How do you know what is right, acting out the eight fold path?

BeachHouseGuy

,

SherabDorje

4. Right Action

The second ethical principle, right action, involves the body as natural means of expression, as it refers to deeds that involve bodily actions. Unwholesome actions lead to unsound states of mind, while wholesome actions lead to sound states of mind. Again, the principle is explained in terms of abstinence: right action means 1. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. to abstain from sexual misconduct. Positively formulated, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. Further details regarding the concrete meaning of right action can be found in the Precepts.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

Nirvana

Nice, succinct, and right helpful explanation, Sherab!

How can anyone profitably add anything to that?

santhisouk

One should consider the existence of the first noble truth before entering the eightfold path.

thickpaper

I haven't yet found a point at which Right Action diverges from the Golden Rule. Id be curious to see if anyone does know of a point of divergence?

compassionate_warrior

I haven't yet found a point at which Right Action diverges from the Golden Rule. Id be curious to see if anyone does know of a point of divergence?

Perhaps in the definition of "others"--"do unto others as ..." . buddhism defines "others" as all sentient beings, hence, do not kill refers to animals, insects, any sentient being. In Christianity, I think it refers only to humans.

And what about the precept against intoxicants? Wine is part of church ceremony. (I'm not a Christianity buff, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

thickpaper

I haven't yet found a point at which Right Action diverges from the Golden Rule. Id be curious to see if anyone does know of a point of divergence?

Perhaps in the definition of "others"--"do unto others as ..." . buddhism defines "others" as all sentient beings, hence, do not kill refers to animals, insects, any sentient being. In Christianity, I think it refers only to humans.

Hiya

I wasn't talking about the Golden Rule as a christian thing, I think every religion has the Golden Rule.

As a nitpicky point (pun intended) I cant see how insects can be considered sentient:)

And what about the precept against intoxicants? Wine is part of church ceremony. (I'm not a Christianity buff, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

imo the precept against intoxicants is not against "hooch" but anything that poisons ones experience: greed, lies, hate, drink, drugs, TV, sport.... And not as a blanket ban (that's extreme view) but as an incidental issue relevant only to the person in question and the intoxicant in question.

Hate is always an intoxicant, TV and Beer only mostly so;)

compassionate_warrior

WOW! Interesting take on "intoxicants"-I've never heard thatbefore! According to all our discussions on the subject here (and most versions of the precepts), it refers to anything that causes "heedlessness".

We've also had discussions on killing mosquitos, a separate thread on killing flies. Everyone agreed they were included in the 1st precept. HHDL reportedly rescued a beetle from a predator when he was 3.

What Golden Rule were you referring to?

thickpaper

WOW! Interesting take on "intoxicants"-I've never heard thatbefore! According to all our discussions on the subject here (and most versions of the precepts), it refers to anything that causes "heedlessness".

That's the orthodox view - it makes no sense to me. The view I mentioned does, at least to me:)

>>>We've also had discussions on killing mosquitos, a separate thread on killing flies. Everyone agreed they were included in the 1st precept. HHDL reportedly rescued a beetle from a predator when he was 3.

I think destroying life has its bad karmic payload, but insects and fungus are not sentient by by understanding.


>>>What Golden Rule were you referring to?

This one:)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

xx

compassionate_warrior

OK, this is interesting (the reciprocity principle/Golden Rule), especially in light of the intoxicants question. Some people when they get intoxicated become violent. So....there goes the Golden Rule. I think that's why Buddhism ruled out substances that cause "heedlessness".

You don't think bees or beetles experience fear? They certainly experience pain.

thickpaper

Im not sure how you can be

OK, this is interesting (the reciprocity principle/Golden Rule), especially in light of the intoxicants question. Some people when they get intoxicated become violent. So....there goes the Golden Rule. I think that's why Buddhism ruled out substances that cause "heedlessness".

You don't think bees or beetles experience fear? They certainly experience pain.

I am not sure how you can be certain an insect experiences fear or pain.

thickpaper

OK, this is interesting (the reciprocity principle/Golden Rule), especially in light of the intoxicants question. Some people when they get intoxicated become violent. So....there goes the Golden Rule. I think that's why Buddhism ruled out substances that cause "heedlessness".

You don't think bees or beetles experience fear? They certainly experience pain.

I am not sure how you can be certain that they experience at all? It seems reasonable to me that they don't have enough neurons to have any mental world, let alone highly arisen agrigate states like fear.

Sentience is one of the marvels of arrisen life. Why beetles? Why not bacteria?

Xx

compassionate_warrior

I think any creature feels pain. And fear? idk, but do this experiment: get some ants. Sprinkle cinnamon powder or cinnamon oil in a circle around them. Watch their reaction. Looks like fear to me...!

The forum has had this conversation before. I think someone argued that insects don't have the same kind of nervous systems as other animals, so they don't have the brain receptors to feel pain (is there a zoologist in the house?), but the precepts and teachings don't say anything about do not kill, except for insects. So.....meh. :-/ I won't worry about your karma if you don't worry about mine. Deal?

compassionate_warrior

The bacteria question has come up before, I think (or was it a different forum?) Tibetan Medicine has its own type of antibiotic, so...I guess it's ok to kill bacteria. Maybe it's one of those "higher good" issues; you can break a precept if it's for a higher good. So saving a human's life is a higher good over saving the life of the bacteria threatening the human's life. but we can't see bacteria, anyway, so it's hard to save them. Especially in the Buddha's time, they weren't aware of bacteria, I don't think.

Then there was the famous thread on whether or not plants are sentient, the experiments in which some researchers concluded that plants experience fear, etc. etc.

thickpaper

I think any creature feels pain.

This is the crux: the term "feels" is a very different thing to "responds to" or reacts to.

The ants may look scared, but do they have the expeernce that we would if we were surrounded by threats? I think not. Some think maybe. We will probably never know:)