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.
SarahTTime ... space ... joySouth Coast, UKVeteran
edited August 2014
The Buddhist understanding is that good and evil are innate, inseparable aspects of life. This view makes it impossible to label a particular individual or group as "good" or "evil." Every single human being is capable of acts of the most noble good, or the basest evil.
Moreover, good and evil in Buddhism are seen not as absolute but relative or "relational." The good or evil of an act is understood in terms of its actual impact on our own lives and the lives of others, not on abstract rules of conduct.
Evil actions are those which are based on a narrow selfishness, the delusion that our lives are fundamentally disconnected from those of others and that we can benefit at their expense. Evil views life as a means to be expended, not an end in itself. Good is that which generates connection between ourselves and others, healing and restoring the bonds among human societies.
...
in the end, the evil over which we must triumph is the impulse toward hatred and destruction that resides in us all. The process of acknowledging, confronting and transforming our own fundamental darkness is the means by which we can strengthen the functioning of good in our lives.
for what it's worth. What I find interesting is the implication, from the title of this thead, that evil can ever be conscionable? Inevitable, perhaps, in any unenlightened society but are there degrees of evil?
@vinlyn said:
One thing that has struck me about this thread is that a number of people are talking about "evil", but I was under the impression that most people on this forum didn't believe in "evil".
Just wondering.
Evil is a construct as any other IMO. So the question could be the same applied to the colour yellow for me.
Yellow is yellow when my fabrications state it is.
True, Muslims are silent about the ISIS atrocities. Same is true for Buddhists about Burma and Sri lanka religious crisis. But for the Palestinian-Israeli issue, there are some demonstrations from the Muslim communities (May include some non-Muslims) in the West. Muslims see themselves as a whole, not as part of the whole universe. Mostly Buddhists don't have that habit. Of course I could be wrong. I am just generalising the issue at the very high abstract level. For example, what about Buddhists who disappeared from the formerly Buddhist majority countries, like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Was there any outcry about them losing their place in the society? For true Buddhists, It might just not be of Buddhist nature to be so attached to a society with strong Buddhist belief.
@vinlyn said:
One thing that has struck me about this thread is that a number of people are talking about "evil", but I was under the impression that most people on this forum didn't believe in "evil".
Just wondering.
From my reading of the Pali Canon, things like 'good' and 'evil' aren't really given any sort of ontological status in the suttas.
For example, in regard to actions, bad actions are deemed 'bad' or 'unskillful' if they lead to to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both. Good actions, on the other hand, are deemed 'good' or 'skillful' if they don't lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61). In other words, these are descriptive labels that are limited to observable qualities and experiences (adjectives), not self-existent entities (nouns).
In the context of actions (kamma), the Pali term kusala, often translated as 'skillful' or 'wholesome,' basically means that which is not conducive to harm and pain, but to benefit and pleasure (AN 2.19). It denotes doing something well, such as in the case of playing a lute (see AN 6.55). The Pali term akusala (composed of the negative prefix a- + kusala), often translated as 'unskillful' or 'unwholesome,' basically means the opposite, or that which is not conducive to benefit and pleasure, but to harm and pain.
The Pali word that's usually translated as 'evil' is papa, which can also be translated as 'bad,' 'demerit' or 'wrong action' depending on the context. It seems to me that papa has a stronger, more negative connotation than akusala, but they're more or less synonymous.
So when looking at the question of evil in Buddhism from this perspective, it can certainly be said to exist in a subjective sense, and I'd say it's an appropriate descriptor for qualities that most people would agree to be extremely shocking and harmful. But as far as I can tell, Buddhism refrains from presenting evil as something which exists independently of us, something 'out there' as it were.
@vinlyn said:
One thing that has struck me about this thread is that a number of people are talking about "evil", but I was under the impression that most people on this forum didn't believe in "evil".
Well, buddhists do not believe in "evil."
But this "evil" is not being created by buddhists.
And in the face of these atrocities, at least me, I'm totally lost for words...
@Vinlyn
I think to say that most folks on this forum don't believe in Evil would first require one to get some agreement from most folks on this forum on how to define it..
My "Hmmmmmmmmm" is related to frequent statements that imply that all Buddhists believe in any particular thing. If Buddhists were that unified in thought, there wouldn't be as many different schools of Buddhism as they are (see, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism). If Buddhists were that unified, we wouldn't have debates in threads go on and on and on, and then often be repeated in more threads over time.
Hmmmmmmm
Would someone stating that they were thinking that most Buddhists here did not believe in evil, qualify as one of those frequent statements about all Buddhist believing in a particular thing?
Talking of 'evil' is a great way of making 'us and them' enemies of the charming but ignorant demons who challenge our Purelands, Holylands and Holidays with the demonic or ignorant. I have devout Moslems in my street who are more benign than militarised Buddhists. I know of militant atheists so angry that their hate bombs are always on a short fuse.
These bad Isis Moslems are as ignorant/evil as ever. More where they came from. When you have been whipped up into a hateful killing frenzy, have no fear, new enemies will be around the corner in an endless news stream.
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
Sadly as is reported in the news today, there are more British Muslims fighting for ISIS than for the Crown.
As a Buddhist, @Frozen_Paratrooper, what is your motivation in making these posts? And why does it matter to you what country these people come from?
As for the use of "evil", it is a word in common usage, in fact the word was used in the title of this thread, so it's a bit late in the discussion to quibble about whether Buddhists believe in it. Whether we believe in it or not, it is clear to all of us what FP meant.
@poptart said:
As for the use of "evil", it is a word in common usage, in fact the word was used in the title of this thread, so it's a bit late in the discussion to quibble about whether Buddhists believe in it. Whether we believe in it or not, it is clear to all of us what FP meant.
The killer's British identity was brought up by someone. I found the fact relevant and depressing.
And I made this post because it is the biggest story in the world right now. And as someone concerned with the advancement of humanity, it is of grave concern that a Caliphate has returned after not existing for almost 100 years. Many other religious figures are speaking about it. Are you suggesting Buddhists whistle past the graveyard and not broach uncomfortable subjects?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
And I made this post because it is the biggest story in the world right now....
>
Not everywhere it isn't... in other places, ALS is constantly at the top of the topic league.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
And I made this post because it is the biggest story in the world right now. And as someone concerned with the advancement of humanity, it is of grave concern that a Caliphate has returned after not existing for almost 100 years. Many other religious figures are speaking about it. Are you suggesting Buddhists whistle past the graveyard and not broach uncomfortable subjects?
No, not at all, I am probably as concerned as you are about NOT whistling past graveyards, but instead engaging in relevant, useful and hopefully perception-changing dialogue.
It's not easy, that's for sure. My first reaction to your most recent post was to go off on a tangent about British Muslims versus the plain, homegrown variety Muslim. It was simply an emotional reaction that caused me to veer past any possibly workable points. I'm still not sure what exactly the point is, but we MUST be able and willing to discuss important things without getting the thread shut down or name calling (I mean this in a general way, in case this sounds too provocative). It's a thicket of provocation to negotiate to even find ourselves face to face with each other . . .
Comments
...
for what it's worth. What I find interesting is the implication, from the title of this thead, that evil can ever be conscionable? Inevitable, perhaps, in any unenlightened society but are there degrees of evil?
"The Buddhist understanding..."
Hmmmmmmmmm
FWIW I didn't hear the word evil used while in uniform. Nor from some of the other nations forces we cross trained with.
Evil is a construct as any other IMO. So the question could be the same applied to the colour yellow for me.
Yellow is yellow when my fabrications state it is.
True, Muslims are silent about the ISIS atrocities. Same is true for Buddhists about Burma and Sri lanka religious crisis. But for the Palestinian-Israeli issue, there are some demonstrations from the Muslim communities (May include some non-Muslims) in the West. Muslims see themselves as a whole, not as part of the whole universe. Mostly Buddhists don't have that habit. Of course I could be wrong. I am just generalising the issue at the very high abstract level. For example, what about Buddhists who disappeared from the formerly Buddhist majority countries, like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Was there any outcry about them losing their place in the society? For true Buddhists, It might just not be of Buddhist nature to be so attached to a society with strong Buddhist belief.
From my reading of the Pali Canon, things like 'good' and 'evil' aren't really given any sort of ontological status in the suttas.
For example, in regard to actions, bad actions are deemed 'bad' or 'unskillful' if they lead to to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both. Good actions, on the other hand, are deemed 'good' or 'skillful' if they don't lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61). In other words, these are descriptive labels that are limited to observable qualities and experiences (adjectives), not self-existent entities (nouns).
In the context of actions (kamma), the Pali term kusala, often translated as 'skillful' or 'wholesome,' basically means that which is not conducive to harm and pain, but to benefit and pleasure (AN 2.19). It denotes doing something well, such as in the case of playing a lute (see AN 6.55). The Pali term akusala (composed of the negative prefix a- + kusala), often translated as 'unskillful' or 'unwholesome,' basically means the opposite, or that which is not conducive to benefit and pleasure, but to harm and pain.
The Pali word that's usually translated as 'evil' is papa, which can also be translated as 'bad,' 'demerit' or 'wrong action' depending on the context. It seems to me that papa has a stronger, more negative connotation than akusala, but they're more or less synonymous.
So when looking at the question of evil in Buddhism from this perspective, it can certainly be said to exist in a subjective sense, and I'd say it's an appropriate descriptor for qualities that most people would agree to be extremely shocking and harmful. But as far as I can tell, Buddhism refrains from presenting evil as something which exists independently of us, something 'out there' as it were.
I wouldn't recommend working as an electrician then.
Well, buddhists do not believe in "evil."
But this "evil" is not being created by buddhists.
And in the face of these atrocities, at least me, I'm totally lost for words...
@Vinlyn
I think to say that most folks on this forum don't believe in Evil would first require one to get some agreement from most folks on this forum on how to define it..
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
You're right. Hmmmm...
When dealing in dualities, there is an evil of sorts.
My "Hmmmmmmmmm" is related to frequent statements that imply that all Buddhists believe in any particular thing. If Buddhists were that unified in thought, there wouldn't be as many different schools of Buddhism as they are (see, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism). If Buddhists were that unified, we wouldn't have debates in threads go on and on and on, and then often be repeated in more threads over time.
A man has gotta know his limitations.
@vinlyn
Hmmmmmmm
Would someone stating that they were thinking that most Buddhists here did not believe in evil, qualify as one of those frequent statements about all Buddhist believing in a particular thing?
Hmmm, saying "most Buddhists here" is a lot different than saying that there is a consistent Buddhist position on much of anything.
to WHOM is it a lot different?
Talking of 'evil' is a great way of making 'us and them' enemies of the charming but ignorant demons who challenge our Purelands, Holylands and Holidays with the demonic or ignorant. I have devout Moslems in my street who are more benign than militarised Buddhists. I know of militant atheists so angry that their hate bombs are always on a short fuse.
These bad Isis Moslems are as ignorant/evil as ever. More where they came from. When you have been whipped up into a hateful killing frenzy, have no fear, new enemies will be around the corner in an endless news stream.
Gotta hate evil right? Wait . . . is this really a job for metta?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis
Ah yes not watching the news (aka 'same old') has its privileges. For everything else there is American Express.
:wave: .
Me. And if you don't agree, that's fine. Different perspectives.
Sadly as is reported in the news today, there are more British Muslims fighting for ISIS than for the Crown.
As a Buddhist, @Frozen_Paratrooper, what is your motivation in making these posts? And why does it matter to you what country these people come from?
As for the use of "evil", it is a word in common usage, in fact the word was used in the title of this thread, so it's a bit late in the discussion to quibble about whether Buddhists believe in it. Whether we believe in it or not, it is clear to all of us what FP meant.
The killer's British identity was brought up by someone. I found the fact relevant and depressing.
And I made this post because it is the biggest story in the world right now. And as someone concerned with the advancement of humanity, it is of grave concern that a Caliphate has returned after not existing for almost 100 years. Many other religious figures are speaking about it. Are you suggesting Buddhists whistle past the graveyard and not broach uncomfortable subjects?
>
Not everywhere it isn't... in other places, ALS is constantly at the top of the topic league.
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
No, not at all, I am probably as concerned as you are about NOT whistling past graveyards, but instead engaging in relevant, useful and hopefully perception-changing dialogue.
It's not easy, that's for sure. My first reaction to your most recent post was to go off on a tangent about British Muslims versus the plain, homegrown variety Muslim. It was simply an emotional reaction that caused me to veer past any possibly workable points. I'm still not sure what exactly the point is, but we MUST be able and willing to discuss important things without getting the thread shut down or name calling (I mean this in a general way, in case this sounds too provocative). It's a thicket of provocation to negotiate to even find ourselves face to face with each other . . .
I havent seen anything from anyone on the thread that is hateful or inflamatory. I think it is a positive and healthy discussion that needs to happen.