[Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics in a contemporary world

[Michael Rolig]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:48:19 +0100, Stefan Detrez
<stefan.detrez at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem of a 'Buddhist ethics' can be solved on a scriptural
> -let's say, theoretical- basis and on a practical basis.

This statement (and the ones that followed it) bring me to a point
where it might be better for us to refine the topic under discussion:

What you say sounds to me like it is answering the question "can you
be a buddhist today?"  I believe that yes you can, millions of people
do so, including many who grew up outside Buddhist societies.

I led us down the tangent asking the question "Does the word ethics
apply to Buddhism?"...

Now maybe I'll go back to your original question:

> 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.

Yes, and it has been happening continually for the last 2500 years. 
Not only does it  happen, I believe the Buddha started this.  He, and
his original communities, updated their monastic code as new
situations arose.  Certainly Buddhism has evolved as it meets each new
culture. Buddhists like Thich Nhat Hanh are explicitly updating
Buddhism for modern time. (see
<http://www.plumvillage.org/MindfulnessTrainings/RevisedBhikshu/RevisedBhikshuPreface.htm
>)

I think you already see that American Buddhism is already decreasing
the import of rebirth, as it doesn't fit into established theories. 
(Of course this is an interesting area, because Buddhist philosophers
had a hard time explaining rebirth in the face of non-self).



One difficulty in reading Buddhism for legal/ethical guidance is that
it is not particularly well suited.  You have one place "don't kill" 
in another "no birth, no death"  Well, is there death and killing, or
not?  If there's no such thing as death, what does it matter if I
"kill".  My take, as a practicing Buddhist, is that once you get
caught up in the doctrine you miss the real lesson.

another example, I don't know the sources, is of a great buddhist
teacher who, as you would expect, was vegetarian and didn't kill. 
Yet, when his mother was dying and requested a meal of fish to be her
last, he happily went to the market to bring her the fish.

With stories like that, it's hard to come up with a set of rules to
express such an ethical system. Especially, a set of rules that makes
sense to Western culture.

Mike