The Moral Dimension

Simonthepilgrim

Dhamma Dhatu has raised a matter that has been exercising my mind. Perhaps I have misunderstood so I thought a new thread would help clarify.

DD has written rather dismissively of Thich Nhat Hanh's teachings as those of a 'moralist', suggesting (if I understand aright) that such teaching is outwith the basic scope of the Buddha's Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma and the ending of dukkha.

Is this a common view? It is not one that I have come across before in Buddhist discourse. Moral attitudes and ethical behaviour (sila) have always seemed to me to be integral to the moment-by-moment practice, enabling and arising from our steps on the Noble Eighfold Path.

Have I misunderstood?

DhammaDhatu

Simonthepilgrim wrote: »

Have I misunderstood?

dear Simon

You may have misunderstood what I said. Morality is an indispensible part of the path. In MN 6, the Buddha recommended if a practitioner wishes to attain any path fruit, let him/her fulfil the precepts. However, I am saying morality alone is not the path.

With metta

DDhatu

:smilec:

fivebells

Simonthepilgrim wrote: »

Moral attitudes and ethical behaviour (sila) have always seemed to me to be integral to the moment-by-moment practice, enabling and arising from our steps on the Noble Eighfold Path.

They arise from the practice. The practice leads to compassion and an end to self-cherishing. Moral behavior follows naturally from this. For instance, once I came across the PETA video meet your meat after experiencing several weeks' meditation in which compassion was a central theme. I decided to watch the video with an open heart, because I had developed a greater capacity to witness and experience suffering without shutting down. It turned me into a vegetarian. I must admit, I've since regressed: I eat meat when I'm sick, now. But I hope that doesn't get in the way of my point.

Compassion and an end to self-cherishing necessarily follow from awakening, and so anything which gets in their way also gets in the way of awakening. For this reason, moral strictures can be a useful way to set up a friction with the self concepts underlying unethical behavior. But moral strictures are by no means necessary or sufficient for awakening. The worst reprobate can awaken, given the right circumstances. (I wish I could find a recording of that song online. It's so beautiful. I cry every time I sing it.)

DhammaDhatu

fivebells wrote: »

For instance, once I came across the PETA video meet your meat after experiencing several weeks' meditation in which compassion was a central theme. I decided to watch the video with an open heart, because I had developed a greater capacity to witness and experience suffering without shutting down. It turned me into a vegetarian.

The above is the sort of view I am referring to when I use the term "moralist". That is, if the view becomes a doctrine which all are expected to follow.

Whilst I am not all knowing and am mostly vegetarian (I never cook meat at home but may have meat in a sandwich I buy), it may be a necessity for human beings to eat meat. For some human beings living in arid environments, they have no alternative.

Thus, if it is necessary and inevitable that human beings must eat meat and kill other life forms, to moralise about this issue hinders accepting reality. Accepting reality is enlightenment but moralising about emotional ideals is not enlightenment.

Note: I acknowledge becoming vegetarian is an expression of compassion & a beneficial practise for the individual practitioner.

With metta

NamelessRiver

DD has written rather dismissively of Thich Nhat Hanh's teachings as those of a 'moralist', suggesting (if I understand aright) that such teaching is outwith the basic scope of the Buddha's Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma and the ending of dukkha.

Which of his teachings would be thought of as being moralist? Can you exemplify?