[Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics in a contemporary world

[Michael Rolig]

I always find it is difficult to talk about 'Buddhist ethics'. I'm not
so sure there are any 'Buddhist ethics' to update.  I'm curious to
hear other opinions, but as far as I understand, his teachings are all
contingent on the practitioner to want to find the enlightened way of
life.  Buddha didn't say "do not consume intoxicants (period)" he
said, "do not consume intoxicants, if you wish to follow my way of
awakening".  The Buddha's teachings aren't so much a means to judge
others as a way to improve the life of yourself and those around you.


Reading in Thich Nhat Hanh's _Old Path White Clouds_ tonight, I was
struck how 'Right View' informs Buddhists not to become attached to
views.  If one said "war criminals should be sentenced to 10 years in
prison," I believe this to be a 'view' that one could become attached
to.

I think one should also avoid getting caught up in the distinction
between "war criminal" and "judge/juror" Most of us are war criminals.
 I paid my taxes that helped fund the abuses by the US Gov't in
prisons in Iraq.  If you look deeply, you might see that the person
and the crime a separate.  If you focus on punishing criminals, you
might forget that you need to improve your own criminality, it might
be better to forgive the other's mistake so that she might forgive
yours.

The Buddha also taught that all things are connected, if you punish
"that other person" you are also punishing yourself, in some way or
another.

I believe in cases like war crimes, a Buddhist would have to consider
the particular situation, in a case-by-case way, there is no real
system for evaluating these things.  I think Buddhist teachings would
say, in the given situation you ought to do what will bring the most
relief from suffering as possible.  If you are deciding how to handle
prisoners, you ought to bear as much compassion as you can on the
situation and help both the criminal and those hurt by the criminal as
much as you can.

Here's the excerpt from Old Path White Clouds (chapter 32
http://nuhong.org/bd_old_path.htm, Nhat Hanh cites Dighanakha Sutta
and the Taisho Revised Tripitaka #584)

Dighanakha asked, "But what of your own teaching? If someone follows
your teaching will he become caught in narrow views?"

"My teaching is not a doctrine or a philosophy. It is not the result
of discursive thought or mental conjecture like various philosophies
which contend that the fundamental essence of the universe is fire,
water, earth, wind or spirit, or that the universe is either finite or
infinite, temporal or eternal. Mental conjecture and discursive
thought about truth are like ants crawling around the rim of a
bowl--they never get anywhere. My teaching is not a philosophy. It is
the result of direct experience. The things I say come from my own
experience. You can confirm them all by your own experience. I teach
that all things are impermanent and without a separate self. This I
have learned from my own direct experience. You can too. I teach that
all things depend on all other things to arise, develop, and pass
away. Nothing is created from a single original source. I have
directly experienced this truth. You can too. My goal is not to
explain the universe, but to help guide others to have a direct
experience of reality. Words cannot describe reality. Only direct
experience enables us to see the true face of reality."

Dighanakha exclaimed, "Wonderful, wonderful, Gautama! But what would
happen if a person did perceive your teaching as a dogma?"

The Buddha was quiet for a moment and then nodded his head.
"Dighanakha, that is a very good question. My teaching is not a dogma
or a doctrine, but no doubt some people will take it as such. I must
state clearly that my teaching is a method to experience reality and
not reality itself, just as a finger pointing at the moon is not the
moon itself. An intelligent person makes use of the finger to see the
moon. A person who only looks at the finger and mistakes it for the
moon will never see the real moon. My teaching is a means of practice,
not something to hold onto or worship. My teaching is like a raft used
to cross the river. Only a fool would carry the raft around after he
had already reached the other shore, the shore of liberation."


Michael Rolig


On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:10:42 +0100, Stefan Detrez
<stefan.detrez at gmail.com> wrote:
> So far as some of us call themselves Buddhists around here on the
> forum, to what extent to you involve Buddhists ethics to solve simple
> and both simple and complex problems? In case Buddhist ethics is
> insufficiently 'in touch with' the complexities of contemporary
> ethical problems, do you resort to secular, or maybe, other ethical
> systems?
> 
> 1) How do you deal, for example, with long term effects of economical
> immigration? Is there an end to karuna? How can Buddhist individuals
> come to a compromise considering the highly individualized conception
> of moral reflection?
> 
> 2) Is there room for retributive justice in cases of war crimes or hate crimes?
> 
> 3) Is there a necessity to 'update' Buddhist ethics or discard certain
> of its aspects in order enable a more productive moral reflection? For
> instance, the Indian conception of rebirth and abortion, death
> penalty, euthanasia, etc.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stefan Detrez
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
> 
>