master tell each of them they were correct? Isn’t there only one truth?” So, he put his own question to the master, who responded, “What you asked is also correct.” At that moment, the attendant suddenly realized the true meaning behind his master’s teaching.
In summary, for all of these everyday issues we often argue about, we may never be able to pin down an absolute “right” or “wrong” standpoint. No two people share the exact same view because we all have very different intentions, conceptions, and perspectives. By understanding this truth, we will never dwell upon being “right.” Rather, we will be more open to all viewpoints and opinions, and further embrace them to interact with others in peace and harmony.
Effortless Composure in the Changing World, p.284