Fairness

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Fairness

Post by Kim OHara »

danieLion wrote:You've interpreted me correctly and so accurately I don't know if it advances the discussion because it might indicate we've reached an agree to disagree impasse; plus, I kind of feel :broke: but that could just be tempoary.
Well, I don't want to push you or anything, but you could try to convince me that (1) is true ...
:thinking:

:namaste:
KIm
User avatar
imagemarie
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Fairness

Post by imagemarie »

Hi

I'd like to learn more too :thinking: .

Is this an argument for "disengaged" Buddhism? Or disengagement generally?
Lest we become attached to outcomes.. for therein lies the conceit?

:anjali:
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Fairness

Post by danieLion »

Kim O'Hara wrote:
danieLion wrote:You've interpreted me correctly and so accurately I don't know if it advances the discussion because it might indicate we've reached an agree to disagree impasse; plus, I kind of feel :broke: but that could just be tempoary.
Well, I don't want to push you or anything, but you could try to convince me that (1) is true ...
:thinking:

:namaste:
KIm
Yes. I'll have more later. But I think you've overlooked the strength of what I've said all ready. I cited several examples from the suttas which you not only quickly dismissed but provided no counters to. So, in the interest of fairness (the pragmatic kind), I think you should cite some sutta references that demonstrate that the Buddha believed in what we moderns call "fairness."

Fair enough?
Last edited by danieLion on Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Fairness

Post by danieLion »

imagemarie wrote:Is this an argument for "disengaged" Buddhism? Or disengagement generally?
No. Fairness is prgamatically important, but as an idea is rooted in defilement.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Fairness

Post by Kim OHara »

danieLion wrote:Yes. I'll have more later. But I think you've overlooked the strength of what I've said all ready. I cited several examples from the suttas which you not only quickly dismissed but provided no counters to. So, in the interest of fairness (the pragmatic kind), I think you should cite some sutta references that demonstrate that the Buddha believed in what we moderns call "fairness."

Fair enough?
Fair enough? In a word, no. :tongue:
More seriously, still no - because every single one of the references you provided was about comparing oneself with others, and in (almost?) every case the conceit this could lead to was cited as the problem. I understand all that and I still say, as I said before, that a teaching against conceit is not a teaching against fairness or equality.
If I give Adam a dollar, it would be fair for me to give Ben a dollar too. Where's the conceit?
If I charge Adam a dollar for a Coke, it would be unfair to charge Ben ten dollars for the same thing. Where's the conceit?
If I think I should pay for my theatre ticket, I think it's fair if my neighbour pays for his theatre ticket. Where's the conceit?
And so on.
Conceit can be (must be? usually is?) founded upon comparisons but I can't see how it can be founded on equality or fairness.

:namaste:
Kim
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Fairness

Post by beeblebrox »

Hi Kim, I agree with you that rejecting the idea of "superior," "equal," and "inferior" has more to do with discouraging one's comparison with others, than to reject fairness... but one of the examples above seems to be in conflict. It seems like that to think other person should also pay for his ticket (just like you did) would have to be based on conceit? There seems to be a comparison going on here.

:anjali:
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Fairness

Post by Cittasanto »

Here are some refferences and thoughts on the matter of fairness within the Buddhas training.
The Buddha often called people fools (particularly in the vinaya directly) not because of them as a person but based on what they do or have done. This is important to remember regarding fairness, because this principle is spelled out in detail if not explicitly within the vinaya directly, and can be inferred via the suttas which deals with more general principles in this area (of fools).
An origin story in the Mahavaga1.4 translated by T.W. RHYS DAVIDS AND HERMANN OLDENBERG wrote:1. Now at that time the Blessed One walked up and down in the open air unshod. Noticing that, 'The Master walks unshod,' the Elders (the Thera Bhikkhus) also went unshod when they were walking up and down 3. But though the Master and the Thera Bhikkhus went unshod, the Khabbaggiya Bhikkhus walked up and down with coverings on their feet.

The temperate Bhikkhus were annoyed, murmured, and became angry, saying, 'How can these Khabbaggiya Bhikkhus walk shod, when the Master and the Thera Bhikkhus walk unshod?'

2. Then those Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Is it true, what they say, O Bhikkhus, that the Khabbaggiya Bhikkhus walk shod, though the Master and the Elders walk unshod?'

'It is true, Lord.'

The Blessed Buddha rebuked them, saying,

'How, O Bhikkhus, can these foolish persons walk shod, though (&c., as in §§ 1, 2)..
This is a general example of the Buddha finding something out and clarifying what happened, there are numerous examples of this happening. in essence each rule no matter what it was was never declared to be a breach of the principles unless the Monk had been cross examined and had a chance to give his side of the story. there could of been a misrepresentation of some sort somewhere along the lines, and everyone had the same chance to defend themselves and no-ones word was taken just because of their standing.

When rules were laid down the mendicants were expected to keep them no matter who they were, yet there were reasons the rule maybe innapropriate to keep or the perpetrator was not suitable for the "punishment". The first person whom caused a rule to be set up was automatically immune from the punishment the rule carried as they had no clear cut rule to go by, and the principles although potentially clear could nevertheless be in conflict with other principles due to a form of dissonance. Ven. Sudinna is a good example of this. Through compassion for his mother he was persuaded to engage in sex with his former wife to produce offspring for his parents even though it is clear that he had a knowing of how this was inappropriate from his guilt from engaging in the act (see the Introduction to the BMC1).

essentially, and cutting a long story short, the Buddha didn't EXPECT someone to keep something not laid down in plain sight, and everyone was equal in the vinaya with attainment or anything else didn't give someone more power in a vinaya situation than another (prosecution v' defence).

The Buddha can be said to of walked his talk, and not doing so or attempting to do so (i.e. living the mendicant life when one has taken it up) for any reason - other than situational specific allowances accounted for in the non-offense clauses - brings about critisism from the Buddha (even if they are Arahants).
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Fairness

Post by Kim OHara »

beeblebrox wrote:Hi Kim, I agree with you that rejecting the idea of "superior," "equal," and "inferior" has more to do with discouraging one's comparison with others, than to reject fairness... but one of the examples above seems to be in conflict. It seems like that to think other person should also pay for his ticket (just like you did) would have to be based on conceit? There seems to be a comparison going on here.

:anjali:
HI, Beeblebrox,
Yes, there's a comparison, but no, there's no conceit ('I am better than them') about it - just 'this rule which applies to me should also apply to others', exactly as in the Vinaya examples Cittasanto so helpfully provided. :tongue:

:namaste:
Kim
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Fairness

Post by beeblebrox »

Kim O'Hara wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:Hi Kim, I agree with you that rejecting the idea of "superior," "equal," and "inferior" has more to do with discouraging one's comparison with others, than to reject fairness... but one of the examples above seems to be in conflict. It seems like that to think other person should also pay for his ticket (just like you did) would have to be based on conceit? There seems to be a comparison going on here.

:anjali:
HI, Beeblebrox,
Yes, there's a comparison, but no, there's no conceit ('I am better than them') about it - just 'this rule which applies to me should also apply to others', exactly as in the Vinaya examples Cittasanto so helpfully provided. :tongue:

:namaste:
Kim
I paid, so I think he should pay too...

I see loads of conceit... don't forget that "equality" is also one of the ways in which the conceit manifests. I think it's better to have nothing but mudita if the other person got his ticket for free.

:anjali:
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Fairness

Post by Kim OHara »

beeblebrox wrote:I paid, so I think he should pay too...

I see loads of conceit... don't forget that "equality" is also one of the ways in which the conceit manifests. I think it's better to have nothing but mudita if the other person got his ticket for free.

:anjali:
Okay, I can see how that self-centred thinking could be going on, but it wasn't at all the way I was thinking about it.
Does the same thing apply to "I got fined for speeding" in your mind? Because to me they are exactly equivalent situations: what's fair for one is fair for all, whether that is to my advantage or not, and even whether I am involved in the comparison or not.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Fairness

Post by DAWN »

'Fairness' is one of conditions to hatred be arise.

Often is the fairnessless that allow as to act wrongly toward some one, with deluded mind, with hatred and pain. Fairness is rooted on ego.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Fairness

Post by Kim OHara »

Hi, everyone,
I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be missing something and there may indeed be more ego and conceit in fairness than I think there is. But I can't see it. Can you explain it to me, in baby steps?

:coffee:
Kim
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Fairness

Post by DAWN »

Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, everyone,
I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be missing something and there may indeed be more ego and conceit in fairness than I think there is. But I can't see it. Can you explain it to me, in baby steps?

:coffee:
Kim
Hello Kim,

Impermanence is unfair.

Unfairness fealing is rooted in attachement to what is impermanent.
Attachement is apropriation : "me, mine, what i am".

More generaly, pain and ego comes together.
When there is pain - there is ego, when there is ego - there is pain.
And pain must be healed.

:anjali:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Fairness

Post by Kim OHara »

DAWN wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, everyone,
I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be missing something and there may indeed be more ego and conceit in fairness than I think there is. But I can't see it. Can you explain it to me, in baby steps?

:coffee:
Kim
Hello Kim,

Impermanence is unfair.

Unfairness fealing is rooted in attachement to what is impermanent.
Attachement is apropriation : "me, mine, what i am".

More generaly, pain and ego comes together.
When there is pain - there is ego, when there is ego - there is pain.
And pain must be healed.

:anjali:
Thanks, Dawn,
I understand that, I think.
But the pain is coming from the attachment, not fairness. If I trip over a chair in the darkness, does the pain come from the darkness or from the chair or from my action?
And you don't mention conceit at all.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Fairness

Post by DAWN »

Kim O'Hara wrote:Thanks, Dawn,
I understand that, I think.
But the pain is coming from the attachment, not fairness. If I trip over a chair in the darkness, does the pain come from the darkness or from the chair or from my action?
And you don't mention conceit at all.
:namaste:
Kim
Interesting similie :smile:
I think that pain (stress) comes before the trip itself. And this pain before the trip is conditioned by darkness (you dont see) and chair (chair is out of control).

I think that unfairness fealing is other description of pain, these conceptions are very near in their perception, both painfull, but unfairness seems to be more subtile. Fairness and pain are both born from attachement.

In my perception there is this chain: Conceit > Attachement 'to fenomena' > 'fenomena is' anicca > unfairness/pain.

I think that unfairness is painfull and seems to be 'unfair', because the one can not percive the whoole chain of conditions and concequesnce, so for him it's apear like unfait fenomena, painfull fenomena without causes.
My boxing cautch always said : The most painfull and destructive strike is the one which you dont see.

But unfairness fealing is subjective feeling, there is identity toward which unfair action is done. So this 'object of unfair action' is identity.
Thats why i think that fairness is rooted on me, mine, what i am.

So for the one who dont want suffer from unfairness it can be usefull to keep sense doors guarded: seen as seen, form as form ...etc... And what is done is done, if it's done there is conditions to, and if there is conditions it's not unfair but logical.
So unfairness is illusion of limited perceptions of kamma mouvement.

IMO, of corse. :thinking:

:anjali:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
Post Reply