ethics and reverse ethics

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

ethics and reverse ethics

Post by tomschwarz »

hello dear family from beginningless time,

the first three of six perfections summarize ethics from all 5 world religions, also taught to children in school: generosity discipline and patience.

but my question is what happens when you do the opposite? if you reverse those ethics and are selfish undisciplined and/or impatient do you always freeze progress or reverse direction on the path to liberation?

are there specific exceptions that apply only to teachers of ethics?
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13256
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Ayu »

Ethics are about the own behavior in thoughts, speech and action. Don't judge about the ethical behavior of others.
You don't know anything about their state of mind and their intention.
:namaste:
Herbie
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:10 pm

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Herbie »

Ayu wrote:Ethics are about the own behavior in thoughts, speech and action.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong and if you observed the multitude of ethical debates, not only in buddhism, you should know this.
Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics is about norms for communities.
tingdzin
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by tingdzin »

Well, Herbie has this on his side: A lot of the Vinaya rules that Shakyamuni laid down for his monks were made because certain types of behavior the monks were indulging in was giving the sangha a bad name, not because they were necessarily in themselves harmful to a renunciant's way of life. Really, even if one is not a monk or nun, at a basic, outer, level, one's ethics are inescapably bound up with one's society; doing exactly as one pleases, even in the name of some supposed spiritual freedom, one will quickly run into so much negative reaction from one's neighbors that real progress on the Buddhist path is impossible. This should be obvious.

Archie in "A Fish Called Wanda": "No the final message of Buddhism is NOT 'every man for himself'."

On an inner level, which is what I think the OP was more interested in, Mahayana ethics are not rules by which to judge other people. They are road signs telling one whether he is going the right way or not. Here there is of necessity some degree of spiritual autonomy, as one should have recognized as a Mahayanist that blind application of Rules is not going to work in every case. Nevertheless, bodhisattva ethics, being signposts, also let you know if you are going in the wrong direction. It may be necessary to take a detour sometimes, getting off the road and not going directly the way the sign points, but the trend should always be back towards the proper direction. So, yes, if you are completely selfish, wildly undisciplined and hotly impatient, you can take that as a very good sign you're not really getting the point.

One cannot always fit spiritual teachers into a strict moral straightjacket, however; if we are following a Buddhist Path, we have implicitly accepted that our teachers are in at least some ways, further along than ourselves, and their behavior may reflect some approach to the Dharma that we don't yet understand. On the other hand, teachers who are selfish or undisciplined or impatient may be bogus, and should probably be treated with caution. In the end, we pay our money and take our choice, so to speak.

Why do you ask this?
tingdzin
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by tingdzin »

Oh, I see. You indeed started a new thread in the Ethics section. :anjali:
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by tomschwarz »

great question tingdzin. I am a devout buddhist. so any question I ask or point that I raise is strictly dedicated and intended for the liberation of all beings from cyclic existence such as you and I.

so if you will all be so patient, specifically I think it is high time we explored Buddhism without ethics. I would like to have a loving kind debate about just when it is OK to be unethical.

for exampme some practitioners translate the ultimate truth a.k.a emptiness into "anything goes".

absolute truth includes all things, yes. it even includs samsara and the first noble truth, the truth of suffering, and the second noble truth fundemental ignorance, as well as alcoholism, debouchery, cruelty and so on. but...

...the reason they made a world religion of absolute kindness and compassion based on this all inclusive truth is that your heart becomes wider when you realize emptiness as a reality of your mind and all things. it's not all or none but generally speaking you become unfailingly generous disciplined and patient as you become familiar with the absolute truth.
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
tingdzin
Posts: 1948
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by tingdzin »

Well, I agree with you that the idea that Sunyata means "anything goes" is the bugbear of modern pseudo-intellectual Buddhism. I can't count the number of times I've had to hear a fool justifying a harmful or unskillful behavior by saying, without a trace of facetiousness, that it's only bad from a Relative standpoint; from the standpoint of Absolute Truth (which is where he is standing, of course) "it's all good". Not too much anyone can do about that.

My favorite quote (from Nagarjuna?) : "Those who believe in phenomena are stupid like cows. Those who believe in emptiness are even more stupid."

However, there is still room for debate about when being ethical is justified.
undefineable
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by undefineable »

Herbie wrote:
Ayu wrote:Ethics are about the own behavior in thoughts, speech and action.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong and if you observed the multitude of ethical debates, not only in buddhism, you should know this.
Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics is about norms for communities.
Context, context _ _ _

It all depends what you consider to be valid ethics. For instance, if you feel the state of mind of any sentient being to be a priority and source of value in the grand scheme of things, you will be more likely to feel that Ayu's take on ethics, rather than your own or even your quoted definition, fits what ethics *should* be about (i.e. the welfare of living creatures), recognising that the West still shows -in those universalist and authoritarian perspectives- that it is still recovering from Christianity. The English language doesn't always leave room for pedantry :tongue:

On the other hand, you may reject ethics and morality completely, in which case stick around! This board needs more anti-Buddhas :twisted: , and I envy your apparent inability to even comprehend many of the kind of thoughts that bring suffering _

Maybe you or someone else might try and argue for a source of ultimate value that lies outside the minds of sentient beings :thinking:
you wore out your welcome with random precision {Pink Floyd}
User avatar
KathyLauren
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:22 pm
Location: East Coast of Canada
Contact:

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by KathyLauren »

Unlike other religions or philosophies, where ethics are indeed about establishing community norms, Buddhist ethics are specifically about compassion. In the various "angels on the head of a pin" ethical conundrums that people like to think up, the correct answer, from a Buddhist perspective, is always the one motivated by compassion.

So, "Buddhism without ethics"? That would be Buddhism without compassion. It would be a fraud.

Om mani padme hum
Keith
Herbie
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:10 pm

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Herbie »

undefineable wrote:
Herbie wrote:
Ayu wrote:Ethics are about the own behavior in thoughts, speech and action.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong and if you observed the multitude of ethical debates, not only in buddhism, you should know this.
Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics is about norms for communities.
Context, context _ _ _

It all depends what you consider to be valid ethics.
No, the meaning of "ethics" does not depend on the contents of corresponding rules.

undefineable wrote:On the other hand, you may reject ethics and morality completely, in which case stick around! This board needs more anti-Buddhas :twisted: , and I envy your apparent inability to even comprehend many of the kind of thoughts that bring suffering _

Maybe you or someone else might try and argue for a source of ultimate value that lies outside the minds of sentient beings :thinking:
I do not understand what prompted this remark, sorry. The subject was what the term "ethics" stands for not whether one holds the view that ethical community norms are necessary or the view that ethical community norms are unnecessary. To reject ethics even goes beyond the view that ethical community norms are unnecessary.
KeithBC wrote:Unlike other religions or philosophies, where ethics are indeed about establishing community norms, Buddhist ethics are specifically about compassion. In the various "angels on the head of a pin" ethical conundrums that people like to think up, the correct answer, from a Buddhist perspective, is always the one motivated by compassion.

So, "Buddhism without ethics"? That would be Buddhism without compassion. It would be a fraud.
And with that you are trying to set the norms for the buddhist community whether correct of not according to conventional buddhist ethics does not matter.
User avatar
tomschwarz
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:31 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by tomschwarz »

it's like warm chocolate running down my spine. may not be as good as equinimity, but thank you.

agreed anti ethics/context, here comes. cruel love. this is the idea that (among other thing), you can teach love with cruelty. it is sad. of course it is true that something like my young sister's and two younger brothers' and one old brother's deaths along with similar tragedies including trungpa's untimely death, etc... taught me immesurable volumes about ethics and love and so on.

but let's look at cruelty in the hands of humans. I have never had a cruel teacher. well )))) only in western acedemics preschool and so on. any personal first hand experience of a cruel teacher helping to teach you something like absolute and unconditional love for all beings? his holiness the dalai lama taught me unconditional and absolute love as well as greater tonglen meditation as laid out by Sogyal rinpoche in the tibetan book of living and dying.
i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA
undefineable
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by undefineable »

Semantics bores me, sorry. Moving on _ _
you wore out your welcome with random precision {Pink Floyd}
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Maybe you or someone else might try and argue for a source of ultimate value that lies outside the minds of sentient beings
The appropriateness of karmic consequences to the nature of the act, a.k.a. "Truth".
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

tomschwarz wrote:if you reverse those ethics and are selfish undisciplined and/or impatient do you always freeze progress or reverse direction on the path to liberation?
Yes.
...are there specific exceptions that apply only to teachers of ethics?
No.

Here's a story I heard from Barbara Pettee. She was big in the Karmapa world, so it is probably accurate.
************************************
A group of Tibetans had recently escaped from Tibet. They were given an audience with HHK 16. They sat at his feet and told him of their escape; freezing, starving, being shot at by the Chinese, friends and family members that had died on the way, etc. Then when they were done HHK sat quiet for a moment. Then he smiled. Then he chuckled. Then he laughed. Then he broke out in uproarious laughter. His laughter became so infectious that everybody in the room started to laugh, and the audience ended up being a laugh fest.

Now normally if you laughed at somebody when they told you their story of sorrow and woe that would be an unkind act. But since HHK was enlightened he had a genuine presence and a freedom to act that you and I do not have. Had you or I tried to play that card it would have flopped badly. If we had done it, it wold be unkind. But since he was enlightened the same act was nothing but kindness and of the highest ethics.

So who here is going to be such a stickler for "the rules" so as to deny an enlightened being the opportunity to help others in an unconventional way? That is why my answer to the question...
...are there specific exceptions that apply only to teachers of ethics?
...is...

No.

However the greater ethical principle of skillful compassion supersedes the more limited and rigid "rules" of the Shravakayana. It is a case of greater ethics, not "reverse ethics". How that gets confused so easily is really sad.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Jesse
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Jesse »

Herbie wrote:
Ayu wrote:Ethics are about the own behavior in thoughts, speech and action.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong and if you observed the multitude of ethical debates, not only in buddhism, you should know this.
Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics is about norms for communities.
Ethics and morals are used interchangably, so it's not really wrong unless your being a definition nazi.
Image
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
Herbie
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:10 pm

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Herbie »

Jesse wrote:
Herbie wrote:
Ayu wrote:Ethics are about the own behavior in thoughts, speech and action.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong and if you observed the multitude of ethical debates, not only in buddhism, you should know this.
Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics is about norms for communities.
Ethics and morals are used interchangably, so it's not really wrong unless your being a definition nazi.
It is wrong on the basis of the conventional meaning of the term "ethics". If you want to call this "really wrong" you are free to do so. The expression "definition nazi" seems to be a private expression of yours.
Jesse
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Jesse »

Herbie wrote: It is wrong on the basis of the conventional meaning of the term "ethics". If you want to call this "really wrong" you are free to do so. The expression "definition nazi" seems to be a private expression of yours.
Ethics and morals are used interchangably by most people to mean the same thing, so it's not wrong in the least when you take into account she was speaking about morals. Definition nazi is a pretty common term actually. No-one really cares about conventional meanings in average conversations, we aren't academics, nor is anyone writing a report/essay/etc. So, you are indeed being a definition nazi. :popcorn:
Image
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
Herbie
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:10 pm

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Herbie »

Jesse wrote:
Herbie wrote: It is wrong on the basis of the conventional meaning of the term "ethics". If you want to call this "really wrong" you are free to do so. The expression "definition nazi" seems to be a private expression of yours.
Ethics and morals are used interchangably by most people to mean the same thing, so it's not wrong in the least when you take into account she was speaking about morals.
But if it is used interchangably then what applies to ethics applies to morals. So it is about norms for communities.
Jesse wrote: No-one really cares about conventional meanings in average conversations
Actually you are saying that "average conversations" stands for "nonsensical talk".
madhusudan
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:54 pm

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by madhusudan »

Abiding in nondual awareness, buddhas spontaneously manifest perfect ethics for the benefit of sentient beings.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: ethics and reverse ethics

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

madhusudan wrote:Abiding in nondual awareness, buddhas spontaneously manifest perfect ethics for the benefit of sentient beings.
:good:

That's so good it doesn't need a citation. :bow:
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”