[Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics in a contemporary world

[jehms at xs4all.nl]

> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 21:05 +0100, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>
>> Buddhist ethics is virtue ethics like Aristle's or the Stoa.
>
> Once again, I cannot let you get away with such a categorical claim. It
> could be argued, I think, that the Buddhist dictum "Do what is
> beneficial, harm no one, and keep the mind pure" comes remarkably close
> to the famous "law" articulated in various ways by Kant, which he called
> the categorical imperative. That is, it is a single principle from which
> all particular list of precepts (those of the vinaya, those of the
> laity, those of the laity during full moon and new moon days, etc) are
> derived. That sounds very deontological to me. It is true that going for
> refuge to the Buddha is understood as making a commitment to cultivate
> the ten virtues that characterize a buddha, so one could think of this
> as a form of virtue ethics or (with Kupperman) character ethics. The
> bodhisattva aspiration, on the other hand, amounts to striving to do
> what brings maximum well-being to all sentient beings, which sounds a
> lot like utilitarianism. The various ruminations attributed to Gautama
> Buddha about which vinaya rules to cancel and which to add show a style
> of reasoning that closely resembles consequentialism. Since one can see
> significant elements of most of the major ethical theories within
> Buddhism, nothing is gained by insisting that it is only a virtue
> ethic.
>
All right, but if you ask why anyone should do what's beneficial etc. or
why one should try to become a bodhisattva, the answere is not that this
is some general duty or a Godgiven command, but that this is personal
progress which leads to true happiness and the ideal is to become a arhant
or boeddha, which is a clearcut human ideal with specific qualities.
The difference between kinds of ethics is not just a matter of definition.

>>< > In fact, I think we now have a much
> better Buddhism than they had while the Buddha was alive. Why? Because
> the first generations of Buddhists had only the benefit of one wise man,
> and Buddhist nowadays have the benefit not only of that but also the
> benefit of a hundred or so generations of very thoughtful and wise
> interpreters from every part of the world.

I like the idea, interesting topic for a discussion.
>


>> The question whether we are sinners or not is to me just pure narcissim,
>> certainly in the light of the anaatmavaada.
>
> Thinking of sin is the first step out
> of total self-absorption and into relatedness with others. Do not
> disparage that important step, even if you believe (as most mature
> people do) that one should, if at all possible, evolve out of a childish
> and adolescent concern with sin and into a fully mature concern with
> cultivating virtue and eliminating sin, and out of that into something
> rather like what Nietzsche describes in Beyond Good and Evil.

Sin is not just becoming conscious of one limitations, but a feeling of
guilt because one thinks of oneself as being responsible for them. I'm not
a fan of Kierkegaard in this. And I've seen a lot of churchcommunities and
sects who bury themselves in sin and certainly are not very conscious of
their relatedness with others.


erik