Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Some questions respecting Buddhist ethics.
Is the underlying principle behind all Buddhist precepts non-harm?
Are Buddhist ethics liberal and progressive?
Are Buddhist ethics liberal and progressive?
0
Comments
That all depends on your definitions of liberal and progressive. Personally, I would call Buddhist ethics the ultimate pragmatic code, but that's a personal viewpoint.
Not just non-harm but non greed and non deception; so the 3 poisons.
Or in a more positive vein, promoting the opposites of the defilements: peace, truth and kindness:)
namaste
I though the three poisons were anger , hate and delusion.
I thought deception and greed were causes of harm; thats why I ask if non-harm is the underlying principle.
Please define "liberal" and "progressive" for the sake of this discussion.
In Mahayana, the three poisons are ignorance, attachment, and craving.
To be honest I am not sure, and I think they probably can mean different things. But I was reading in a book that one of the appeals of Buddhism is that there is a perception that Buddhist ethics are liberal and progressive.
Perhaps by liberal they mean a more tolerant attitude to things? I don't know.
Do Mahayana have different three poisons to other sects of Buddhism?
Greed(unkindess), hate(aversion) and delusion(deception) are the three defilements, at least as I know them:)
In order to be able to answer questions, we need to be able to understand the questions.
If you do a Google search for "three poisons wikipedia", you should find an article that explains the various negative influences in the different traditions.
Do you feel that discerning ten (subsets of?) defilements is more effective in practice than three? Or is the distinction more a scholarly concern. Thanks