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.
Is "evil" just a given (in earliest Buddhism) ?
... I was very curious about the developments of the idea of 'Evil', the moral 'notional paradigm'. Any assessment of it within 'Buddhism", (in Buddhist teachings)? Evil remains unquestioned ?
Balavagga contains: 'An evil deed, when done, doesn't — like ready milk — come out right away. It follows the fool, smoldering like a fire hidden in ashes.'"
_______________________________________________
Portions for the Dhamma~pada: Thaissaro Bhikkhu
There's no jhana for one with no discernment, no discernment for one with no jhana. But one with both jhana & discernment: he's on the verge of Unbinding. A young monk who/should strive 'in the Awaken One's teaching', brightening the world.
[In the description of a Brahmin, they were talked about in moral terms]
Brahmins?, [they who] expel sensual passions.
Knowing the ending of fabrications
A Brahmin whose "unshackled, carefree; he's what I call a brahmin.
He's called a brahmin for having 'banished his evil'
.. having forsaken his own impurities".
For the person from whom would learn the Dharmma taught by 'the Rightly Self-Awaken One'; you should honor him with respect-- as a Brahmin, the flame for a sacrifice.
.
.
My brief inquiry assumes within Buddhist thought, the presence of evil is just a given (See:Title)"?
ps -- Nobody is asking about whether it even exists?
:
Balavagga contains: 'An evil deed, when done, doesn't — like ready milk — come out right away. It follows the fool, smoldering like a fire hidden in ashes.'"
_______________________________________________
Portions for the Dhamma~pada: Thaissaro Bhikkhu
There's no jhana for one with no discernment, no discernment for one with no jhana. But one with both jhana & discernment: he's on the verge of Unbinding. A young monk who/should strive 'in the Awaken One's teaching', brightening the world.
[In the description of a Brahmin, they were talked about in moral terms]
Brahmins?, [they who] expel sensual passions.
Knowing the ending of fabrications
A Brahmin whose "unshackled, carefree; he's what I call a brahmin.
He's called a brahmin for having 'banished his evil'
.. having forsaken his own impurities".
For the person from whom would learn the Dharmma taught by 'the Rightly Self-Awaken One'; you should honor him with respect-- as a Brahmin, the flame for a sacrifice.
.
.
My brief inquiry assumes within Buddhist thought, the presence of evil is just a given (See:Title)"?
ps -- Nobody is asking about whether it even exists?
:
0
Comments
Wouldnt there be a Buddhist 'moral' dimension implied on concepts of "Evil" ?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
=======
..If we are clearly seeing this world "Sacca-Dhamma"
.
.
Buddha was concerned with suffering & harm and remedying these things.
"Evil" is harm, that which causes suffering, pain & psychological degredation.
Generally the word is kusula or akusala (one of them), which literally means "that which must be cut".
The general translation is "unskilful", which I think (not sure) is similar to the word 'sin', which means 'that which misses the mark'.
Nice thread for doing some research.
'Evil' implies some sort of permanence.
In the context of actions (kamma), the Pali tern 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 are more or less synonymous.
Philosophically speaking, Buddhism is basically empirical and pragmatic in nature. 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).
Ontology is the metaphysics of being and existence. Empiricism, on the other hand, relies on direct observation and experience. So in this sense, Buddhism doesn't deal with the ontological status of good and evil, i.e., whether they exist in any concrete sense. Instead, it deals with good and evil on the basis of how the results of our actions are experienced—not only by ourselves, but by others as well. That's the way I see it, at least.
In Buddhism, evil is essentially the absence of right view. It doesn't exist independently of the ignorance of unenlightened individuals. Ignorance is sometimes objectified as Mara, and there are examples in Buddhist literature of individuals having debates with Mara, but Mara is defeated by attaining right view, not by invoking the power of good.
And let us not forget that there is not a single word in the Cannon that we can know the meaning the Buddha had in mind or voice.
I find this fact much more profound than some of you funkateers do:)
Ubuntu,
Mat
An enlightened being has infinite understanding, forgiveness & compassion. Why? They understand many things are not within the control of all people.
If this understanding is not held, in our eye will remain a log, seeing the specks in the eyes of others.
Clearly, you believe that you know what meaning the Buddha had in mind.
I think you have given an excellent explanation or reflection.
We can examine a new born child. We can notice how over a period of weeks, then months, then years how its mental faculties mature & develop. This takes time. Just basic faculties, such as seeing, hearing, thinking, speaking, memorising, having self-concept, etc, take time to develop.
So keeping this in mind, is a child ignorant or enlightened when first born?
I trust the answer is fully ignorant. It cannot even feed itself and find its way to the toilet.
When mind first comes into being, ignorance is fully there with it.
Jesus said: "The mind of a child is the kingdom of heaven".
S9 said" "A child's mind is Buddha-Nature".
Buddha said: "Good man, have you never seen in the world a young tender infant lying prone, fouled in its own excrement & urine?"
:smilec:
'evil path' is just a conventional translation for the sanskrit tem Durgati.
A more precise translation for Dur-gati would be degration, unwanted result , destress destination