[Buddha-l] Buddhist ethics in a contemporary world

[Michel Clasquin]

Michael Rolig wrote:

>>>I always find it is difficult to talk about 'Buddhist ethics'. I'm not
>>>so sure there are any 'Buddhist ethics' to update.  

I trust you haven't conveyed this to the editorial board of The Journal 
of Buddhist Ethics yet? I wouldn't want them to fold the journal before 
I've done an article for them <g>

>>>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.

In what way is that not ethical? How would Buddhism be more ethical if 
it did judge others?

I'm sorry, but I don't think we are thinking of the same thing when we 
say "ethics"

> What I'm pointing out is that "Judeochristian ethics" make absolute
> claims about what is right/wrong.  

On first reading, perhaps, for those who never got beyond the ten 
commandments. Once you get into the New Testament and the Talmud, you 
see that there are endless qualifications and refinements of those 
absolute claims.

> Buddhist teachings only say "IF you
> choose to follow these teachings, you would be best advised to do XXX,
> BUT if that doesn't seem to work, try something different"

I'll agree up to "XXX", but the second part is a modern western 
addition, not something you will easily find in canonical Buddhist 
literature. IMHO anyway

> Of course I think there is a value system here, just that Buddhism
> doesn't project that value system beyond Buddhist practitioners.

Of course not. That would not be ethical.

> Here's the test that makes me lean towards not using ethics to
> describe buddhism:
> 
> person A is about to kill someone/thing
> person B (a Buddhist) says "don't kill it"
> person A asks "why?"
> person B replies with 'that would cause suffering in you and others,
> it will harm the world'
> person A replies 'tough, suffering happens, I can live with that'
> 
> ... at that point the Buddhist has no answer.  

"Indeed, you WILL have to live with that"
"Indeed, YOU will have to live with that"
"Indeed, you will have to LIVE with that"

OK, slightly on the facetious side there, I'll admit. But when did 
ethics start to mean "Having an answer for everything"? Do you admit the 
existence of ethics only when it is accompanied by a heavy-handed legal 
system to enforce it? We already have a word for that, it is called 
morality. You can generally be hauled into a court and charged with 
being immoral, but not with being unethical (unless you're a lawyer, but 
they live in their own little world). Obviously, when morality and 
ethics coincide completely, that is a very happy situation. But I am not 
sure that such a situation has ever existed anywhere.

> The Buddha didn't
> convert people who didn't want to follow his path.  

Very ethical of him.

BTW, Jesus didn't convert people who didn't want to follow his path 
either. That was left to much later interpreters Like Agustine, Aquinas 
and so on. See a pattern here? The founders, the truly  great spirits, 
are perfectly ethical. The johnny-come-latelies some centuries down the 
line can't reach that level, so they invent morality instead and impose 
it on other people. Buddhism has to a large extent escaped this 
particular curse, and I would hope that it never gets introduced in it.