Evil action and consiousness

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
justindesilva
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Evil action and consiousness

Post by justindesilva »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:34 am From my personal observations, we often deal with the problem of evil not with sympathy, but with condemnation. A more sympathetic way to address evil is to try to understand what is it that people who perform evil acts are trying to do.

Evil is often associated with annihilation. Its shadow seems to be purity. Would it be plausible to interpret evil action as an attempt to purify consciousness through annihilating a perception of an external threat?

Also earlier today, i did some reading on the idea of "consciousness of sin" which is mentioned in the bible. While the idea of sin has no place in Buddhism, cessation of some type of problematic consciousness has its place in the Buddhist doctrine.

Do forum members find the above parallels and interpretations plausible? Are there references in the suttas in support or against the above?

Thank you for your contribution :anjali:
Reading this I feel that it is difficult to answer this post with our or my knowledge. Yet the answer can be gained by reading Salleka sutta.( Discourse on effacement)
With mettha
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Evil action and consiousness

Post by binocular »

Bundokji wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:56 amI do not know if you agree, but training in morality is an aspect of the teachings that is associated with self-view. The Buddha spoke to us using our language, and when describing the roots of unskillful behaviour, as you stated, the Buddha used what appears to be condemnatory language, hence my opening statement to this thread:
/.../
But so what if he used condemnatory language? It's his religion/spirituality, it's up to him how he formulates things.
Why should the Buddha -- or Buddhists -- be concerned as to whether someone thinks they are using "condemnatory language"?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Evil action and consiousness

Post by cappuccino »

binocular wrote: Why should the Buddha -- or Buddhists -- be concerned as to whether someone thinks they are using "condemnatory language"?
our humanity
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Evil action and consiousness

Post by SteRo »

Bundokji wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:56 amI do not know if you agree, but training in morality is an aspect of the teachings that is associated with self-view. ...
But on the other hand realization of morality is overcoming of self-view. So there are these two aspects: intention to reach and having reached. In the same way: intention to do wrong is being bound but to renounce doing wrong is liberation.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Marcos5438
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:18 am

Re: Evil action and consiousness

Post by Marcos5438 »

binocular wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:34 am
Bundokji wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:06 pmI cannot imagine a belief in an essence (or lack of) without reference to feelings, and essence is also linked to purity or lack of. If there is no belief in an essence, then what is there to purify?
And if there is an essence, how can it be dirty, ie. such that it would need purifying? And if the essence is dirty, isn't the dirt then essential to it, and purification is impossible and efforts to purify futile?
Also the way pain is (repulsive) is not subject to our will/volition. We believe that we can use our will/volition to control it or to change it, but not to change its nature. Even if we change its name, it will continue to be painful.
Yet people have come up with the notions of "good pain" and "bad pain".
E.g. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/orthopa ... /pain.html

As for the inherent repulsiveness of pain: Speaking from personal experience with chronic pain, I find that the sense of repulsiveness subsides after some time. But if one takes steps to cure the underlying reason for the pain, and does so early enough, the pain can go away completely, which leaves the problem of pain unresolved.

Another issue with the repulsiveness of pain is that the repulsiveness actually seems to be about not being able to do things as one has done them thus far, and about the repulsiveness of having to do things in a different way than thus far. For example, there are people with chronic back pain that they got from lifting heavy things inappropriately. And yet they feel absolutely repulsed by lifting things in any other way; they find it too demeaning to squat, with a straight back, and lift with their legs. In their mind, it's better to continue to lift the old way and to have back pain (and risk permanent damage to joints, bones, and muscles), or not lift things at all.
Lifting heavy things is not the cause of the pain itself if you are lifting usually the weight according to your fitness and strength. The problem occurs when you are lifting weight without correct posture and wearing a lack of equipment that is required to prevent you from injury. Now there is a lot of debate on wearing good equipment during exercise or not. But I've seen many coaches supporting the benefits of wearing equipment, like this one https://www.aqfsports.com/blogs/news/de ... elts-guide where benefits of weight lifting belt are discussed. The end goal is to prevent injury which can take place on the behalf of any mistake in the gym, which might be related to training, or wearing the equipment.
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Evil action and consiousness

Post by form »

These are my observations.

In the sutta, it used the term, shame for wrong doings, fear if wrong doings. I interpret that means conscience.

I love to watch crime shows that have psychology analysis on the criminals. Many of them have no sense of wrong doing when committed cheating, murder, rape. Some even enjoy sense pleasure when doing those. These are due to kamma i.e. their mental tendencies and addiction. Although, they may not have conscience during the period when they committed the crimes, some eventually know it is wrong and repent, some never even till the day they died (for example the Japanese that founded the chemical warfare testing unit that used live human for cruel testing, he even escape trial by offering his research data to the victorious country, many of the key members of this very inhumane unit become key figures in leading pharmaceutical companies and humanitarian organisations. Evem though they do not receive bad karma, I believe the unwholesome tendencies will remain or even strengthen and eventually bear terrible fruits. In crime documentaries I watch, almost all subjects eventually get caught and got punished, very very few escape the law.
Post Reply