Buddhism and morality

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Its a work in progress, the face was just part of my response.
🙂

Oh the endless chores😵

Such a beetle!

Originally posted by vistesd
Excellent question! There are, of course, different stripes of Buddhism (mine—more Zen—for example is a bit different from TerrierJack’s, who is more “traditional” Mahayana). From my view, any Buddhist morality (ethics) arises from that very non-dualism. You are not fundamentally different from me; we both are born out of the same existential mat ...[text shortened]... st compassionate action in this situation?” Again, I have no pretense to infallibility.

It is my understanding that Buddhism teaches suffering to be a personal matter, and reality is constantly flowing, out of your control. Therefore, what point does it make if one acts with or without compassion if in the end suffering is totally dependent on the recipient's choice?

What you said in the quoted post makes sense to me on an intuitive level, but I'm trying to grasp it on more solid grounds. I don't follow how non-dualism leads one to act in compassionate ways.

Originally posted by Beyer
If buddhists percieve reality as it is, unfettered from dualistic thoughts, how can they define morality, which concerns itself with right and wrong, good and bad?

It seems very clear that the Buddha does deal with morality, if we understand that to mean our duties towards other people. Indeed, when he found enlightenment, he chose to teach rather than to disappear into a private heaven. But I can find you quotes from Confucianism or from the Greeks which ask the important question - is it sufficient to act well or is it necessary that we have right thoughts behind those acts? All seem to me to agree that, if we can once arrive at - call it "virtue" - then our actions will naturally be moral, or that immorality springs from a failing in ourselves - either a failing of our thinking or a failing to manage our appetites. I don't think that a desire to catalogue rights and wrongs is a useful path to morality, nor that morality springs from a fear of penalties or a lust for rewards. So I do not accept the premise in your question, that morality concerns itself with right and wrong, good and bad. Biologically, we are a social animals and it is our nature to live with others by mutual cooperation.

Originally posted by black beetle
It is a fine Piece if you can get it😵

You can get it if it could be gotten. 😵

Originally posted by Beyer
It is my understanding that Buddhism teaches suffering to be a personal matter, and reality is constantly flowing, out of your control. Therefore, what point does it make if one acts with or without compassion if in the end suffering is totally dependent on the recipient's choice?

What you said in the quoted post makes sense to me on an intuitive level, but ...[text shortened]... on more solid grounds. I don't follow how non-dualism leads one to act in compassionate ways.

To understand that, Beyer, (and attempt an answer to the twhitehead) you need to appreciate the primal delusion of ego. When the Buddha said that you and I are not different he meant it. I often call our every day delusions "looking for advantage" in analogy with the chess term. Imagine there are no black and white pieces occupying space on a board. What would "advantage" mean then? We all try to grasp it but it does not cohere until we look backwards. Thus my other saying, "morality is always after the fact." You can easily conjure fables to show an admirable path but facing the thicket of this moment where will you turn? Compassion (arising from the realization that there is no struggle to conduct) is your guide. The awareness of suffering is personal. This moment is universal. Take the responsibility for it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You can get it if it could be gotten. 😵

Your mouth is the gate of suffering😵

Originally posted by Beyer
It is my understanding that Buddhism teaches suffering to be a personal matter, and reality is constantly flowing, out of your control. Therefore, what point does it make if one acts with or without compassion if in the end suffering is totally dependent on the recipient's choice?

What you said in the quoted post makes sense to me on an intuitive level, but ...[text shortened]... on more solid grounds. I don't follow how non-dualism leads one to act in compassionate ways.

Makes sense to me. If you accept the premise of non-dualism,ie. that you are connected to everybody and everything, it would naturally follow that you would act compasionately towards the rest of creation, recognizing that it is part of your self.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not convinced that you have explained morality other than to say that it is 'natural', ie you feel compassion. You don't seem to explain why responding to the feeling of compassion is 'right'.

Well, by now you can see that we're all likely to spin this a bit differently: e.g., black beetle, Terrier Jack, Finnegan.

It is just that I tend not to think so much in terms of right and wrong, as in terms of well-being and ill-being. Terrier Jack is correct in that one cannot just leap to Buddhist "morality" without premising that on the whole non-dualist framework (I am more just a non-dualist than a Buddhist, which is why tend more to Zen). Finnegan is correct in that the Buddha chose to teach—and to teach the elimination of suffering (dukkha), rather than to withdraw from human society. (I also agree pretty much with what Finnegan said as a whole—especially in the context of “virtue ethics”. Perhaps that is why I also prefer to speak of “ethics” rather than “morality”.)

This is quite divorced from your question, but— I am quite willing to accept that there are people who are afflicted by a mental aberration that psychiatrists might term “sociopathy”. Perhaps there are people for whom well-being, actual happiness and serenity (and such) can derive from seeing others suffer. I just think that such people represent a very small proportion of humanity: they are out on the extreme tail of any statistical distribution of human attitudes and behavior.

Suffice it to say that the Buddhist ethic of compassion does not derive from any exogenous set of rules or “oughts”. It stems from recognition that one’s own well-being is not divorced from the well-being of others. (I think that was Aristotle’s view as well.)

Originally posted by Beyer
It is my understanding that Buddhism teaches suffering to be a personal matter, and reality is constantly flowing, out of your control. Therefore, what point does it make if one acts with or without compassion if in the end suffering is totally dependent on the recipient's choice?

What you said in the quoted post makes sense to me on an intuitive level, but ...[text shortened]... on more solid grounds. I don't follow how non-dualism leads one to act in compassionate ways.

Well, I think that both Terrier Jack and Finnegan responded well here; better than I probably can.

However, if I can act to relieve the sources of the recipent's suffering--as best as i can--why wouldn't I? In terms of psychological suffering (dukkha is sometimes translated as "anguish" ), I cannot force the recipient to choose not to suffer something like "existential anguish".

Again, these are good questions, Beyer.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Makes sense to me. If you accept the premise of non-dualism,ie. that you are connected to everybody and everything, it would naturally follow that you would act compasionately towards the rest of creation, recognizing that it is part of your self.

Yeah. Again, to be unconcerned with your suffering, I need to see you as sufficiently "other" from myself.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, I think that both Terrier Jack and Finnegan responded well here; better than I probably can.

However, if I can act to relieve the sources of the recipent's suffering--as best as i can--why wouldn't I? In terms of psychological suffering (dukkha is sometimes translated as "anguish" ), I cannot force the recipient to choose not to suffer something like "existential anguish".

Again, these are good questions, Beyer.

Beyer's questions are superb! And it is fine to see how various systems -Zen, Rangtong, Shentong, Dzogchen, Yogacara and Madhyamaka to name a few- deal with morality considering it an empty phenomenon in nirmanakaya by means of collapsing the wavefunction (in the manifested dualist world that is expressed as an alaya vijnana/ karma product), a latent tendency at the level of the modulation of consciousness (sambhogakaya), and a result of pure potentiality at the level of dharmakaya (non-dual). Shroedinger's equation backs up the dharmakaya approach, the wavefunction backs up the sambhogakaya approach and the collapsing of the wavefunction backs up the nirmanakaya approach.

This approach in whole is perfectly expressed in Avatamsaka Sutra with two verses:
"Mind, Budda and sentient beings;
no difference amongst them"

and it is the core concept of countless koans like the following:

The Vietnamese monk Chang Tang asked his teacher Wo Gong Tong:
-- Where is Buddha?
-- Everywhere
-- So what exactly is the Buddha mind?
-- Non-dual, non-diffferentiated, boundless, non-contained
The monk was perplexed and unable to understand although he tried his best for a long time. When Wo Gong Tong teached him the famous Avatamsaka Sutra verses he achieved his satori and he overcame his delusions
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Beyer's questions are superb! And it is fine to see how various systems -Zen, Rangtong, Shentong, Dzogchen, Yogacara and Madhyamaka to name a few- deal with morality considering it an empty phenomenon in nirmanakaya by means of collapsing the wavefunction (in the manifested dualist world that is expressed as an alaya vijnana/ karma product), a latent te ...[text shortened]... the famous Avatamsaka Sutra verses he achieved his satori and he overcame his delusions
😵

Yes. I bow.

Originally posted by vistesd
The natural response from one who has suffered, seeing another being suffer. Based on what one might call "recognition" of similar-self in the other. The whole model is much more one of illness and wellness (rather like a prominent stream in Greek Orthodox Christianity) than right-doing/reward, wrong-doing/punishment.

I don't dispute that the "natural" tendency is to show compassion which is based upon empathy. My only question is why is it natural to have empathy? In short, this is nothing more than the Golden Rule which is to do unto others as you would have them do to you. Right?

If so, why is the Golden Rule the natural rule? I have heard arguements that it is nothing more than a form of evolutionalry self preservation. The thinking is that if I help you, you will then halp me when I need help. However, it seems to me that it could just as easlly go the other way. Why not take advantage of people for your self interests? In fact, we see this today, but the problem is that we all know this to be "wrong". In your case, I suppose they would be deemed unenlightened. So why is that? Why the natrual guilt associated with going against the Golden Rule?

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes. I bow.

Namasteji😵