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.
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
@seeker242 said:
The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
Interesting. So morality isn't objective in your opinion, and ethics are relative? Killing is only immoral because people agree it is so? Are you suggesting there's no deeper level in which killing is immoral? That killing is ok if people simply agree it's ok?
as to question 1:
If morality/ethics were objective then there would be scientific evidence and no ethics committees would be required.
as to question 2:
If killing were absolutely and objectively immoral and that immorality independent of conventions there would be no wars and corresponding industries and politics, policemen had no guns, there would be no death penalty, etc etc etc
as to question 3:
Please specify 'deeper level'.
as to question 4:
As far as the world's view is concerned, obviously yes.
As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
I see. Well, I certainly can't expect someone to act morally or with any sense of shared responsibility if they do not believe either morality or moral responsibilities exist. And if there is no deeper level to morality, then I suppose kamma is meaningless and non-existent as well, and one should not fear the consequences of breaking any of the precepts from your POV except in terms of social punishment, since that is the only thing you seem to acknowledge the reality of. (Do the deed, just don't get caught!) Perhaps it's for the best that you're beyond the world and "not living in society," as you say.
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
This individual may understand - not necessarily does understand - in an inconceivable way the hidden meaning of actions/karma and its effects and even if it does not understand it but follows the Buddhas ethical guidelines based on pure faith in Buddha, this individual will reap corresponding benefit.
Thus is the extraordinary sphere of Buddha Dharma that only few individuals do meet and even fewer individuals stay with in the live they meet it.
How all this happens is utterly inconceivable therefore one speaks of actions/karma and its effects and of various degrees of obscurations.
This reply is utterly inconceivable to me. Care to dumb it down for a mere worldling such as myself?
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
@seeker242 said:
The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
Interesting. So morality isn't objective in your opinion, and ethics are relative? Killing is only immoral because people agree it is so? Are you suggesting there's no deeper level in which killing is immoral? That killing is ok if people simply agree it's ok?
as to question 1:
If morality/ethics were objective then there would be scientific evidence and no ethics committees would be required.
as to question 2:
If killing were absolutely and objectively immoral and that immorality independent of conventions there would be no wars and corresponding industries and politics, policemen had no guns, there would be no death penalty, etc etc etc
as to question 3:
Please specify 'deeper level'.
as to question 4:
As far as the world's view is concerned, obviously yes.
As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
I see. Well, I certainly can't expect someone to act morally or with any sense of shared responsibility if they do not believe either morality or moral responsibilities exist. And if there is no deeper level to morality, then I suppose kamma is meaningless and non-existent as well, and one should not fear the consequences of breaking any of the precepts from your POV except in terms of social punishment, since that is the only thing you seem to acknowledge the reality of. (Do the deed, just don't get caught!) Perhaps it's for the best that you're beyond the world and "not living in society," as you say.
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
This individual may understand - not necessarily does understand - in an inconceivable way the hidden meaning of actions/karma and its effects and even if it does not understand it but follows the Buddhas ethical guidelines based on pure faith in Buddha, this individual will reap corresponding benefit.
Thus is the extraordinary sphere of Buddha Dharma that only few individuals do meet and even fewer individuals stay with in the live they meet it.
How all this happens is utterly inconceivable therefore one speaks of actions/karma and its effects and of various degrees of obscurations.
This reply is utterly inconceivable to me. Care to dumb it down for a mere worldling such as myself?
Dear Dharma friend Jason,
if I quoted from tantric texts that would have been more authentic than quoting from e.g. the Pali canon to show that your assessment isn't appropriate. But quoting from the Pali canon would have been totally inauthentic.
Also speaking like 'it is this but not that' would have been totally inauthentic and evoke the impression as if I would be making truth claims.
Therefore I used the words I used ... as a compromise so to say. If you cannot deal with them or are unwilling to just take them as a 'soft negation of your reply' as far as my attitude is concerned.
I guess the Pali canon is your source, right? If so be informed that I do not negate/reject it.
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
@seeker242 said:
The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
Interesting. So morality isn't objective in your opinion, and ethics are relative? Killing is only immoral because people agree it is so? Are you suggesting there's no deeper level in which killing is immoral? That killing is ok if people simply agree it's ok?
as to question 1:
If morality/ethics were objective then there would be scientific evidence and no ethics committees would be required.
as to question 2:
If killing were absolutely and objectively immoral and that immorality independent of conventions there would be no wars and corresponding industries and politics, policemen had no guns, there would be no death penalty, etc etc etc
as to question 3:
Please specify 'deeper level'.
as to question 4:
As far as the world's view is concerned, obviously yes.
As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
I see. Well, I certainly can't expect someone to act morally or with any sense of shared responsibility if they do not believe either morality or moral responsibilities exist. And if there is no deeper level to morality, then I suppose kamma is meaningless and non-existent as well, and one should not fear the consequences of breaking any of the precepts from your POV except in terms of social punishment, since that is the only thing you seem to acknowledge the reality of. (Do the deed, just don't get caught!) Perhaps it's for the best that you're beyond the world and "not living in society," as you say.
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
This individual may understand - not necessarily does understand - in an inconceivable way the hidden meaning of actions/karma and its effects and even if it does not understand it but follows the Buddhas ethical guidelines based on pure faith in Buddha, this individual will reap corresponding benefit.
Thus is the extraordinary sphere of Buddha Dharma that only few individuals do meet and even fewer individuals stay with in the live they meet it.
How all this happens is utterly inconceivable therefore one speaks of actions/karma and its effects and of various degrees of obscurations.
This reply is utterly inconceivable to me. Care to dumb it down for a mere worldling such as myself?
Dear Dharma friend Jason,
if I quoted from tantric texts that would have been more authentic than quoting from e.g. the Pali canon to show that your assessment isn't appropriate. But quoting from the Pali canon would have been totally inauthentic.
Also speaking like 'it is this but not that' would have been totally inauthentic and evoke the impression as if I would be making truth claims.
Therefore I used the words I used ... as a compromise so to say. If you cannot deal with them or are unwilling to just take them as a 'soft negation of your reply' as far as my attitude is concerned.
I guess the Pali canon is your source, right? If so be informed that I do not negate/reject it.
I'm not unwilling. I just literally have no idea what you're trying to say, because it seems to me that you're not really saying anything.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@herbie said: As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
Don't be ridiculous.
Of course you're part of it.
If you eat and drink as a result of other people's work, and you travel as a result of the efforts of others, and you reside in a location that is there due to the constructive skills of other, of course you're part of it.
You merely choose to separate yourself and elevate yourself to a position of detachment, but that is unrealistic.
You are not yet of the adequately Enlightened Mind-set to consider yourself 'In this world but not of it'.
For that matter, neither am I, but I would never claim to be.
You're in Samsara just like the rest of us.
By asserting yourself as apart from the world, you ensnare yourself even deeper.
@herbie said:
If you don't accept that responsibilities of an individual can only arise through contracts that the individual in question has consciously and voluntarily signed or though the autonomous reasoning of an individual that entails the conclusion 'I will take over this responsibility' but instead keep on asserting given moral responsibilities that every individual must take over then you are preaching a moralist dictatorship.
I would not go so far as saying that. For example, is there a moral responsibility to not murder other people? If one says yes, is that a moral dictatorship? I don't think so.
conventional ethics/morality is one thing and asserting a given responsibility is another thing.
there is no given responsibility to not murder other people. A collective of individuals has set up rules to regulate living together to avoid anarchy and foster peace among people. This happens either through mere legislation or through religion or both.
Individuals comply with these rules because they have been conditioned through religion or because they fear social punishment or because they have gained subjective insight that it's the best thing to live accordingly.
@seeker242 said:
The Buddha himself taught that this is a moral responsibility and if you don't follow it, then you are behaving immorally. If one wants to actually lead a moral life, as all Buddhists should, then some responsibilities, like not murdering, are a given as that is the very definition of morality to begin with. To say there are none at all, is not in accordance with Buddhist teaching.
yes, as I said religion may be the source of moral rules. These rules are conditioned but not given.
Interesting. So morality isn't objective in your opinion, and ethics are relative? Killing is only immoral because people agree it is so? Are you suggesting there's no deeper level in which killing is immoral? That killing is ok if people simply agree it's ok?
as to question 1:
If morality/ethics were objective then there would be scientific evidence and no ethics committees would be required.
as to question 2:
If killing were absolutely and objectively immoral and that immorality independent of conventions there would be no wars and corresponding industries and politics, policemen had no guns, there would be no death penalty, etc etc etc
as to question 3:
Please specify 'deeper level'.
as to question 4:
As far as the world's view is concerned, obviously yes.
As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
I see. Well, I certainly can't expect someone to act morally or with any sense of shared responsibility if they do not believe either morality or moral responsibilities exist. And if there is no deeper level to morality, then I suppose kamma is meaningless and non-existent as well, and one should not fear the consequences of breaking any of the precepts from your POV except in terms of social punishment, since that is the only thing you seem to acknowledge the reality of. (Do the deed, just don't get caught!) Perhaps it's for the best that you're beyond the world and "not living in society," as you say.
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
This individual may understand - not necessarily does understand - in an inconceivable way the hidden meaning of actions/karma and its effects and even if it does not understand it but follows the Buddhas ethical guidelines based on pure faith in Buddha, this individual will reap corresponding benefit.
Thus is the extraordinary sphere of Buddha Dharma that only few individuals do meet and even fewer individuals stay with in the live they meet it.
How all this happens is utterly inconceivable therefore one speaks of actions/karma and its effects and of various degrees of obscurations.
This reply is utterly inconceivable to me. Care to dumb it down for a mere worldling such as myself?
Dear Dharma friend Jason,
if I quoted from tantric texts that would have been more authentic than quoting from e.g. the Pali canon to show that your assessment isn't appropriate. But quoting from the Pali canon would have been totally inauthentic.
Also speaking like 'it is this but not that' would have been totally inauthentic and evoke the impression as if I would be making truth claims.
Therefore I used the words I used ... as a compromise so to say. If you cannot deal with them or are unwilling to just take them as a 'soft negation of your reply' as far as my attitude is concerned.
I guess the Pali canon is your source, right? If so be informed that I do not negate/reject it.
I'm not unwilling. I just literally have no idea what you're trying to say, because it seems to me that you're not really saying anything.
Ok. Now in clear words: you are setting up your own dharma of morality because you obviously think you know better than Buddha. And not only that you've fallen off from Buddha's vehicle and go your way to experience the consequences you also try to persuade others to follow you on your non-Dharma path and even worse you tell them they have the obligation to follow you on your wrong path.
I do not know better than Buddha. I do not know anything better. How could I claim to know anything better than Buddha when still no free from obscurations? But my faith in Buddha is imperturbable. Therefore I have written:
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
@herbie said: As far as my assessment is concerned, since I do not agree with the world (and thus am not part of it), why should my assessment of anything whatsoever necessarily depend on worldly agreements?
Don't be ridiculous.
Of course you're part of it.
If you eat and drink as a result of other people's work, and you travel as a result of the efforts of others, and you reside in a location that is there due to the constructive skills of other, of course you're part of it.
You merely choose to separate yourself and elevate yourself to a position of detachment, but that is unrealistic.
You are not yet of the adequately Enlightened Mind-set to consider yourself 'In this world but not of it'.
For that matter, neither am I, but I would never claim to be.
You're in Samsara just like the rest of us.
By asserting yourself as apart from the world, you ensnare yourself even deeper.
Why fight it?
There is no fight. Buddha has compassionately revealed. Everything is perfect.
If I expounded why this is so through using rational analytical language you were the first to censure me for my style of linguistic expression.
Therefore I can only refer you to those teachings of the Buddha that you are rejecting but others are following: the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna which was further elucidated by e.g. Aśvaghosa, Jñānavajra, Advayavajra, Vajrapāṅi, Chandrakirti and Rongzompa.
Having said that there is not the slightest contradiction with the Buddha's teachings in the Pali canon that you are following. We are all in the same boat! It is just that this boat apppears different to different individuals.
"Different strokes for different folks" of course applies in the context of the variety of Buddha Dharma.
However if there arises deviation from even that variety the matter is more complex:
"Different strokes for different folks" still applies for the individual that deviates. Why? If an individual deviates then Buddha nature is about to teach that individual the consequences of that deviation.
However if the deviating individual tries to persuade others to follow her/him on his wrong path then there will arise in one or the other of those on the right path a voice that reveals the deviation. And this voice again is a manifestation of the same Buddha nature.
Why is this? It is because Buddha nature teaches according to the lineage and maturity of beings and it goes so far that it teaches even non-Dharma to teach beings a lesson and to mature them to the capacity to discern the right path.
@herbie said:
Ok. Now in clear words: you are setting up your own dharma of morality because you obviously think you know better than Buddha. And not only that you've fallen off from Buddha's vehicle and go your way to experience the consequences you also try to persuade others to follow you on your non-Dharma path and even worse you tell them they have the obligation to follow you on your wrong path.
I do not know better than Buddha. I do not know anything better. How could I claim to know anything better than Buddha when still no free from obscurations? But my faith in Buddha is imperturbable. Therefore I have written:
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
Interesting. You see me as a Buddhist heretic leading people down my wicked non-Buddhist path because I've dared to suggest that we have a moral responsibility towards other people in the world? I'm curious, though, how does this go against what the Buddha taught? Does it go against the five precepts? Does it go against the teachings on the ten wholesome actions? Does it go against the brahmaviharas? Does it go against the advice to Sigalaka? Is there some tantric teaching that this violates? Do you actually think it's unBuddhist for people to feel a moral responsibility for others and the society they live in, or to try and make the world a better place?
If that's the case, then I guess I'm indeed on the wrong path and glad of it. Your Buddhism seems to see nothing but meaninglessness in, and disgust for, society. I admit that I do not ascribe to that kind of Buddhism. My kind of Buddhism, while at the beginning was focused on renunciation and turning my back on a world I saw as 'deceiving,' eventually opened my heart to the needs and wants and suffering of others. As a result, I want them to flourish as much as I want myself to flourish. And beyond that, it has helped to open my eyes to my own duty to others in this regard through a moral care and concern that has developed from following the precepts and from developing mental states of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. I can't say that this is what the Buddha wanted or taught, and I don't claim that he did. All I can say is that my practice has led me here, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
We are social creatures living in a socially-created world. We depend upon one another to survive and to flourish. And from that point of view, I do think we have a moral responsibility towards others and to be engaged in what happens in that world, as unBuddhist as that sounds.
@herbie, let me ask you the same question I asked seeker: Say you're walking down the road and you see someone choking. Nobody else is around and they'll die if you don't help. Do you have a responsibility to help? If not, why? and would that be in line with the Dhamma?
"Different strokes for different folks" of course applies in the context of the variety of Buddha Dharma.
That's Karma for ya...
However if there arises deviation from even that variety the matter is more complex:
"Different strokes for different folks" still applies for the individual that deviates. Why? If an individual deviates then Buddha nature is about to teach that individual the consequences of that deviation.
Again...That's Karma for ya....
However if the deviating individual tries to persuade others to follow her/him on his wrong path then there will arise in one or the other of those on the right path a voice that reveals the deviation. And this voice again is a manifestation of the same Buddha nature.
Right wrong...It's all relative in the scheme of things...again it's a matter of karma...
Why is this? It is because Buddha nature teaches according to the lineage and maturity of beings and it goes so far that it teaches even non-Dharma to teach beings a lesson and to mature them to the capacity to discern the right path.
The Dharma is the Dharma @herbie ...and journeying along the path requires skillful means, which ( according to one's karmic circumstances ) are acquired/accessed along the way...
Those who see Dependent Origination sees the Dharma Those who see the Dharma see Dependent Origination
Again ...that's karma for ya...
When it comes to the mind, the ego is in the habit of playing tricks on its so-called self, (AKA mind games) in order to reign supreme....which in the ultimate sense, is just an illusion...be it a very persistent one....
Samsara=Mind turned outward lost in its own projection...
Nirvana = Mind turned inwards recognizing its true nature...
May you acquire what we all require that is, the skillful means (the wings of Wisdom & Compassion) for a safe & wholesome journey @herbie ...
.
@herbie said:
Ok. Now in clear words: you are setting up your own dharma of morality because you obviously think you know better than Buddha. And not only that you've fallen off from Buddha's vehicle and go your way to experience the consequences you also try to persuade others to follow you on your non-Dharma path and even worse you tell them they have the obligation to follow you on your wrong path.
I do not know better than Buddha. I do not know anything better. How could I claim to know anything better than Buddha when still no free from obscurations? But my faith in Buddha is imperturbable. Therefore I have written:
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
Interesting. You see me as a Buddhist heretic leading people down my wicked non-Buddhist path because I've dared to suggest that we have a moral responsibility towards other people in the world? I'm curious, though, how does this go against what the Buddha taught? Does it go against the five precepts? Does it go against the teachings on the ten wholesome actions? Does it go against the brahmaviharas? Does it go against the advice to Sigalaka? Is there some tantric teaching that this violates? Do you actually think it's unBuddhist for people to feel a moral responsibility for others and the society they live in, or to try and make the world a better place?
If that's the case, then I guess I'm indeed on the wrong path and glad of it. Your Buddhism seems to see nothing but meaninglessness in, and disgust for, society. I admit that I do not ascribe to that kind of Buddhism. My kind of Buddhism, while at the beginning was focused on renunciation and turning my back on a world I saw as 'deceiving,' eventually opened my heart to the needs and wants and suffering of others. As a result, I want them to flourish as much as I want myself to flourish. And beyond that, it has helped to open my eyes to my own duty to others in this regard through a moral care and concern that has developed from following the precepts and from developing mental states of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. I can't say that this is what the Buddha wanted or taught, and I don't claim that he did. All I can say is that my practice has led me here, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
We are social creatures living in a socially-created world. We depend upon one another to survive and to flourish. And from that point of view, I do think we have a moral responsibility towards others and to be engaged in what happens in that world, as unBuddhist as that sounds.
jason,in my opinion,your alright. may buddha christ smile upon you.
two recollection.christzen:don't be too heavenly minded to be of no use.buddha dharma:be useful,be of service.skillfull means.buddha said,it is honor,compassion and wisdom to serve.
I think @herbie and @Jason represent two extremes. Herbie says do nothing until you're awakened. Wrong for obvious reasons. We can't ignore the suffering of the world because one wants to become awakened first and then deal with it. But Jason's is an extreme position too. You can't guilt trip people into doing anything. The argument that we use public utilities, water, food, etc. - and therefore we're social beings - sounds shallow. The alternative would be starvation and death. To avoid this, we're FORCED to be social creatures and interact with the world. This doesn't mean one likes the world, or that one has a responsibility towards society. No such compulsion.
Having said that, I feel we should work towards improving the world, not owing to social or moral responsibility. But because human consciousness is capable of great things, and it can do those great things only under a proper environment. Not an environment filled with conflict, competition, etc. So while I agree with @Jason that we should try to change the world, it should be out of ASPIRATION rather than OBLIGATION.
This is a bit of a jumbled mess that was pieced together at work from some thoughts I'd written down earlier but which weren't saved and henced lost. It's not as comprehensive and coherent as I'd like, but it's the best I can do with my busy schedule.
For clarification, what follows is my general approach to morality and the way I see conventional morality, Buddhist morality, and the scientific study of morality intersecting, all of which suggesting to me from a rational and pragmatic POV the existence of (or at least the need for) a shared moral responsibility—one that we're not forced to abide by, but one that would certainly be beneficial to acknowledge and attempt to live by. It ultimately ends in a form of the safe bet argument in response to those who eschew the world as something bad or insubstantial, and morality as the crutch of the deluded and weak-minded masses, because I can't persuasively argue against either possibility.
From a personal POV: I don't know if morality is objective. If it is, the basis could be called God, Dhamma, or the laws of nature. Whatever one wishes to call this foundation, objectivity in this sense basically means that morality extends from something larger than us, a force or process that shapes our moral framework and how it functions, and all of these things fit that description. I'm not well-versed enough in the subject to say for certain, but I'd argue that it's objective in the sense of evolving from nature and operating within the framework of psychological laws, but not necessarily emanating from a supranormal source. In this video, for example, Dr. Andy Thomas discusses what he believes to be the biological basis for morality and its origins in the "evolved architecture" of our minds.
But even if morality isn't objective in that sense and is inherently relative, I treat it as such, much like Kant with his "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Furthermore, a morality arising out of consciousness of oneself, consciousness of others, and wholesome mental states such as empathy and compassion seems the most rational and humane, in my opinion, and leads to a demonstrably safer, more stable, more cohesive, and more flourishing society. One could debate whether or not morality has some objective basis, but it doesn't really matter if it does from my POV as long as it has efficacy. And I've come to the conclusion that the larger, more complex, and interconnected our world becomes, the more expansive and inclusive our morality must also become.
From a scientific POV: Science is looking at morality and striving to uncover and articulate a scientific (one could say naturalistic or even objective) moral framework. Andy Thomas is one, as I've already mentioned, with his views on the biological origins of morality. Sam Harris is another such example, who lays out some of his ideas in his book, The Moral Landscape. In it, he argues that things which are "morally good" are so because they pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures," which is comparable to my views on morality and moral responsibility.
From a Buddhist POV: The Buddha seems to offer kamma as a type of natural law, primarily psychological/existential in nature, which mirrors much of what Dr. Thomas proposes in the aforementioned video. This may be unique to our own evolutionary psychology, or it may be something common to all sentient beings to various degrees that intrinsically stems from the manifestation of consciousness itself. Whatever the case, the Buddha makes a strong case for the efficacy of actions and the results of such actions being coloured by the intentions underlying them, which goes far beyond mere worldly agreement (e.g., AN 6.63, MN 60, MN 61, MN 76, MN 136, DN 2, etc.). He also advises that certain actions are better more moral/skillful and in line with the Dhamma than others and lead to our long-term welfare and happiness, actions that have wholesome intentions and that also take the happiness and suffering of others into consideration. Moreover, the Buddha himself seemingly points towards the social nature of morality and hints at a shared connection and, one could argue, responsibility in DN 16 in reference to the Vajjians and the ways they conduct themselves as a society. I can't quote it due to character limits, but check it out.
For me, this makes logical and intuitive sense in the context of the precepts, ten wholesome actions, four brahmaviharas, selflessness, and conditionality. Our actions have consequences, which reverberate out into the world. The ways we act matter. The decisions we make matter. And the intentions underlying those actions and decisions matter. Generally speaking, the more wholesome and in harmony our actions and decisions are, the more we can be expected to grow and prosper. Not just as individuals, but as a society as a whole.
I tend to look at it this way from a personal and Buddhist POV: We begin with bare conscious awareness, which leads to awareness of ourselves. "I think, therefore I am." This awareness is immature and incomplete, however, and primarily concerned with our own survival and happiness. Then, through observation and reflection, we become aware of other living being who also desire happiness and freedom from suffering, physically as well as mentally. This is a more mature state of awareness, but one still clouded by ignorance. And through the practice of continued reflection, we hopefully, ultimately, become aware of the illusion between self and other, so that there's no longer any rigidly defined distinction between 'us' and 'them,' between our long-term welfare and happiness and the long-term welfare and happiness of others. From this state of awareness, we see that interconnectedness binds us all together, especially within the context of our socially-created world, which is why I see a moral responsibility for others underlying Buddhist morality as much as conventional social morality. This kind of morality and the world itself may never reach a state of perfection; but that's no reason not to make an effort, out of empathy and compassion and wisdom, to make the world better and infuse all aspects of life with the spirit of Dhamma.
Another way I look at it dialectically: We want to be happy and not suffer, and we see that same desire in others, therefore we should not do anything to cause harm and suffering to others (thesis/passive morality/observing the precepts to refrain from x). We want to flourish, and we see that same desire in others, therefore we should seek to do what will lead to the flourishing of all (antithesis/active morality/our wholesome actions in the world). The less selfish we become and the more we break down the barriers between self and other, our shared responsibility for one another shines through, so that we eventually reach a point where we 'love our neighbour as our self' and more naturally do what we call good, right, moral, and for the long-term welfare and happiness of all (synthesis/collective moral responsibility/societal growth and prosperity).
And here, I'll just stop to note that I realize people are different, possessing variegated inclinations, desires, motives, and degrees of engagement. I'm only speaking in general terms and principles. I don't expect a monk in a mountain hermitage, for example, to have the same level of engagement or social responsibility as the average person. Their moral responsibility towards others may be more in the form of being a positive example and teaching, but there's still a level of responsibility there.
In essence, our moral responsibility towards others flows naturally from the basic building blocks of morality, be they Buddhist or humanistic. While this logic may not hold for solitary, independent beings (although I think it still would), we are a decidedly social species and grow and flourish when we work together and share each other's burdens. And as the Buddha's conversation in DN 16 illustrates, this isn't limited to just the morality and actions of the individual, but also includes what we'd call the political, the collective organization and social engagement of people in a society and our individual responsibilities within that context. Of course, this may only be true in appearance to those who see conventional reality as deceptive and illusory, and from the transcendental point of view may not be inherently real or true with a capital 'T'. But even if that's the case, what kind morality would they offer to those immersed (or perhaps trapped) in this 'deceptive conventional reality'? A purely selfish and individualistic one? I'd hope not.
In closing, whether the world is real or not, or whether morality is objective or not, I think we should treat them as such out of a morality responsibility to other sentient beings. Because if the world is real and morality objective, then it will be for the benefit and welfare of the many. And if they're not, nobody is hurt and at least it'll still give the appearance of providing a greater level of benefit and happiness to those trapped within the magic show. Compassion demands as much, I think. And this is eminently important in our day and age, with the advent of industrial production and nuclear weapons. Our collective impact on the environment alone affects every living creature on earth. To ignore this responsibility is the height of folly and selfishness, in my opinion, which is why I argue so strongly that, as social creature living in a social environment, our social nature requires social engagement if we are to steer society in the right direction.
Apologies to all for any previous snarkiness and the apparently extreme way I've tried to make my point clear.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
That Great Discourse (DN16) is absolutely worth the full going over.... Talk about having all the bases covered.
We are social creatures living in a socially-created world. We depend upon one another to survive and to flourish. And from that point of view, I do think we have a moral responsibility towards others and to be engaged in what happens in that world, as unBuddhist as that sounds.
Here it is. The actions that are based on that view may - on the surface - all be compatible with Dharma, they may even appear to others as being arisen from Dharma but since they are based on a worldly view these actions will neither entail nor foster liberation or enlightenment. All these actions will only increase entanglement in the world.
If this were not so then regardless of what view one harbors, be it christian, humanist, marxist or whatever, only through politically engaging in the world in a way that appears compatible with Dharma liberation or enlightenment would be attained.
@Jason said: @herbie, let me ask you the same question I asked seeker: Say you're walking down the road and you see someone choking. Nobody else is around and they'll die if you don't help. Do you have a responsibility to help? If not, why? and would that be in line with the Dhamma?
If such an appearance would occur I would help without there being a given responsibility.
@techie said:
I think @herbie and @Jason represent two extremes. Herbie says do nothing until you're awakened.
That's not what I've tried to express. Only in terms of engagement in politics I've said that if ever I would engage in politics then only after buddhahood is attained.
Having said that, I feel we should work towards improving the world, not owing to social or moral responsibility. But because human consciousness is capable of great things, and it can do those great things only under a proper environment. Not an environment filled with conflict, competition, etc. So while I agree with @Jason that we should try to change the world, it should be out of ASPIRATION rather than OBLIGATION.
As far as I've been taught Improving or changing the world isn't the purpose of the path and the proper environment actually is neither external nor internal, nor both, nor neither and as far as actions/activities are concerned if there is an agent that one has aspirations and these should be based on Dharma. Since obligations don't exist there is no obligation that one's aspirations should based on Dharma. Only in the context of there being the aspiration to follow Buddha the expression 'should be based on Dharma' has been used.
@Jason said: @herbie, let me ask you the same question I asked seeker: Say you're walking down the road and you see someone choking. Nobody else is around and they'll die if you don't help. Do you have a responsibility to help? If not, why? and would that be in line with the Dhamma?
If such an appearance would occur I would help without there being a given responsibility.
Why would you help? Why would/should any of us help?
We are social creatures living in a socially-created world. We depend upon one another to survive and to flourish. And from that point of view, I do think we have a moral responsibility towards others and to be engaged in what happens in that world, as unBuddhist as that sounds.
Here it is. The actions that are based on that view may - on the surface - all be compatible with Dharma, they may even appear to others as being arisen from Dharma but since they are based on a worldly view these actions will neither entail nor foster liberation or enlightenment. All these actions will only increase entanglement in the world.
If this were not so then regardless of what view one harbors, be it christian, humanist, marxist or whatever, only through politically engaging in the world in a way that appears compatible with Dharma liberation or enlightenment would be attained.
Sometimes even Buddhism can make people bad at being a person. (I foresee clever remarks about not wanting to be anything here.) Because of that, I've distanced myself from this kind of 'anti-world' Buddhism over the years. If liberation means turning my back on the world and the people in it, then that kind of liberation isn't a goal I want to pursue. I choose to seek liberation as well as the material improvement of the world and the lives of the countless beings in it. Some may see those as contradictory aspirations, but I do not.
@herbie said:> As far as I've been taught Improving or changing the world isn't the purpose of the path and the proper environment actually is neither external nor internal, nor both, nor neither and as far as actions/activities are concerned if there is an agent that one has aspirations and these should be based on Dharma. Since obligations don't exist there is no obligation that one's aspirations should based on Dharma. Only in the context of there being the aspiration to follow Buddha the expression 'should be based on Dharma' has been used.
As I've mentioned in previous discussions, it truly upsets me when people use Buddhism to essentially renounce responsibility for the world they live in. Yes, the practice is very contemplative and inward looking and focused on liberation, whatever one understands that term to mean. But it's also balanced by things that are meant to inspire actions, actions that are informed by non-greed (generosity), non-hatred (loving-kindness), and non-delusion (wisdom).
Moreover, just from a practical standpoint, not addressing many of the material conditions giving rise to and supporting society's suffering ultimately serves to help maintain their continued existence (when this is, that is), which can negatively affect our practice, as well as that of others. If the society one lives in isn't conducive to practicing Buddhism, then it does matter what kind of society one lives, so we should naturally try to make it as conducive for ourselves and others as possible. As the Buddha said in Khp 5, "To reside in a suitable locality, to have done meritorious actions in the past and to set oneself in the right course — this is the greatest blessing [or privilege]."
Soon, much of the world won't be very 'suitable' thanks to climate change and socioeconomic systems that support greed and violence over the common good. To think that conditions don't matter is foolish and misguided, in my opinion. The practice, much like worldly happiness, requires both internal and external supporting conditions. No one is happy in hell, and that's where the world is headed if we don't do something drastic soon. Probably not too many buddhas getting made there, either. Just something to think about.
In my head I keep in mind that Buddha said remove suffering is the important teaching he gave. Like diamond sutra stuff can relieve suffering in ways that other things cannot reach. But just ordinary acts can also relieve suffering. I find diamond sutra stuff (that’s my word for this I guess) is not mutually exclusive to other ways of relieving suffering.
Bodhi Jesus, that naughty boy, mixed spirituality and politics. It did not end well. Bodhi Muhammad went to war over the importance of his imagined voices dictated koran. Tsk, tsk.
However there is a gentler green growth politics. Sitting under a tree, being radically peaceable, sangha or hermit style is a political act.
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I find it surprising that in such a small and relatively harmonious community as this forum we have such radically different opinions manifesting themselves.
But I agree with @Jason that the world seems to be getting less suitable to learn dhamma in, not more. There seems to be more and more emphasis on finances and earning a living, it seems to be becoming a less generous place all the time.
@Jason said: @herbie, let me ask you the same question I asked seeker: Say you're walking down the road and you see someone choking. Nobody else is around and they'll die if you don't help. Do you have a responsibility to help? If not, why? and would that be in line with the Dhamma?
If such an appearance would occur I would help without there being a given responsibility.
Why would you help? Why would/should any of us help?
as to question 1:
Don't know. Spontaneous compassion maybe?
as to question 2:
I do not say you would have the obligation to help but if any of you helped then that would be better for both, the helper and the helped, than not helping. If there is an appearance of other and oneself although it is merely appearance somehow one has to relate. This is up to every individual but if an appearance occurs to her/him then relative conduct has effects.
But note: my words do not imply a generalization of the kind 'helping is always better' but my words do refer to the example in question only. That is what I would generalize: Every instance of appearance is particular and has its own particular context.
@Jason said: @herbie, let me ask you the same question I asked seeker: Say you're walking down the road and you see someone choking. Nobody else is around and they'll die if you don't help. Do you have a responsibility to help? If not, why? and would that be in line with the Dhamma?
If such an appearance would occur I would help without there being a given responsibility.
Why would you help? Why would/should any of us help?
as to question 1:
Don't know. Spontaneous compassion maybe?
as to question 2:
I do not say you would have the obligation to help but if any of you helped then that would be better for both, the helper and the helped, than not helping. If there is an appearance of other and oneself although it is merely appearance somehow one has to relate. This is up to every individual but if an appearance occurs to her/him then relative conduct has effects.
But note: my words do not imply a generalization of the kind 'helping is always better' but my words do refer to the example in question only. That is what I would generalize: Every instance of appearance is particular and has its own particular context.
@Jason said: @herbie, let me ask you the same question I asked seeker: Say you're walking down the road and you see someone choking. Nobody else is around and they'll die if you don't help. Do you have a responsibility to help? If not, why? and would that be in line with the Dhamma?
If such an appearance would occur I would help without there being a given responsibility.
Why would you help? Why would/should any of us help?
as to question 1:
Don't know. Spontaneous compassion maybe?
as to question 2:
I do not say you would have the obligation to help but if any of you helped then that would be better for both, the helper and the helped, than not helping. If there is an appearance of other and oneself although it is merely appearance somehow one has to relate. This is up to every individual but if an appearance occurs to her/him then relative conduct has effects.
But note: my words do not imply a generalization of the kind 'helping is always better' but my words do refer to the example in question only. That is what I would generalize: Every instance of appearance is particular and has its own particular context.
Sounds like a moral responsibility to me.
that's funny, isn't it? The view one cultivates determines what one understands.
From my perspective 'responsibility' necessarily depends on individual voluntary contract and/or individual voluntary commitment as prerequisites. There is no given responsibility. But we've had this already.
But I agree with @Jason that the world seems to be getting less suitable to learn dhamma in, not more. There seems to be more and more emphasis on finances and earning a living, it seems to be becoming a less generous place all the time.
I find more interest in active even militant spirituality. More dharma rebels. More extreme Buddhist, yoga and compassion/wisdom junkies.
But I agree with @Jason that the world seems to be getting less suitable to learn dhamma in, not more. There seems to be more and more emphasis on finances and earning a living, it seems to be becoming a less generous place all the time.
I find more interest in active even militant spirituality. More dharma rebels. More extreme Buddhist, yoga and compassion/wisdom junkies.
I'm a big fan of organizations like Buddhist Peace Fellowship. They have a chapter here in Portland, for example, that had monthly protest meditation sittings at the local ICE headquarters about a year before the news of family separations and children in cages made national headlines. They're quietly trying to change the world for the better, and are present at most protests and rallies here in Portland. They're pretty inspiring.
Comments
This reply is utterly inconceivable to me. Care to dumb it down for a mere worldling such as myself?
Dear Dharma friend Jason,
if I quoted from tantric texts that would have been more authentic than quoting from e.g. the Pali canon to show that your assessment isn't appropriate. But quoting from the Pali canon would have been totally inauthentic.
Also speaking like 'it is this but not that' would have been totally inauthentic and evoke the impression as if I would be making truth claims.
Therefore I used the words I used ... as a compromise so to say. If you cannot deal with them or are unwilling to just take them as a 'soft negation of your reply' as far as my attitude is concerned.
I guess the Pali canon is your source, right? If so be informed that I do not negate/reject it.
I'm not unwilling. I just literally have no idea what you're trying to say, because it seems to me that you're not really saying anything.
Don't be ridiculous.
Of course you're part of it.
If you eat and drink as a result of other people's work, and you travel as a result of the efforts of others, and you reside in a location that is there due to the constructive skills of other, of course you're part of it.
You merely choose to separate yourself and elevate yourself to a position of detachment, but that is unrealistic.
You are not yet of the adequately Enlightened Mind-set to consider yourself 'In this world but not of it'.
For that matter, neither am I, but I would never claim to be.
You're in Samsara just like the rest of us.
By asserting yourself as apart from the world, you ensnare yourself even deeper.
Why fight it?
Hmm
Now there's a blast from the past!
Ok. Now in clear words: you are setting up your own dharma of morality because you obviously think you know better than Buddha. And not only that you've fallen off from Buddha's vehicle and go your way to experience the consequences you also try to persuade others to follow you on your non-Dharma path and even worse you tell them they have the obligation to follow you on your wrong path.
I do not know better than Buddha. I do not know anything better. How could I claim to know anything better than Buddha when still no free from obscurations? But my faith in Buddha is imperturbable. Therefore I have written:
I do not expect anything of anybody in that deceptive conventional reality. But if in this sphere an individual finds Buddha Dharma and takes refuge and acts accordingly not being further deceived by society/the world then that's an opportunity to rejoice.
There is no fight. Buddha has compassionately revealed. Everything is perfect.
If I expounded why this is so through using rational analytical language you were the first to censure me for my style of linguistic expression.
Therefore I can only refer you to those teachings of the Buddha that you are rejecting but others are following: the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna which was further elucidated by e.g. Aśvaghosa, Jñānavajra, Advayavajra, Vajrapāṅi, Chandrakirti and Rongzompa.
Having said that there is not the slightest contradiction with the Buddha's teachings in the Pali canon that you are following. We are all in the same boat! It is just that this boat apppears different to different individuals.
"Everything is perfect" @herbie, as long as we all keep in mind.......
Different strokes for different folks
Dear Dharma friend Shoshin,
"Different strokes for different folks" of course applies in the context of the variety of Buddha Dharma.
However if there arises deviation from even that variety the matter is more complex:
"Different strokes for different folks" still applies for the individual that deviates. Why? If an individual deviates then Buddha nature is about to teach that individual the consequences of that deviation.
However if the deviating individual tries to persuade others to follow her/him on his wrong path then there will arise in one or the other of those on the right path a voice that reveals the deviation. And this voice again is a manifestation of the same Buddha nature.
Why is this? It is because Buddha nature teaches according to the lineage and maturity of beings and it goes so far that it teaches even non-Dharma to teach beings a lesson and to mature them to the capacity to discern the right path.
Interesting. You see me as a Buddhist heretic leading people down my wicked non-Buddhist path because I've dared to suggest that we have a moral responsibility towards other people in the world? I'm curious, though, how does this go against what the Buddha taught? Does it go against the five precepts? Does it go against the teachings on the ten wholesome actions? Does it go against the brahmaviharas? Does it go against the advice to Sigalaka? Is there some tantric teaching that this violates? Do you actually think it's unBuddhist for people to feel a moral responsibility for others and the society they live in, or to try and make the world a better place?
If that's the case, then I guess I'm indeed on the wrong path and glad of it. Your Buddhism seems to see nothing but meaninglessness in, and disgust for, society. I admit that I do not ascribe to that kind of Buddhism. My kind of Buddhism, while at the beginning was focused on renunciation and turning my back on a world I saw as 'deceiving,' eventually opened my heart to the needs and wants and suffering of others. As a result, I want them to flourish as much as I want myself to flourish. And beyond that, it has helped to open my eyes to my own duty to others in this regard through a moral care and concern that has developed from following the precepts and from developing mental states of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. I can't say that this is what the Buddha wanted or taught, and I don't claim that he did. All I can say is that my practice has led me here, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
We are social creatures living in a socially-created world. We depend upon one another to survive and to flourish. And from that point of view, I do think we have a moral responsibility towards others and to be engaged in what happens in that world, as unBuddhist as that sounds.
@herbie, let me ask you the same question I asked seeker: Say you're walking down the road and you see someone choking. Nobody else is around and they'll die if you don't help. Do you have a responsibility to help? If not, why? and would that be in line with the Dhamma?
That's Karma for ya...
Again...That's Karma for ya....
Right wrong...It's all relative in the scheme of things...again it's a matter of karma...
The Dharma is the Dharma @herbie ...and journeying along the path requires skillful means, which ( according to one's karmic circumstances ) are acquired/accessed along the way...
Those who see Dependent Origination sees the Dharma
Those who see the Dharma see Dependent Origination
Again ...that's karma for ya...
When it comes to the mind, the ego is in the habit of playing tricks on its so-called self, (AKA mind games) in order to reign supreme....which in the ultimate sense, is just an illusion...be it a very persistent one....
Samsara=Mind turned outward lost in its own projection...
Nirvana = Mind turned inwards recognizing its true nature...
May you acquire what we all require that is, the skillful means (the wings of Wisdom & Compassion) for a safe & wholesome journey @herbie ...
.
jason,in my opinion,your alright. may buddha christ smile upon you.
two recollection.christzen:don't be too heavenly minded to be of no use.buddha dharma:be useful,be of service.skillfull means.buddha said,it is honor,compassion and wisdom to serve.
another christzen:the best ego is selfless.
I think @herbie and @Jason represent two extremes. Herbie says do nothing until you're awakened. Wrong for obvious reasons. We can't ignore the suffering of the world because one wants to become awakened first and then deal with it. But Jason's is an extreme position too. You can't guilt trip people into doing anything. The argument that we use public utilities, water, food, etc. - and therefore we're social beings - sounds shallow. The alternative would be starvation and death. To avoid this, we're FORCED to be social creatures and interact with the world. This doesn't mean one likes the world, or that one has a responsibility towards society. No such compulsion.
Having said that, I feel we should work towards improving the world, not owing to social or moral responsibility. But because human consciousness is capable of great things, and it can do those great things only under a proper environment. Not an environment filled with conflict, competition, etc. So while I agree with @Jason that we should try to change the world, it should be out of ASPIRATION rather than OBLIGATION.
This is a bit of a jumbled mess that was pieced together at work from some thoughts I'd written down earlier but which weren't saved and henced lost. It's not as comprehensive and coherent as I'd like, but it's the best I can do with my busy schedule.
For clarification, what follows is my general approach to morality and the way I see conventional morality, Buddhist morality, and the scientific study of morality intersecting, all of which suggesting to me from a rational and pragmatic POV the existence of (or at least the need for) a shared moral responsibility—one that we're not forced to abide by, but one that would certainly be beneficial to acknowledge and attempt to live by. It ultimately ends in a form of the safe bet argument in response to those who eschew the world as something bad or insubstantial, and morality as the crutch of the deluded and weak-minded masses, because I can't persuasively argue against either possibility.
From a personal POV: I don't know if morality is objective. If it is, the basis could be called God, Dhamma, or the laws of nature. Whatever one wishes to call this foundation, objectivity in this sense basically means that morality extends from something larger than us, a force or process that shapes our moral framework and how it functions, and all of these things fit that description. I'm not well-versed enough in the subject to say for certain, but I'd argue that it's objective in the sense of evolving from nature and operating within the framework of psychological laws, but not necessarily emanating from a supranormal source. In this video, for example, Dr. Andy Thomas discusses what he believes to be the biological basis for morality and its origins in the "evolved architecture" of our minds.
But even if morality isn't objective in that sense and is inherently relative, I treat it as such, much like Kant with his "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Furthermore, a morality arising out of consciousness of oneself, consciousness of others, and wholesome mental states such as empathy and compassion seems the most rational and humane, in my opinion, and leads to a demonstrably safer, more stable, more cohesive, and more flourishing society. One could debate whether or not morality has some objective basis, but it doesn't really matter if it does from my POV as long as it has efficacy. And I've come to the conclusion that the larger, more complex, and interconnected our world becomes, the more expansive and inclusive our morality must also become.
From a scientific POV: Science is looking at morality and striving to uncover and articulate a scientific (one could say naturalistic or even objective) moral framework. Andy Thomas is one, as I've already mentioned, with his views on the biological origins of morality. Sam Harris is another such example, who lays out some of his ideas in his book, The Moral Landscape. In it, he argues that things which are "morally good" are so because they pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures," which is comparable to my views on morality and moral responsibility.
From a Buddhist POV: The Buddha seems to offer kamma as a type of natural law, primarily psychological/existential in nature, which mirrors much of what Dr. Thomas proposes in the aforementioned video. This may be unique to our own evolutionary psychology, or it may be something common to all sentient beings to various degrees that intrinsically stems from the manifestation of consciousness itself. Whatever the case, the Buddha makes a strong case for the efficacy of actions and the results of such actions being coloured by the intentions underlying them, which goes far beyond mere worldly agreement (e.g., AN 6.63, MN 60, MN 61, MN 76, MN 136, DN 2, etc.). He also advises that certain actions are better more moral/skillful and in line with the Dhamma than others and lead to our long-term welfare and happiness, actions that have wholesome intentions and that also take the happiness and suffering of others into consideration. Moreover, the Buddha himself seemingly points towards the social nature of morality and hints at a shared connection and, one could argue, responsibility in DN 16 in reference to the Vajjians and the ways they conduct themselves as a society. I can't quote it due to character limits, but check it out.
For me, this makes logical and intuitive sense in the context of the precepts, ten wholesome actions, four brahmaviharas, selflessness, and conditionality. Our actions have consequences, which reverberate out into the world. The ways we act matter. The decisions we make matter. And the intentions underlying those actions and decisions matter. Generally speaking, the more wholesome and in harmony our actions and decisions are, the more we can be expected to grow and prosper. Not just as individuals, but as a society as a whole.
I tend to look at it this way from a personal and Buddhist POV: We begin with bare conscious awareness, which leads to awareness of ourselves. "I think, therefore I am." This awareness is immature and incomplete, however, and primarily concerned with our own survival and happiness. Then, through observation and reflection, we become aware of other living being who also desire happiness and freedom from suffering, physically as well as mentally. This is a more mature state of awareness, but one still clouded by ignorance. And through the practice of continued reflection, we hopefully, ultimately, become aware of the illusion between self and other, so that there's no longer any rigidly defined distinction between 'us' and 'them,' between our long-term welfare and happiness and the long-term welfare and happiness of others. From this state of awareness, we see that interconnectedness binds us all together, especially within the context of our socially-created world, which is why I see a moral responsibility for others underlying Buddhist morality as much as conventional social morality. This kind of morality and the world itself may never reach a state of perfection; but that's no reason not to make an effort, out of empathy and compassion and wisdom, to make the world better and infuse all aspects of life with the spirit of Dhamma.
Another way I look at it dialectically: We want to be happy and not suffer, and we see that same desire in others, therefore we should not do anything to cause harm and suffering to others (thesis/passive morality/observing the precepts to refrain from x). We want to flourish, and we see that same desire in others, therefore we should seek to do what will lead to the flourishing of all (antithesis/active morality/our wholesome actions in the world). The less selfish we become and the more we break down the barriers between self and other, our shared responsibility for one another shines through, so that we eventually reach a point where we 'love our neighbour as our self' and more naturally do what we call good, right, moral, and for the long-term welfare and happiness of all (synthesis/collective moral responsibility/societal growth and prosperity).
And here, I'll just stop to note that I realize people are different, possessing variegated inclinations, desires, motives, and degrees of engagement. I'm only speaking in general terms and principles. I don't expect a monk in a mountain hermitage, for example, to have the same level of engagement or social responsibility as the average person. Their moral responsibility towards others may be more in the form of being a positive example and teaching, but there's still a level of responsibility there.
In essence, our moral responsibility towards others flows naturally from the basic building blocks of morality, be they Buddhist or humanistic. While this logic may not hold for solitary, independent beings (although I think it still would), we are a decidedly social species and grow and flourish when we work together and share each other's burdens. And as the Buddha's conversation in DN 16 illustrates, this isn't limited to just the morality and actions of the individual, but also includes what we'd call the political, the collective organization and social engagement of people in a society and our individual responsibilities within that context. Of course, this may only be true in appearance to those who see conventional reality as deceptive and illusory, and from the transcendental point of view may not be inherently real or true with a capital 'T'. But even if that's the case, what kind morality would they offer to those immersed (or perhaps trapped) in this 'deceptive conventional reality'? A purely selfish and individualistic one? I'd hope not.
In closing, whether the world is real or not, or whether morality is objective or not, I think we should treat them as such out of a morality responsibility to other sentient beings. Because if the world is real and morality objective, then it will be for the benefit and welfare of the many. And if they're not, nobody is hurt and at least it'll still give the appearance of providing a greater level of benefit and happiness to those trapped within the magic show. Compassion demands as much, I think. And this is eminently important in our day and age, with the advent of industrial production and nuclear weapons. Our collective impact on the environment alone affects every living creature on earth. To ignore this responsibility is the height of folly and selfishness, in my opinion, which is why I argue so strongly that, as social creature living in a social environment, our social nature requires social engagement if we are to steer society in the right direction.
Apologies to all for any previous snarkiness and the apparently extreme way I've tried to make my point clear.
That Great Discourse (DN16) is absolutely worth the full going over.... Talk about having all the bases covered.
Here it is. The actions that are based on that view may - on the surface - all be compatible with Dharma, they may even appear to others as being arisen from Dharma but since they are based on a worldly view these actions will neither entail nor foster liberation or enlightenment. All these actions will only increase entanglement in the world.
If this were not so then regardless of what view one harbors, be it christian, humanist, marxist or whatever, only through politically engaging in the world in a way that appears compatible with Dharma liberation or enlightenment would be attained.
If such an appearance would occur I would help without there being a given responsibility.
That's not what I've tried to express. Only in terms of engagement in politics I've said that if ever I would engage in politics then only after buddhahood is attained.
As far as I've been taught Improving or changing the world isn't the purpose of the path and the proper environment actually is neither external nor internal, nor both, nor neither and as far as actions/activities are concerned if there is an agent that one has aspirations and these should be based on Dharma. Since obligations don't exist there is no obligation that one's aspirations should based on Dharma. Only in the context of there being the aspiration to follow Buddha the expression 'should be based on Dharma' has been used.
Why would you help? Why would/should any of us help?
Sometimes even Buddhism can make people bad at being a person. (I foresee clever remarks about not wanting to be anything here.) Because of that, I've distanced myself from this kind of 'anti-world' Buddhism over the years. If liberation means turning my back on the world and the people in it, then that kind of liberation isn't a goal I want to pursue. I choose to seek liberation as well as the material improvement of the world and the lives of the countless beings in it. Some may see those as contradictory aspirations, but I do not.
As I've mentioned in previous discussions, it truly upsets me when people use Buddhism to essentially renounce responsibility for the world they live in. Yes, the practice is very contemplative and inward looking and focused on liberation, whatever one understands that term to mean. But it's also balanced by things that are meant to inspire actions, actions that are informed by non-greed (generosity), non-hatred (loving-kindness), and non-delusion (wisdom).
Moreover, just from a practical standpoint, not addressing many of the material conditions giving rise to and supporting society's suffering ultimately serves to help maintain their continued existence (when this is, that is), which can negatively affect our practice, as well as that of others. If the society one lives in isn't conducive to practicing Buddhism, then it does matter what kind of society one lives, so we should naturally try to make it as conducive for ourselves and others as possible. As the Buddha said in Khp 5, "To reside in a suitable locality, to have done meritorious actions in the past and to set oneself in the right course — this is the greatest blessing [or privilege]."
Soon, much of the world won't be very 'suitable' thanks to climate change and socioeconomic systems that support greed and violence over the common good. To think that conditions don't matter is foolish and misguided, in my opinion. The practice, much like worldly happiness, requires both internal and external supporting conditions. No one is happy in hell, and that's where the world is headed if we don't do something drastic soon. Probably not too many buddhas getting made there, either. Just something to think about.
In my head I keep in mind that Buddha said remove suffering is the important teaching he gave. Like diamond sutra stuff can relieve suffering in ways that other things cannot reach. But just ordinary acts can also relieve suffering. I find diamond sutra stuff (that’s my word for this I guess) is not mutually exclusive to other ways of relieving suffering.
We each have Our Way.
Bodhi Jesus, that naughty boy, mixed spirituality and politics. It did not end well. Bodhi Muhammad went to war over the importance of his imagined voices dictated koran. Tsk, tsk.
However there is a gentler green growth politics. Sitting under a tree, being radically peaceable, sangha or hermit style is a political act.
In a similar way dharma can activate concern/compassion/action. Who can we work with?
https://www.politicalanimalmagazine.com/2016/04/21/buddhas-political-philosophy/
Vote Buddha. Don't un-middle it.
I find it surprising that in such a small and relatively harmonious community as this forum we have such radically different opinions manifesting themselves.
But I agree with @Jason that the world seems to be getting less suitable to learn dhamma in, not more. There seems to be more and more emphasis on finances and earning a living, it seems to be becoming a less generous place all the time.
as to question 1:
Don't know. Spontaneous compassion maybe?
as to question 2:
I do not say you would have the obligation to help but if any of you helped then that would be better for both, the helper and the helped, than not helping. If there is an appearance of other and oneself although it is merely appearance somehow one has to relate. This is up to every individual but if an appearance occurs to her/him then relative conduct has effects.
But note: my words do not imply a generalization of the kind 'helping is always better' but my words do refer to the example in question only. That is what I would generalize: Every instance of appearance is particular and has its own particular context.
Sounds like a moral responsibility to me.
that's funny, isn't it? The view one cultivates determines what one understands.
From my perspective 'responsibility' necessarily depends on individual voluntary contract and/or individual voluntary commitment as prerequisites. There is no given responsibility. But we've had this already.
I find more interest in active even militant spirituality. More dharma rebels. More extreme Buddhist, yoga and compassion/wisdom junkies.
Seek and ye/yo shall find ... walking the path meditation ...
https://labyrinthlocator.com/
I'm a big fan of organizations like Buddhist Peace Fellowship. They have a chapter here in Portland, for example, that had monthly protest meditation sittings at the local ICE headquarters about a year before the news of family separations and children in cages made national headlines. They're quietly trying to change the world for the better, and are present at most protests and rallies here in Portland. They're pretty inspiring.