A Moral Life Revisited

  One of the things I am reading about in my class on Buddhist foundations: Buddha was at one time allegedly tempted by Mara (the god of delusion or the sensory world) into living a moral life. Yes, you read it correctly: living morally can be a temptation! But how, and in what context? Many Western philosophies (such as Kant's, to use an example) uphold the moral as the very high pinnacle of civilized living. They even equate moral with rational, meaning that the moral life is the highest achievement of a rational life. In this contact, Kant would probably argue that one can never be tempted into being moral, because moral life entails a subjugation of personal will to a life of duty. Thus, the moral life is precisely equivalent to a surrender to a higher principle.
    But Buddhism has a different narrative, because in many of its stories, moral gestures end up becoming distractions from the path. Kings who build complex buildings for merit are often cut down by bodhisattvas, because they are trying to build these edifices for their own sake, rather than seeing the building as part of a selfless life. In this way, living morally entails that one is trying to be the moral self, but this in turn detracts a person from the more serious concern of questioning (and subverting) this very self who is the subject of moral agency and doing. I believe that Kierkegaard has a similar kind of idea in his concept of Stages in Life's Way: while the ethical refers to an impersonal decision to act morally and subdue passion, the eternal mode of being goes beyond the ethical by acknowledging that the moral self is an obstacle to knowing and trusting God. If I am only taking myself to be the end result of a moral life (a 'better me'), this very self is actually getting in the way of a genuine relationship with God. This latter can only be referred to as a contemplative 'seeing' beyond the self, through unity with God.
     Moral life is perhaps also tempting because morals assume fixed ends that can be fulfilled to a certain extent. But going beyond morality entails the possibility that nothing will ever be finished. To go back to Kierkegaard: no human could possibly ever earn the love that God gives them, let alone accumulate merit worthy of comparison with others. From the perspective of God, all humans are so deeply mired in sin that it would be absurd to compare one person to another. I think Buddhism has a similar understanding in its concept of non-discriminatory awareness. By not making concrete distinctions between 'me', 'mine' and 'yours', I stop trying to rack up 'moral points' for myself. Instead, my practice becomes a glimpse into a mind which has no fixed sense of self. And this is where one can connect with compassion, because there is no longer this comparison going on, and the release from the burden of comparison can truly help a person be compassionate toward others. I no longer feel "I am special" compared to others, and don't deify someone else as 'better' than me.