futerko wrote:Thinking more on the idea of solipsism...
One way of conceiving of the difference between morality and ethics is this; morality is an attempt to externalise and universalise a set of rules, whereas ethics aims more at internal integrity and maintaining consistency within oneself without necessarily externalising those rules onto others. I think in this sense, the practice of Buddhism is a form of solipsism in a beneficial way.
That is one way of thinking of it. However, in Western philosophy, it is typically the other-way-round: Ethics has to do with promulgating sets of rules for moral conduct, while Morality has to do with whether or not an individual or social behavior is 'judged' within a specified set of rules. See here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is for this reason that HHDL has said that we must devise sets of 'secular' ethics as religious (and other cultural) ideals generate more conflict due to increased interaction in an increasingly global context. See here:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Bey ... FEau6NVe8C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; here:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Eth ... DzX1-In7UC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and here:
http://thecenter.mit.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As to the Western idea of solipsism, a certain degree of it is unavoidable in 'Buddhist philosophy', as it concentrates specifically upon 'changing one's own mind', as it were. As long as we do not fall into the thinking traps of Absolute Solopsism, i.e., that our mind and thoughts are the only mind and thoughts that 'exist' or matter -- or, more importantly, that our minds actually 'create' other minds -- then we are treading the 'Middle way'.