All that's called gold does not glitter.

I was talking to a good friend a week or two ago who espouses a blend of Buddhism and Agnosticism, which since Buddha himself was something of an agnostic, is almost a natural blend.) -Actually, I think he and I ended up talking about the same thing a couple of months ago when we last went out for coffee.
Anyway, we got on the subject of the "Golden Rule" as it's stated by Buddhism and Christianity. He was saying the virtue of the Buddhist formulation is that it's in the negative, (don't do to others what you would not want done to you) so it keeps you from getting into other people's business.) I can't really remember what I said in response, but I was thinking about it tonight on the drive into work, and I've decided that the version spoken by Jesus Christ is the purest form. I think this because the Buddhist version asks us not to do, whereas do unto others as you would have them do unto you makes plain a fact of human existence:

It's impossible to "not" do.

As human beings, all of our actions (and apparent inactions) require a dictate of the will, even in not doing we have made a choice, and to choose is to do. As human beings, even if we're paraplegic (as long as we're conscious) can't stop willing, can't stop doing. And Jesus' words give a more basic and true to fact exhortation than any negative version can.

I think what got me thinking about it is that I'm reading through Aldous Huxley's "Island" which is a utopian novel showcasing the same themes as his other novel "Brave New World" (therapeutic drugs, therapeutic sex, organizing society) but this time with a walloping dollop of mahayana Buddhism thrown in to make the mix glow. It's about an island where everything is happy and everyone's well adjusted due to population control, buddhist philosophy, tantra, open families and happy mushrooms. It's like the U.N. playbook, and a vision of the best the world has to offer. But he really pushes the Buddhist philosophy and really criticizes Christianity in the book, which is what got me thinking about the conversation I'd had with my friend again.

Now, to practice!

On the "Reverse Golden Rule"
I was talking with my good friend Ian at a coffeeshop and we got to talking about "Spiritual" things, sort-of, since Ian's not a dualist or a supernaturalist, especially Buddhism since that's the last conversation we had shared about such things. I asked him about the qualities of buddhism that attracted him, and he brought up the buddhist version of the "Golden Rule" ("Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you", whereas Jesus' 'positive' version reading "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). Ian said he saw it as superior to Jesus' positive version, since it was less invasive and interventionist. He prefers the Buddhist version.

My contention:
The negative version "frees" us from responsibility to exercise compassion. If I am only expected to leave people alone, following this mandate - though easier - would result in selfishness and neglect. And, of course, it's a lot easier to follow.

Example:
The "Good Samaritan". In the parable of the "Good Samaritan", Jesus illustrates what His "Golden Rule" looks like in action. And unlike Buddha's version, it requires action. The Samaritan in the story DOES unto the injured Jew as he would have done unto himself. The Priest and the Levite follow the "negative golden rule" by not interfering. They don't do anything bad to anyone, yet it's obvious how they come up short in neglecting an obvious duty to have compassion on the suffering and helpless.


In defense, a proponent of the "Negative" G.R. might say that they would not want to be neglected by passersby, and therefore would act, but that's using a double negative to result in a positive formulation of the "G.R."

Note Jesus' conclusion: "who was the man's neighbor?...go and do likewise!"
Now, a task much more difficult than definition and defense of Jesus' word - to live it by His Spirit! :-)